From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 00:08:58 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:08:58 -0000 Subject: "Weak" Pettigrew (Re: What Pettigrew did at Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: <20040831165339.99677.qmail@web80808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos wrote: > Jekatiska: > > Has anyone else noticed how Pettigrew is always described as "talentless" and "weak", yet he has managed some quite impressive magic? [snip] mhbobbin: The contrast between how Pettigrew is described and his supposed actions is very strange. McGonagall describes Pettigrew as "hopeless at duelling". Yet he supposedly got the better of a more clever wizard, Sirius. And yet the characters never question this contrast. Sirius dismisses Pettigrew getting the better of him in that duel by having his wand behind his back. If Pettigrew has his wand behind his back, followed by an explosion, how does Sirius know it was Pettigrew? Why wouldn't Sirius have anticipated that Pettigrew would have his wand behind his back? He was, after all, corned. And Sirius never credits that Pettigrew learned how to transform into a rat. Sure, his friends helped him. But few wizards, apparently, can do this. The rat is not all that he seems. It's hard to reconcile poor weak Peter Pettigrew with a wizard who was a traitor to one his best friends for about a year--clever enough that DD, James, Sirius and Lupin never suspected him; finally delivered the Potters to LV; was able to transform into an animal; blew up a street in a duel with a more powerful opponent; and eventually finds his way to a distant place and locates LV, bringing him back to power. Was Peter just faking it all through school, or did he become more clever and powerful after school without his friends realizing it. Were they so dismissive of him, so sure of the niche they placed him in they didn't realize he was gaining on them? jekatiska: He also killed twelve people with a single curse, which must be very advanced dark magic, judging by the way it is mentioned in PoA. "Black killed thirteen people with a single curse" is always emphasizing how extremely dangerous Sirius is supposed to be. And we haven't heard of any other incident where so many people would have been killed by one curse. Is there more to Peter than meets the eye? > mhbobbin: Which may be why ordinary wizards like Lupin couldn't see such a dangerous wizard like Black in Azkaban. Which also brings me to the question--what are the alternatives to dementors for guards at a prison for dangerous wizards? IF it's spells, then the danger is that the more powerful wizard is the one being spelled into a prison by some mediocre civil servant wizard. > theotokos: > Maybe it wasn't a curse to kill 12 people but a spell to blow up the street giving Wormtail access to the sewers? The concrete and blown gas lines killed the pedestrians as a result. As the MOM originally thought the fault lay with Sirius, it wouldn't have occurred to them the street was the focus of the spell, especially since Sirius was just standing there laughing instead of trying to escape. > mhbobbin: I still think that there was another wizard on the scene, possibly Fudge. But the idea that Pettigrew was looking to escape and blew up the street to get where he was going--what did he care about innocent bystanders--is a plausible explanation. It's been written before but I think it's valid to repeat--was the Laughter due to a Cheering Charm? Throughout PoA, the kids are learning Cheering Charms--it's said that overstressed Hermione could use one, and Harry overdoes one on Ron so that Ron must be taken away to quiet down before he can finish the exam. Why learn Cheering Charms? Perhaps the mystery of the hysterical laughter in the Sirius / Pettigrew duel. And we haven't seen a Cheering Charm since PoA. And I still think there must be important backstory to the reasons that Remus and Sirius suspected each other of being the Spy. Maybe it was just Default--it can't be Peter so it must be you. But maybe Remus--and DD---accepted Sirius' guilt because of what they knew he was capable of. And that may bring us right back to the episode in school where he tricked Snape in the infamous Whomping Willow episode. If that is the case, then what had Remus done that made Sirius suspect him of being the Spy? mhbobbin From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 00:35:56 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:35:56 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111737 SSSusan wrote: Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 book. I kept racking my brain, racking my brain.... WHAT could be significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? Have y'all discussed this to death? In the year+ I've been here, I can't recall any discussion of it. So here's my question. Is **this** what GW was going off about? Severed troll's leg umbrella stand = *SEVER*ed troll's leg *U*mbrella *S*tand = SEVERUS. Is there supposed to be some clue about Severus Snape in the troll's leg US? vmonte responds: Hi Susan. I've never read Galadriel Waters (is that a real name?), but I'm interested on your thoughts. Did GW mention anything else about the umbrella stand? Or just that she thought it was a clue? Very curious -- Vivian From suzchiles at gmail.com Wed Sep 1 00:50:46 2004 From: suzchiles at gmail.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:50:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Master of This School In-Reply-To: <001c01c48f5a$7c166e90$0400a8c0@pensive> References: <001c01c48f5a$7c166e90$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <4ffdafbf0408311750484f0015@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111739 On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:59:41 -0600, Sherry Gomes wrote: > zendemort [mailto:zendemort at yahoo.co.uk] > > Actually, I believe that in England, it used to be common to call a teacher > master. Even in the New Testament, when the disciples of Jesus refer to him > as master, it means teacher. I don't know if it was ever done the same way > in the US. I can't think of any literature right now with a teacher called > Master. Indeed, as I was reading this thread earlier today, I was also watching an Inspector Morse story set at Oxford, which had a major character who was the master of his college and was addressed as Master by everyone. As Master, he seemed to be the head academic faculty member at his college. It seemed to me that Snape as the Potions Master made perfect sense in a similar context. Suzanne -- Suzanne Chiles suzchiles at pobox.com suzchiles at gmail.com From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 00:50:46 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:50:46 -0000 Subject: Nagging thoughts on Pheonixes & LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111740 I have been thinking this over and thought your brilliant minds might help me. I have a few questions about the Pheonix Dumbledore has (Fawkes); the feathers in the 2 wands (of HP & LV), and Dumbledore in general. 1. I have a feeling there is more to the Dumbledore/Fawkes relationship than just owner & pet, and more than just the pheonix is DD's patronus....Dumbledore possesses a lot of the qualities of the pheonix himself. In FB&WTFT they say "the pheonix is a gentle creature never known to kill...& can disappear & reappear at will. Its song is magical and can increase the courage of the pure at heart & strike fear into the hearts of the impure..." DD never seems to apperate, he doesn't make the loud noise associated with everyone else we know who has apperated...he simply disappears, &/or remains invisible. His voice seems to calm Harry, and can strike fear into others. 2. "The pheonix gains a XXXX rating not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating it." Well obviously DD did domesticate one, and allowed JUST TWO (emphasis mine)tail feathers for wands? Why? It seems if this is a good core for wands, DD would allow other feathers to be used. And why TR & HP? That can't be a coincidence. I know the wand thing has been discussed, but Why FAWKES, and why only 2? JKR really emphasized this in having Mr. Ollivander say it...p.85 American edition "I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand.It so happens that the pheonix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather -- just one other." So...that makes the wands brothers, and there is that whole thing, but there has to be another dimension to this.... a.) Did DD know that TR bought the first wand...became LV, and then heard the prophecy...knew "the one" might could benefit from a brother wand in bringing down LV, and therefore decided to give JUST ONE more feather in the thought that it might choose "the one". (make sense?), or... b.)Did Fawkes just molt/die twice in DD's lifetime, and each time he gave a feather? and it is nothing more than that? 3. Could DD & Fawkes be one in the same? I mean maybe DD is an animagus...he DID use to be the transfiguration teacher...and they coexist due to time-turner overlaps; to DD's great & brilliant stategy to keep on top of things? I like this idea because it means DD is in essence a never ending story. which BTW brings me to my overall point... ( about time you say?) 4. Maybe that's why LV didn't die at GH. I mean he studied harder that any other wizard of his time and knows a lot of dark magic. Maybe he is an animagus in the form of a Runespoor..(or a snake of any kind for that matter);also classification XXXX. Maybe he also uses time to coexist with himself and that is why he never really dies...he knows he exists in another form at all times.(only as feat for the wisest and most experienced wizards) FB& WTFT pg. 37 " It is common to see a runespoor with its right head missing..." and "...produces eggs through its mouths..." .....put a toad on top and you get a basilisk....anyone? sorry I strayed....back to LV...I think he would have had to try just about everything in school...being a metamorphagus, being an animagus, etc. I just have these nagging thoughts and think there is more than meets the eye about LV & DD both...and I think HP will be THE GREATEST WIZARD TO EVER LIVE...even surpassing the likes or both those other guys! **blush** IMHO **blush** Amy C. From profwildflower at mindspring.com Wed Sep 1 01:34:24 2004 From: profwildflower at mindspring.com (whimsyflower) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:34:24 -0000 Subject: audiobooks us vs. uk - dale vs. fry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111741 My experience is that one difference between Dale & Fry is the pitch of their voices. Dale strikes me as more in the tenor range, and Fry as closer to the bass range. (I'm not a trained musician, here. This is just a general impression.) Another reason I tried listening to Fry is that I thought Dale made Hermione whine during his reading of PS/SS. Hermione didn't seem like the whining type to me, so I took a listen to Fry to hear his take on Hermione. Other differences I noticed were much smaller, such as the pronounciation of Spinnet." Fry accents the second syllable, and Dale accents the first syllable. I'm thankful we can choose between such riches! Whimsy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 1 02:15:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:15:52 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111743 Hans now: >>> The statement the member made was something like, "JK Rowling said in an interview in 2000 in Canada, 'If you understand the resurrection you understand Harry Potter'". ... snip<<< SSSusan: > > But I *would* like to see the content of JKR's statement if it > > really exists. :-) Potioncat: > A long while back I saw something along that line. Could it have > been redemption instead of resurrection? (I tried that on Quick > Quotes with no luck.) Or could it have been something similar? SSSusan: Now **that** wouldn't surprise me, Potioncat. At least we know she's talked about redemption--or been asked about it--in interviews. [That dratted, hard-to-figure-out spot where it's not totally clear if she's addressing a "redemptive pattern" in Snape or the question of whether Snape will fall in love.] Did you see, though, that Pippin provided this tidbit in the post previous to yours? Pippin: > The closest thing I could find is this: > > 'Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, > because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply > into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if > I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, > whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the > books.' > > Vancouver Sun, Thursday Oct. 26, 2000. SSSusan: Now that REALLY intrigues me!! Hans, Geoff, what can you do with that? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 1 02:23:36 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:23:36 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111744 SSSusan wrote: > Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL > that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 > Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 > book. I kept racking my brain, racking my brain.... WHAT could be > significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg > umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being > mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? > > So here's my question. Is **this** what GW was going off about? > Severed troll's leg umbrella stand = *SEVER*ed troll's leg > *U*mbrella *S*tand = SEVERUS. Is there supposed to be some clue > about Severus Snape in the troll's leg US? vmonte responds: > Hi Susan. I've never read Galadriel Waters (is that a real name?), > but I'm interested on your thoughts. Did GW mention anything else > about the umbrella stand? Or just that she thought it was a clue? > Very curious -- Vivian SSSusan: Nope, that's the "problem" with GW's book. There are just hints & clues that are, in turn, *hinted* at by GW to us! After the first four books, GW put out a book which *discussed* the hints she [I think GW is a she??] found in books 1-4. But with book 5, it's just the hints and no discussion/explanation. [That's supposed to be coming in a future book.] So, I'm afraid I have no answers nor even suggestions on how this would play out. The SEVER-U-S thing just really hit me the last time I looked at it, and I wondered whether someone could tie together a link to Snape at either that place in the story or that place [Grimmauld] or from the fact that Tonks tripped on it. Surely *somebody* out there is super-creative/super-insightful and can see the "big clue" that's hidden there that I can't?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 02:18:31 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:18:31 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zendemort" wrote: > Zendemort: snip I have not heard another teacher wish to be > called "master", or refer to him/herself as "master", except Snape. "Master" might be an old fashion way of > addressing a "school teacher", but why would he wish to be addressed > in this way? All of the other teachers call themselves "Professors." > Why did he call himself "Master of this school" as opposed > to "Professor of this school"? It's the emphasis on the > word "master" which shows dominance and power. snip -------------- Tonks: Snape says "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands that you reveal the secrets you hide" He does this to use the full weight and power of his postion to get the map to show its secrets. He may well have designs on DD's job, but that is not the reason he uses that word at this time. It is sort of like saying "with the full power invested in me I hereby demand that you show yourself" It is in sense a spell directed to the map to show itself, and it is a spell that requires a show of dominance and power. Tonks_op From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Sep 1 02:10:36 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:10:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School Message-ID: <20040831.222225.3820.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111746 > Zendemort: >If all the other teachers are to be > called "master" and "mistress", then why aren't they? Aura: Going with the "the title is archaic' theory, maybe all Hogwarts profs technically hold the title of "master/mistress", but Snape is the only person insecure enough to need to invoke that title. Although Hagrid did specifically say that Snape is "the master of potions." Brit people on the list, are you sure "master" can't indicate some kind of degree or standing? Cuz that's the only way this makes sense to me: Snape has some kind of extended education or practical experience that has earned him an additional title. BTW, I'm new here. Pleased to meetcha all. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! From terpnurse at qwest.net Wed Sep 1 02:48:48 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:48:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <735282C5-FBC1-11D8-9D66-0003930C168E@qwest.net> No: HPFGUIDX 111747 > SSSusan: > Nope, that's the "problem" with GW's book. There are just hints & > clues that are, in turn, *hinted* at by GW to us! After the first > four books, GW put out a book which *discussed* the hints she [I > think GW is a she??] found in books 1-4. But with book 5, it's just > the hints and no discussion/explanation. [That's supposed to be > coming in a future book.] > > Terpnurse: Yeah, I have both of GW's books also and I did the same head scratching thing at the repeated 'hints' regarding the US. (hmmmm, in looking at the initials here...I just gotta wonder what it is GW wants with the US, but I guess we'll find out if he gets reelected. hehehe). Anyway, I looked at every reference to the US that I could find in every angle I could think of and came up with *nothing*. I seriously think GW is just messing with us on that. I don't get it. I do like the SEVER U S connection though. I think it's probably a reaching coincidence, but that does sound like the kind of reasoning GW makes sometimes. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 03:07:22 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:07:22 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <20040831.222225.3820.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111748 > Aura: > Going with the "the title is archaic' theory, maybe all Hogwarts profs technically hold the title of "master/mistress", but Snape is the only person insecure enough to need to invoke that title. > > Although Hagrid did specifically say that Snape is "the master of > potions." Brit people on the list, are you sure "master" can't indicate some kind of degree or standing? Cuz that's the only way this makes sense to me: Snape has some kind of extended education or practical experience that has earned him an additional title. > Potioncat: Welcome to the list, Aura. I think that most of us from the USA may have thought the same as Aura. That may explain why Snape is frequently thought to have made potions for LV. Does anyone know off hand, who first refers to Snape as a Potions Master? I'm sure we hear it before PoA and I'm sure it's someone else who uses it to describe Snape. But it is interesting that we don't hear Master or Mistress for the other subjects. Although having to introduce oneself as "Master of Defense Against the Dark Arts" would be reason enough to not want that job. I don't think it's insecurity that causes Snape to use the title in PoA, but rather the situation (someone else has suggested this in another post and this is my "me too.") Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 03:39:07 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:39:07 -0000 Subject: Wizards' Ages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111749 In the Scholastic interview (2000?) How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? 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.) Sorry, I can't attribute that quote exactly, by the time I managed to find it, copy it, get back here and paste it, I forgot. Two threads are discussing DD and time travel and his age. Here's my thoughts and questions. Not just about DD, but others as well. The casual fan has no idea that DD is 150 or McGonagall 70. At the time of the interview, Harry doesn't know these folk are so old, or that wizards tend to live so long. He still doesn't know, as far as I can tell. Why do you think this is so important? If they live so long, and appear to work so long, how do young people like Snape and Percy advance so quickly? You'd think candidates for DADA and Potions and Ministry Officialdom would be coming out of the woodwork! And why hasn't it come up yet? Potioncat From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 03:42:46 2004 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:42:46 -0000 Subject: TT!DD & Timing of Sirius' Death (Re: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban) In-Reply-To: <005201c48fa9$33bc25f0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111750 >> LadyKat wrote: *waves hello* Bren now: *waves hello back* >>> LadyKat: If DD is/was traveling through time, or had knowledge of the future as some have speculated, then he would have known that this series of events _had_ to unfold in the way they have (so far) to get Harry to the point where he is ready to do whatever it is he has to do. If we accept that time travel is involved (and I'm not convinced it is - it's just a possiblity at this point), than it is possible that DD has seen _many_ possible futures, and this is just the one that JKR is telling us about. <<< Bren now: Thank you for pointing that out! A lot of posters have suspected DD of time-traveling many times, but I never thought to make the connection here. Of course, if he knew everything had to happen this way then it could just be why he didn't visit Sirius in Azkaban (that we know of). Like you mentioned later, it seems out of character for DD to "blindly accept the party line". I must disagree with your "DD has seen _many_ possible futures" remark, however. I believe there is one time line, one future. But your main point is that DD has seen the future (regardless of how many) and he knows things must work out this way for the future to happen that way - and I can see how it could work. But then if he really knew the future well as we speculate, why did he make the "mistake" of not telling Harry about the Prophecy as he claims? (of course if anyone has read my other posts, they'd know I don't regard that as 'mistake', just a clever move, but that's for another fight... I mean thread ;P) If DD knew he couldn't have told Harry sooner, that hardly makes it a mistake. Unless he wished to make himself look like an old fool to Harry, because Harry needed to carry on his action, provoked by disgust at finding out DD's fallibility. Which makes me very sad. >>> LadyKat: Maybe he felt that the safest place for Sirius to be was in Azkaban? [snip] DD may have felt that in order to keep Sirius alive (maybe to protect him from himself - he is well-known for acting first and thinking second), he needed to be locked up. Yes - it stinks - but Sirius will survive. <<< Brenda: Couple that with JKR's "Sirius had to die" comment, the conclusion we get would be: the TIMING of Sirius' death is just as crucial as the event itself to the plot. What do we know about the circumstances before Sirius' death? - 4-year-experience of fighing off Voldemort and lessons Harry learned along the way - the mental connection grew strong and both became aware of its existense - Harry "learned" Occlumency and learned (the hard way) that Voldemort could abuse this connection - Established strong relationship with Sirius, Harry loves him so much that the loss of Sirius pains him so much to drive Voldemort off Although, I must ask you, why do you think that Azkaban was the best option for ensuring Sirius' survival? Was he in immediate danger once he got released? It would have taken a thorough investigation (and much paperwork) to be able to release the notorious mass murderer. Not to mention the vivid 'thinking outside of box' logic and imagination, something most wizards seem to be lacking. People will not want him loose on the streets. The whole process would take years. Did the DEs have reason to eliminate Sirius after his acquittal? What for? So unless someone had some sirius grudge against Sirius, I wouldn't say he was in great danger. Locking up someone who you know to be innocent in a prison like Azkaban just to make sure he remains alive, is a bit harsh IMO. >>> LadyKat: We know that he (DD) was willing to have Harry grow up in a place that was quite unpleasant, just to ensure his survival. <<< Bren now: To me, leaving Harry with the Dursley to prevent fame- contamination was a very prudent guidance. More than just a means to ensure his survival. He's looking at the long-term development of Harry as a whole. Become a person before anything else. Yes, the 10 years of loveless life is very cruel and fatal to a growing child indeed, but IMO Dumbledore believed Harry would be strong enough to fight it. >>> LadyKat: Thanks for not laughing too hard at my idea! LOL! Now now Cat lady, why would anyone do that? Brenda From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 04:30:00 2004 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:30:00 -0000 Subject: "Weak" Pettigrew (Re: What Pettigrew did at Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111751 > mhbobbin: The contrast between how Pettigrew is described and his > supposed actions is very strange. McGonagall describes Pettigrew > as "hopeless at duelling". Yet he supposedly got the better of a > more clever wizard, Sirius. And yet the characters never question > this contrast. Sirius dismisses Pettigrew getting the better of him > in that duel by having his wand behind his back. If Pettigrew has > his wand behind his back, followed by an explosion, how does Sirius > know it was Pettigrew? Why wouldn't Sirius have anticipated that > Pettigrew would have his wand behind his back? He was, after all, > corned. Bren now: I once thought of the possibility where Peter used Voldemort's wand for killing 13 people that day. After all, wands choose the wizards and Voldemort's was a very powerful one. Also IIRC JKR said in a recent interview that Peter kept VM's wand when in hiding, correct? But then I thought, well if Peter used VM's wand to kill those people, then Harry would have seen their 'ghosts' in the Riddle's graveyard... Then Theotokos gave me an idea. He wrote: > Maybe it wasn't a curse to kill 12 people but a spell to blow up > the street giving Wormtail access to the sewers? The concrete and > blown gas lines killed the pedestrians as a result. After all, the description has it "explosion" and "blowing up the street", not "streets full of green light". And it seems that during Priori Incantatum, only Voldemort's AK victims appeared from his wand, because AK was the spell cast when the connection was made between wands. If Priori Incantatum was the reverse spell effect for every spell VM has performed, we would have seen his AK, Crucio-ed, Imperio-ed and other victims. Now I'm convinced that Peter used Voldemort's wand for duelling Sirius the day he was arrested, and Harry doesn't see the 13 victims during Priori Incantatum because Peter didn't use AK curse to kill them. >> mhbobbin: And Sirius never credits that Pettigrew learned how to > transform into a rat. Sure, his friends helped him. But few > wizards, apparently, can do this. Bren: Well if you were one of the friends who helped him transform into a rat... would you be so quick to give him credit for that? And I imagine it took him many trials (and many countless more "How thick can you get?" comments from Sirius and James). As for the very small number of Registered Animagi in WW -- some think that one reason is not that it is such a rare talent, but because they have to be so closely monitored by the Ministry, and they may easily become suspects, thus it is not very desired, etc etc. >> mhbobbin: The rat is not all that he seems. It's hard > to reconcile poor weak Peter Pettigrew with a wizard who was a > traitor to one his best friends for about a year -- clever enough > that DD, James, Sirius and Lupin never suspected him << > [then mhbobbin later] > And I still think there must be important backstory to the reasons that Remus and Sirius suspected each other of being the Spy. > Maybe it was just Default--it can't be Peter so it must be you. > But maybe Remus--and DD---accepted Sirius' guilt because of what they knew he was capable of. > And that may bring us right back to the episode in school where he tricked Snape in the infamous Whomping Willow episode. > If that is the case, then what had Remus done that made Sirius suspect him of being the Spy? <<< Bren: Lol, don't know about you, but I have far less difficulty believing in ESE!Lupin here than Peter clever enough to fool them all for a year! At least Lupin has the intelligence to pull it off! And Lupin appears to be Occlumens/Legilimens himself. If Peter had been indeed passing secrets to Voldemort for a year, I don't think he would do so great with DD's intense staring behind semi-moon spectacles? I think that was precisely why James and Sirius suspected Remus of being the Spy -- that he really was the spy, but Peter just cracked under the pressure and handed the Potters. And if you are the guilty party, you naturally point finger at someone else eh? As for the infamous Whomping Willow episode -- while it proves how devious Sirius can be, it is whole different story to accept this prank as a key to understand why the extremely loyal Sirius would betraye his best friend. > mhbobbin: I still think that there was another wizard on the scene, > possibly Fudge. But the idea that Pettigrew was looking to escape > and blew up the street to get where he was going--what did he care > about innocent bystanders--is a plausible explanation. Oy, that Fudge. Guilty as charged!! > It's been written before but I think it's valid to repeat--was the > Laughter due to a Cheering Charm? Throughout PoA, the kids are learning Cheering Charms- it's said that overstressed Hermione could > use one, and Harry overdoes one on Ron so that Ron must be taken away to quiet down before he can finish the exam. Why learn Cheering > Charms? Perhaps the mystery of the hysterical laughter in the Sirius / Pettigrew duel. And we haven't seen a Cheering Charm since > PoA. Bren: There was a thread a while ago on Why Sirius Laughed. If I can remember what was said... - Sirius simply couldn't believe what was happening to him, he realized out the dimwitted Peter had outsmarted Sirius big time. How could *anyone* think he would betray James? He found it very absurd. - Sirius thought Peter 'accidently' blew himself up, and found it very hilarious. The possible use of Cheering Charm was mentioned as well, but the most strong argument was that Sirius couldn't believe it. Someone mentioned how his/her friend was once wrongly accused by the Chicago Police, and all he did was to hysterically laugh (which did not look good to the police, the person said). Brenda From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 04:49:50 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:49:50 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <001b01c48f5a$2ab944f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111752 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > zendemort [mailto:zendemort at y...] > > I found something very intringuing while reading PoA for the second > time. It is minute, but interesting nonetheless. > > When Snape comes across the Marauder's Map, he tells the > map "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands that > you reveal the secrets you hide" (quote is not exact but along the > same lines, although the "master of this school" part is exact). But > there is a little problem here. You see, Snape is not the master of > Hogwarts!!!! DD is the "master of this school"!!!! So why does Snape > call himself master of the school? I wonder what he is after? Does > he wish to become the Headmaster of Hogwarts at one point? > hmmm....... > This could provide clues into his personality... and his private > thoughts (possibly, he considers himself greater than Dumbledore, > the true master?)... But can it also tell us anything yet to come? > > "zendemort" > > > Sherry says > > Actually, I believe that in England, it used to be common to call a teacher > master. Even in the New Testament, when the disciples of Jesus refer to him > as master, it means teacher. I don't know if it was ever done the same way > in the US. I can't think of any literature right now with a teacher called > Master. > > Sherry G Antosha: As a matter of fact, if you read "The Legend of Sleep Hollow," Ichabod Crane is referred to (at the very least) as the schoolmaster; but I seem to remember him being called 'master' as well. That's why the name for the person in charge of the school is HEADmaster; it's not redundant, it means 'head teacher.' Just as 'principal' does on these colonial shores... It's also the reason that a person who receives what was intended as the lowest teaching degree is called a Master of Arts or Sciences. From spinelli372003 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 02:45:25 2004 From: spinelli372003 at yahoo.com (spinelli372003) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:45:25 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <001b01c48f5a$2ab944f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111753 > Sherry G wrote: > Actually, I believe that in England, it used to be common to call > a teacher master. Even in the New Testament, when the disciples > of Jesus refer to him as master, it means teacher. I don't know > if it was ever done the same way in the US. I can't think of any > literature right now with a teacher called Master. In the United States public school system it is customary to call the teachers Mr. or Mrs., not Master. There is a Principal who is the head of the school. In private schools there is a headmaster. He is still called Mr., very seldom called Headmaster although some do. My son goes to a private Military Academy with a Headmaster. sherry From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 05:24:22 2004 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:24:22 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <005a01c48faa$e3a2dc10$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111754 >>> Charme wrote: Tom Riddle SAYS he's the last remaining descendent of Salazar Slytherin. [snip] I also don't think DD has ever really confirmed this in any of the books thus far, has he? <<< Bren now: Actually, it is... Tom Riddle: "I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side?" [CoS, 231. UK] Dumbledore: " 'You can speak Parseltongue, Harry,' said Dumbledore calmly, 'because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining *descendent* of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue.' " [CoS, 245. UK - My version has * as 'ancestor'] So I think we can assume that Tom Riddle is in fact the last remaining descendent of Slytherin. And as for JKR's confirmation on the matter, she had to clarify whether it was meant to be "ancestor" or "descendent" many times, so I think we got her "Yes" on the lineage connection either way. I just had an amusing thought right now. How did Tom Riddle know that his mother carried the blood of Salazar Slytherin? Did he discover his Heir-of-Slytherin status and deduce that it must be from his mother's side? Or did she tell him somehow (in a letter or something)? If his mother knew about snaky blood running in her veins... could this mean that Tom Riddle Sr found out about this, and that is why he left her? He found out she wasn't just an ordinary, harmless witch, but a potentially dark, evil witch? Oooh this could be very interesting!! Yay HP Soap Opera!! *happy conspiracy dancing* >>> Ladykat: Is it possible that Harry could be a descedent of BOTH SS and GG? It seems to me that there is every possibility that the two lines could have merged at some point in the last 1000 years, with Harry being the final descendant of BOTH lines - which would also include muggle-blood. <<< Brenda: Hmm, I haven't heard that theory before, quite interesting! Now, the Gryffindor sword is said to have "its handle glittering with rubies the size of eggs" [CoS, 235. UK]. Now, if it was Emerald instead of Ruby, then I would have made the Lily/Harry's Green eyes and Godric Gryffindor. Ah well. >>> Ladykat: Hmmmm - and this *just* occured to me as I was writing this post. Maybe all three of our main characters are hybrids of the houses. For example - Hermione _could_ have just as easily been in Ravenclaw (for intelligence). But she was equally suited for Gryffindor - so that's where the SH put her. We never heard whether or not there was any debate over Ron when he was being sorted, but I would argue that he could have just as easily have gone to Hufflepuff - he is _incredibly_ loyal - even when he's mad at Harry or Hermione - his loyalty in the end can not be doubted. Is it possible that the unification of Hogwarts (and by extension - the WW) is in our three hero's? <<< Brenda: I'm personally not so keen on house distinction. Some of the students appear to be more directed to one trait, whereas others show the sign of different traits equally. I visualize it as a pyramid -- each vertex of the base represents each house and the emphasized values, but as you move higher up the distinction becomes unclear. A well- balanced powerful wizard will stand at the top of pyramid, the midpoint of all 4 houses. Dumbledore is a great example - he possesses all four traits and uses them as needed. Other posters have pointed this out before, that each trait [Bravery/Courage, Hard-Working/Loyalty, Cleverness/Intelligence, Ambition/Determination] *by itself* doesn't mean much. One needs combinations of these to become a great wizard. As for Harry-Ron-Hermione representing the WW as whole, there is also half-blood / pure-blood / muggle-born connection on top of Slytherin- Hufflepuff-Ravenclaw thing ;) Brenda From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 03:24:03 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:24:03 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <005a01c48faa$e3a2dc10$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111755 > Ladykat now: > Is it possible that Harry could be a descendent of BOTH SS and GG? > It seems to me that there is every possibility that the two lines > could have merged at some point in the last 1000 years, with Harry > being the final descendant of BOTH lines - which would also include > muggle-blood. He could be the unifying factor in the schism in the > WW - the "war" of rascism between the pure-bloods and those who > are not totally pure. Tonks now: Interesting idea. I am sure that there is some reason that we are always being reminded that Harry has his mother's GREEN eyes. I have always wondered if there were some connection with Slytherin house. I think Patunia knows more than she is telling anyone, even her husband. Tonks_op From BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 03:34:54 2004 From: BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com (Jenny H) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:34:54 -0500 Subject: Master of This School References: Message-ID: <02dc01c48fd4$b0e9fd60$0201a8c0@ROLLTIDE> No: HPFGUIDX 111756 Potioncat: > Does anyone know off hand, who first refers to Snape as a Potions > Master? I'm sure we hear it before PoA and I'm sure it's someone > else who uses it to describe Snape. From Jenny (first HP post! :-)) In CofS, at the beginning of the dueling class, Lockhart tells the "Now, I don't want any of you youngsters to worry -- you'll still have your Potions master when I'm through with him, never fear!" (pg. 189). From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 04:20:49 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:20:49 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111757 > SSSusan, quoting Pippin: > > Pippin: > > The closest thing I could find is this: > > > > 'Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, > > because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply > > into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because > > if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, > > whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the > > books.' > > > > Vancouver Sun, Thursday Oct. 26, 2000. -------------- Tonks here: I have seen the conection since the first book. I have know all along that she is writing about ........ No one whats to hear it, and this is good. If the connection was too clear some people would not read it. She is writing like C.S. Lewis and others in a manner that as Granger says is an "Inkling" writing. I will say more on this at a later date, time and place. (flipping the timeturner now.) Tonks_op (who has a degree in Religious Studies) From armadillof at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 05:36:04 2004 From: armadillof at yahoo.com (armadillof) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:36:04 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111758 Which creatures have yellow eyes? Cats have yellow eyes, and lions are large cats. The described person has a distinct lion-like look to him. I think he's either GG himself, or a descendant of him. What better a HBP? That's just my opinion for the lot.... AF :) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "linda" wrote: > I've read the description behind the dartboard too and its annoyingly > familiar. Incidentally, Madame Hooch has yellow eyes. My first > thought was werewolf but I can't find a description of Lupin's eyes > to back it up. > Now to the half-blood prince. I still have a theory that it is > Voldemort. Remember in book 2 when Dobby came with a warning. In > the British paperback version on page 18 Dobby is very clear that the > danger facing Harry back at Hogwarts has nothing whatsoever to do > with Voldemort/He who must not be named. Now turn to page 249,in the > eyes of Dobby the present incarnation of Voldemort is a seperate > entity from the young Tom Marvolo Riddle. If he could leave an echo > of himself in the diary, how many other impressions of Tom Riddle are > lying around the place. My suspicion is that we have been fed a > useful bit of info from the book but not the description of the > prince. From khinterberg at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 04:59:30 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 04:59:30 -0000 Subject: more questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111759 I'm re-reading PS/SS right now and there was a comment about Gringotts that stuck out to me. "They had reached a snowy white building that towered over the other little shops. Standing beside its burnished bronze doors, wearing a uniform of scarlet and gold, was -- 'Yeah, that's a goblin,' said Hagrid..." p 72 Why is the goblin wearing scarlet and gold, the colors of Godric Gryffindor? It seems to perhaps add to the argument that GG was powerful/wealthy/nobility. Another comment stood out to me from when Hagrid is explaining to Harry what Hagrid knows about Harry's parents. "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 want anythin' to do with the Dark Side." p 55 I don't know why this stood out to me so much, but the only other "myst'ry" Hagrid points out in that speech is why did Voldemort try to kill Harry, and that is turning out to be one of the main mysteries of the series. So if the other comment is supposed to be a mystery too...perhaps we should be wondering about that as well. khinterberg,with just some random thoughts From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Sep 1 04:53:24 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:53:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School Message-ID: <20040901.005811.1572.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111760 > Potioncat: > I think that most of us from the USA may have thought the same as > Aura. That may explain why Snape is frequently thought to have made > potions for LV. > > Does anyone know off hand, who first refers to Snape as a Potions > Master? Aura: Thanks for the welcome, Potioncat. Glad to be here. IIRC, didn't Hagrid call Snape "the potions master" in SS/PS? And elaborates, "but he wants to be DADA master," or something to that effect. Which would support the explanation that "master" is just an archaic term for teacher. And Snape sure is the type to be stuck in the past.... Personally, I was turned on to the theory that Snape made the immortality potion for Voldemort because of that (astoundingly well-delivered line by A.R.), "I can put a stopper in death." Here there be foreshadowing! This could also theoretically explain why Snape has managed to not be killed by DEs yet, when he was a known double-agent in the last war. If Snape knows what's keeping Vold alive, then he knows how to kill him (or at least Vold thinks so). Voldemort wants to keep his enemies closer when it comes to Snape. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 1 06:58:14 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 06:58:14 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zendemort" wrote: zendemort: > I found something very intringuing while reading PoA for the second > time. It is minute, but interesting nonetheless. > > When Snape comes across the Marauder's Map, he tells the > map "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands that > you reveal the secrets you hide" (quote is not exact but along the > same lines, although the "master of this school" part is exact). But > there is a little problem here. You see, Snape is not the master of > Hogwarts!!!! DD is the "master of this school"!!!! So why does Snape > call himself master of the school? I wonder what he is after? Does > he wish to become the Headmaster of Hogwarts at one point? > hmmm....... Geoff: I am trying to pull together a few points which have been aired and looking at it from a UK point of view (and as a reitred teacher). First, looking at the Inspector Morse example: the Master of a College in Oxford would in some other colleges or universities be called Principal; that was the case at my training college. Again, from my POV, if someone pointed out a Hogwarts teacher and said "That is Professor X" and, of a different person, "That's the Divination master", I would tend to assume that the Professor was senior. In my experience, pupils would address teachers either by their name: Mr.Jones, Mrs.Smith, Miss James, Dr. Johnson etc or as "Sir" or "Miss" (even of married staff) and I would describe myself as a schoolmaster or a schoolteacher - more usually the latter. As I said previously, Snape's approach to the map seems rather stilted and formal but again, it's "master of this school" rather the "the master of this school", establishing by what authority he is interrogating this magical artefact. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From alina at distantplace.net Wed Sep 1 06:59:23 2004 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 02:59:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! References: Message-ID: <005a01c48ff1$374b2b60$6500a8c0@Pandemonium> No: HPFGUIDX 111764 From: "Brenda M." > I just had an amusing thought right now. How did Tom Riddle know that > his mother carried the blood of Salazar Slytherin? Did he discover > his Heir-of-Slytherin status and deduce that it must be from his > mother's side? Or did she tell him somehow (in a letter or > something)? If his mother knew about snaky blood running in her > veins... could this mean that Tom Riddle Sr found out about this, and > that is why he left her? He found out she wasn't just an ordinary, > harmless witch, but a potentially dark, evil witch? > > Oooh this could be very interesting!! Yay HP Soap Opera!! > *happy conspiracy dancing* Alina now: Hmm I see two ways Tom could've found out his mother was a descendent of SS. First: she might have left a letter, like you said, but I think she might've kept a diary of her own. It might be a family habit. Possibly, there are also geneology books available in the school library (or some other magical library) that Tom got access to. It appears he was regarded as one of the most brilliant and trustworthy students of the school by his teachers (except DD?) and I don't doubt he could have gotten permission to access the Restricted Section easily if needed. I also think that after he got his Hogwarts letter and because he was an orphan a school teacher (or another member of staff) was sent after him, like Hagrid after Harry, in order to explain everything to him. They would've told him a bit about his mother and again he could've done research to trace his lineage. I can very well believe that he would be near-obsessed with his mother's lineage, not only to discover a past he's been missing for eleven years, but to further diminish the father he's learned to hate. From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 08:05:51 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 08:05:51 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111766 SSSusan wrote: Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 book. I kept racking my brain, racking my brain.... WHAT could be significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? Leah replies: The Severus connection is ingenious, but I haven't had a chance to relook at Snape in GP yet. I too have wondered why Galadrial Waters thinks the umbrella stand is a big deal. The stand is clearly based on the umbrella stands made of elephants' legs which were apparently a common feature of Victorian and Edwardian houses. Before I came across Ms Waters, I assumed this was just a JKR wizarding spoof of an unpleasant feature of the muggle world. I'm wondering now whether we are meant to make any connection between the use of elephants by muggles for this purpose, and the world of HP. Elephants famously never forget, so is there a memory connection here? Something to do with the Longbottoms? Is there something we should remember about this scene? My other thought was that just as the use of elephant's legs was an exploitation of the animal world by people who thought themselves superior, so the troll's leg stand is another pointer to the way that some wizards treat other magical beings. But this point is so clearly made by JKR in the books, that I'm not sure we need to have it reinforced in that way. Any more ideas? Leah From J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk Wed Sep 1 09:04:56 2004 From: J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk (Jospehine) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:04:56 -0000 Subject: Learning Voldemort's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111767 "Deb" wrote: So . . . most people flat-out refuse to use You-Know-Who's name. He's obliquely referred to in speaking and in print--up until very recently (Harry, the OotP, and then the DA), no-one but Dumbledore uses the man's name. How, then, have all of Harry's classmates LEARNED the name so that they know to shudder, shake, fall off chairs when they hear it? I mean, if you've heard your whole life about "Harry Potter and He Who Must Not Be Named" and then you hear somebody say "Voldemort" . . . how DO you know that that's the same person?? (grin) Deb in NJ Jospehine now: I think this is a fun thread. There are many ways that the name 'Voldemort' could be picked up as a child. Through reading about him for example, or on the school playground. It's like swear words when you are at school. Someone's parent lets the name slip once, (or writes it down while explaining the story for learning purposes) and the kid runs back to school telling all his friends what he's heard/ learnt. They then get told off when they bring it up at home and come to realise that it is a 'bad word' to say. It's not until later that they realise what the word actually means and why it causes such fear. Think of the first time you heard the * word. Did you know what it meant? Nope, but I bet you knew you'd get in trouble for saying it. And only learnt what it really meant as you grew up. The fear of the name 'Voldemort' in the wizarding world also brings up memories for me of Bram Stokers 'Dracula'. When travelling to meet the count for the first time Jonathan Harker meets many locals who do not refer to the Count by his name. They rather use 'devil' or 'evil' while crossing themselves and brandishing crucifixes, and they are fear stricken at the mere mention of 'Dracula'. Similarities no? Ok, done babbling for now :) Jospehine From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 09:05:04 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:05:04 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111768 I've replied to ideas from these four posts: Caspen- 111580 Zendemort- 111589 Melete- 111615 Pippin- 111616 Some debate was common between them, so I only used one quote to show what concept I was talking about. Zendemort wrote: >>>the artist might not be aware of her/his subconcious intentions.<<<< Laurasia: That's my point exactly, Zendemort. I think that awareness of action is intrinsic to taking value of that action as a creator. If you are aware of what your actions mean you are aware of other alternatives, you can weigh the pros and cons, you realise that you have a *choice* to do something or not. You are not blind. To use a great HP example- The fastest snitch capture ever was by Roderick Plumpton in something like 3 seconds.? However, the snitch flew up the sleeve of his Quidditch robes without him even realising it. Of course, he claims to have meant it all along, but we all realise he was not aware that it happened, therefore, whilst capturing the snitch in 3 seconds is still spectacular, none of the credit really goes to Plumpton. If, unlike me, you refuse to separate the intent from the act, then it follows logically that you must actually consider a snitch flying up your sleeve a great display of the talent of Quidditch. If you are aware, you understand WHY something is good (not simply that it is) and then you have control over it. Zendemort wrote: >>>>Now, Let's go ahead and judge everyone by their "intentions." The court of law will only put people in jail for their "intentions," not their actual actions. Just imagine that world.<<<< Laurasia: To use your own example, the court of law is *all about* intentions rather than simply the act. Killing a human in self-defense and killing a person in first-degree murder are two separate things, although they are both the same act of taking a human's life. People who show remorse are given different sentences to those who don't. If you refuse to take the intention into account (and focus only on the action) then Harry should be given the death penalty because he directly lead to Quirrel's death. The fact that he did it because he was 2 seconds away from being killed himself, and was also trying to save the lives of millions of other people who would be destroyed if Voldemort got the Philosopher's Stone would therefore be superfluous to the action (killing Quirrel) he undertook. If we ignore intent and focus only on actions, then Harry should have been expelled in OotP and had his wand snapped in half because he did produce a Patronus. The intention that he was trying to save his own and his cousin's lives would be beside the point This is complete nonsense. Intent greatly changes the meaning of actions. This is why the criminal state of mind is so important in trials. A court of law where strives to uncover one sole truth and judge that. If JKR was aware that he book was conveying the theme that magic exists even in the real world above the physical plane (the topic which this discussion originally sprung from) then she has control over it. If she is not aware of it, then it is just the same as a snitch flying up your robes- still spectacular, still enjoyable to watch, but no credit to the author. The theme still resonates with us, but the credit doesn't go to JKR for writing it in there, it goes to *us* for reading it in there. I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author. Very recently there were interpretations that Harry Potter is anti-French because many of the baddies have French names- Voldemort, Malfoy, Lestrange. I don't think JKR meant for that to happen, but there's no denying the three baddest people in the books have French names. If you want to give JKR the credit for all the themes which can be interpreted in her books (even the ones she didn't intend) then why aren't you convinced she really does discriminate against the French? Or are you? Melete: >>>>I find this a very complex and strange idea. Generally speaking as a literture student, its quite difficult to evaluate author's intentions without having the author to pick over yourself.<<<< Laurasia: Intentions change the work. Letting the finished work stand alone for the author completely removes all intent from it, (which, IMO, is why so all classics are by dead authors). Making the author anonymous means the work no longer has one truth to it which is either *right* or *wrong* according to the author's intent. It can mean a thousand things to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of what the author intended. If we focus only on JKR, we see JKR's version of Harry Potter on the pages, instead of our own. This is one of the reasons why I believe JKR's lack of anonymity is a bad thing for Harry Potter. Instead of relating to the story because (for example) we feel it shows that Lily Potter was once a Death Eater and hence reinforces our real world view that nothing is ever really pure, our point of view is dismissed entirely when JKR posts on her website 'How dare we!" believe such a thing. You would think with JKR's continued ambiguity in interviews as to whether H/H or R/H will sail, she understands that dismissing individual interpretations of stories is exactly what she shouldn't be doing. If we can't evaluate Harry Potter as if by an anonymous author, then the 'right' or 'wrongness' of theories is suddenly cast into light. As in, JKR doesn't seem to have any relationship with anyone with AIDS, chances are Lupin *wasn't* portraying it then. More likely he portrays disability in general, or MS. Of course, Lupin specifically representing AIDS works much better, especially if we read that he is gay. BUT, if we can't separate work from author... we can't make this comparison, because JKR told us Lycanthropy represents disabilty in general, she never said AIDS. Hey, I want to read that Lupin is gay and his lycanthropy represents AIDS. I think it's a really great parallel. But to do that I need to forget who JKR is and just look at my reaction to what's on the page. Zendemort wrote: >>>>>>>Yes, we might see some similarities here and there. The werewolf, the old wizard, the shape shifter... but adding these to her story doesn't necessarily make her books cliche ridden. In fact, it makes them unique. It's not the fact that they are what they are, but it is how she deals with them, what these figures represent in her books.<<<<< Laurasia: I think you've misinterpreted what I meant about archetypes in Harry Potter. I was suggesting that archetypes are good things. One could argue that human beings have been passing the same story back and forth for hundreds and thousands of years, only changing the surface details (Joseph Campbell suggests this). The reason we never grow tired of it is because it satisfies a fundamental need which is part of what being human actually is. We change the story element- protagonist confronts antagonist in the 'belly of the beast' and apply it to specific plot element- Harry duels withVoldemort in Riddle's graveyard. This is why, when reading GoF you *know* that the duel is the climax of the book. Archetypes are so common because we *need* them. ?If the Baddie was a white wizard who was kind to the hero and gave him presents and good advice, but them suddenly pealed off a mask we'd be confused. We'd probably laugh. Putting on a black cloak immediately lets the audience know who to empathise with and who to boo and hiss at (unlike life where things are more complicated). I wasn't talking about surface details which make one archetype differ from another- whether the hero's name is Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, whether he's been told his parents were killed by Darth Vadar or Lord Voldemort, whether he's living with his aunt in Surrey or his uncle on Tatooine. Those are all surface details which define the milieu of the world but have nothing to do with the structural story elements. Take Harry Potter and set it in space and change all the magic to science and you've got the same story. Zendemort wrote: >>>>>Unlike many old grandfather mentors, Dumbledore is not just the nice old man, but eccentric and strange. He is not the know all nor is he the person to solve all, but is a person with much experience and knowledge that must also confront his weaknesses and difficulties.<<<< Laurasia: I think Dumbledore *is* the mentor archetype, and that is what his role is in the story. I like archetypes, I think we need them because there is not enough time to go into elaborate detail about every single character. I am reaffirmed when I read Dumbledore because his role is immediately apparent to me, he reinforces what I wish to believe about the real world. If you want to quarrel about surface details I think you've missed the point of what an archetype is. The idea is that they are constant over all stories- not just fantasy stories, but the appear in teen comedies and westerns and detective stories. The idea is that despite any superfluous surface details they still perform the same role. Zendemort: >>>>>Sorry, but I don't really see how "all" Fantasy literature has the same conventions and themes. ?But, I will agree with you that fantasy does give "the notion that there is a higher plane of existence above rational." <<<<<< Laurasia: I was specifically talking about the theme of 'a higher plane of existence beyond the physical' (which is what this discussion was originally about) when I linked all Fantasy stories by in-built themes. I wasn't trying to suggest that there are no other themes possible. Clearly I *wasn't* clear enough, or assumed you would all understand that my comments were specific to what I was replying to. Sorry about that. Caspen wrote: >>>>>William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" has been well-analysed in terms of Freud's formulation of the Oedipus complex, although all of his work precede's Freud's. Is it, therefore, an "accident" that Hamlet resonates so well with this particular theory of Freud's? I don't think so.<<<<< Laurasia: Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind of relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing work, it's another to have control over it. Caspen wrote: >>>>>I think you've missed the irony: she writes about these things (magical boy/magical world) not only because they make a good story and provide ample opportunity for whimsical fun, but also, because she has something to say about the concept of a supernatural altogether. Otherwise, She wouldn't, for that matter have raised the issue of whether and to what extent the supernatural exists in the first chapters of her first book via Vernon Dursely,<<<<< Laurasia: I don't think JKR intended for the theme of 'magic as a real world existence in the spiritual level' to be in Harry Potter like you do. I would believe it, if it weren't for the simple fact that Vernon Dursley actually does believe that magic exists. Magic has had real physical impacts on his sister and son and house... If Vernon continued to deny the belief of magic even when he was confronted with all these things, I would agree that you have a point. The problem I see is that he doesn't. Vernon *knows* there is such a thing as magic and is afraid of it in a very real physical sense. I don't think I've missed the irony, I think you're inserting the irony in. That's just my opinion, but it's only your opinion that I have missed the irony, so we're square. Melete wrote: >>>>>If we think back to oh say Early Modern English (Shakespeare), the idea behind a good writer then was not how original the idea or character types were. Instead it was how successfully the author handled them: the characters, the language, the plot devices.<<<<< Laurasia: I agree. I think there is a difference between unoriginal & original and aware & blind. To be aware is not necessarily to be original. To consciously make the choice of inserting an common idea means that you are aware of why it works. To be original does not mean you have an aware control over what you produce- you may still be blind. Pippin: >>>>>Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. Since we, unlike, for example, the ancient Egyptians, value artists for their originality, JKR as an artist must consciously strive for originality. Since fantasy draws on the collective unconscious, it cannot be original, therefore no author who is trying to produce an original work will choose the medium of fantasy. In so far as JKR has incorporated fantasy, she must therefore have done so because of the promptings of her own subconscious. Is that right?<<<<< Laurasia: I was talking about one specific theme which I think is common between all fantasy stories. I was *not* saying that every single aspect of Harry Potter is simply regurgitated cliche. I was saying *one theme* was common to all fantasy stories simply because it forms part of the genre. I was not saying that Fantasy is an unoriginal genre. I used the example of archetypes because they manifest themselves so clearly in fantasy. I think genre cues assist the reading of stories- something funny happens so we know we're reading a comedy and it's okay to laugh. There are aliens so we know it's a science fiction and aren't confused, there are wizards in pointy hats so we know what to expect. I do give credit to JKR when I believe she has purposefully inserted a theme- which is why in my last post I gave the example of Love as a spiritual force. Seeing I spent most of this post explaining away wrong impressions about how I was talking about one theory instead of them all I have already made a mental to work on my clarity. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 09:26:09 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:26:09 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <02dc01c48fd4$b0e9fd60$0201a8c0@ROLLTIDE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jenny H" wrote: > Potioncat: > > Does anyone know off hand, who first refers to Snape as a Potions > > Master? I'm sure we hear it before PoA and I'm sure it's someone > > else who uses it to describe Snape. > > > From Jenny (first HP post! :-)) > In CofS, at the beginning of the dueling class, Lockhart tells the > "Now, I don't want any of you youngsters to worry -- you'll still > have your Potions master when I'm through with him, never fear!" > (pg. 189). Finwitch: Nice. Many have mentioned it's 'archaic' word for teacher. I think it began with the old apprentice system. A person could, for example, first be an apprentice to a master smith (starting usually at the age of 14 or so), and after 7 years or so of learning (and serving) he'd become a journeyman - independent, free to do the work at different places, possibly with different masters, but not mastering the art of smithery yet. A master also owned the house and he did teach the art... so it's natural, I suppose that master was then adopted for other sort of teachers. It also refers to great skill - mastering an art would mean to know it thoroughly... Finwitch From kcawte at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 1 09:48:49 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:48:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School References: Message-ID: <009f01c49008$e26897a0$69206bd5@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 111770 sherry > In the United States public school system it is customary to call the > teachers Mr. or Mrs., not Master. There is a Principal who is the > head of the school. In private schools there is a headmaster. He is > still called Mr., very seldom called Headmaster although some do. My > son goes to a private Military Academy with a Headmaster. > Even in the UK you wouldn't have referred to the teacher as Master, it's an archaic synonym for teacher (probably bases on their qualifications as mentioned by someone else) not a term like Mr. or Mrs. The staff would be referred to as the masters rather than the teachers (I'm talking about 40 or so years ago for when it was in common usage - I know my father would have used the terms like this so it was definitely still around in the 50s - I suspect it's still rather more common at the older and more exclusive public schools). When addressing the teachers you wouldn't use master or mistress (unless referring to them in the third person 'please sir, the Chemistry master wanted me to give you this message' etc, but even then you'd probably refer to them by name, possibly as Professor whatever - although on a side note I don't think Professor is an academic qualification, certainly today you can't pass a degree course of any kind to become a professor, in the university world Professor means you hold a chair of some kind at a university), you would call them sir (or I assume ma'am, but the period I am talking about female teachers would have been much rarer in this kind of school - mainly because this would be the same kind of school where the teachers would mostly have a Masters from a university and women just didn't do that much). I realise I seem to have become addicted to putting things in parenthesis - I apologise if it's confusing. K From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 1 10:08:30 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:08:30 -0000 Subject: Trelawney as a teacher (was: Trelawney isn't a fraud) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike, replying to a bunch of the previous posts: > > Trelawney didn't actually make a prediction with the Sight for > Umbridge. She was loathing her, so she said Umbridge was in grave > peril in hopes to scare her. But Trelawney did more. She said, something dark was coming to get Umbridge. And that's exactly what happened. Bane is literally dark. The black centaur. But to be honest, I don't think Trelawney is any more of a seer than Hermione is (except when Sybill is in a Trance of course). IMO, nearly everything she did is guesswork and using some knwledge about human nature (like Neville breaking the cups). But I also think while she isn't a seer, JKR uses her (and Harry and Ron's) fake prediction, to foreshadow what will happen later in the books. That's why I am really interested in the Divination lessons. Because they include some hints to the future. But of course, I normally only realize them while rereading the scenes, already knowing, what will happen. Hickengruendler From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 10:08:38 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:08:38 -0000 Subject: Wizards' Ages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > In the Scholastic interview (2000?) > How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors > Dumbledore and McGonagall? > > 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.) > > Sorry, I can't attribute that quote exactly, by the time I managed > to find it, copy it, get back here and paste it, I forgot. > The casual fan has no idea that DD is 150 or McGonagall 70. At the > time of the interview, Harry doesn't know these folk are so old, or > that wizards tend to live so long. He still doesn't know, as far as > I can tell. > > Why do you think this is so important? If they live so long, and > appear to work so long, how do young people like Snape and Percy > advance so quickly? You'd think candidates for DADA and Potions and > Ministry Officialdom would be coming out of the woodwork! > > And why hasn't it come up yet? > Finwitch: Some idea since he took his OWLs. As I recall, one of the Inspectors (don't remember which one) had been testing Dumbledore - (comment: he did things with a wand I had never seen before) and as Dumbledore's *old*, just how old _is_ the Inspector?) Also, there's mention of Nicolas Flamel and his Philosopher's Stone - (over 675 - so, he was there when Ministry was *founded*). And um - I doubt an old wizard/witch would bother with standards for cauldron-thickness... maybe they don't really WANT to go into Ministry: 'We did well before, no need for this...' Teaching - well, possibly. But anyone wanting a NEW job is probably young, considering the old ones are either employed or retired already. There ARE available jobs, considering that Voldemort killed so many of them in the war. Some get fired due some political reason... (well, the Ministry is VERY corrupted, isn't it?) And as to how it didn't come up yet... I mean, plotwise, how could it have? What could bring out Harry's interest? Now that he's met someone older than Dumbledore, he might have wanted to ask about it, (but Dumbledore was away, as well as any other adult he *could* ask such a question). When Dumbledore met Harry, there was the Sirius' death to worry about etc. Maybe it'll be in book #6. I don't think it's important - (JKR wouldn't tell us ANYTHING important, would she?) but it's just something to keep in mind... Maybe Ron's great-great-great-grandfather comes to play at some point? Maybe Harry will ask Dumbledore? A wizard (or was it a witch) who was inspector to (now) white-haired Dumbledore? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 11:04:21 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:04:21 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111773 SSSusan wrote: > Did you see, though, that Pippin provided this tidbit in the post > previous to yours? > > Pippin: > > The closest thing I could find is this: > > > > 'Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, > > because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply > > into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if > > I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, > > whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the > > books.' > > > > Vancouver Sun, Thursday Oct. 26, 2000. > > Potioncat: Yes, I think Pippin's post and my post crossed in cyberspace. I must be thick. I think I'm fairly knowledgable about the Bible...but I can come up with several possibilities based on that quote. Although, she does say "If I talk too freely about what I think..." would give it away, not if the person is well versed... Potioncat From earendil_fr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 11:24:11 2004 From: earendil_fr at yahoo.com (earendil_fr) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:24:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's eye color and killing curse (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111774 > Tonks wrote: > Interesting idea. I am sure that there is some reason that we are > always being reminded that Harry has his mother's GREEN eyes. I > have always wondered if there were some connection with Slytherin > house. I think Patunia knows more than she is telling anyone, even > her husband. Earendil: While reading the last posts of this thread, something suddenly occured to me. Something really, really stupid (can't say I didn't warn you), but I'll share anyway. We know the Avada Kedavra curse produces green light when cast. Green light is reflected by green things (which is why you see them green). And Harry's eyes are green. Would that mean the green light of the Avada Kedavra could have been reflected by Harry's green eyes? Earendil, who's terribly sorry for this stupid post, but she didn't manage to prevent her scientist self from reaching the keyboard. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 11:26:22 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:26:22 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan wrote: > > Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL > > that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 > > Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 > > book. I kept racking my brain, racking my brain.... WHAT could be > > significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg > > umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being > > mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? > > > > So here's my question. Is **this** what GW was going off about? > > Severed troll's leg umbrella stand = *SEVER*ed troll's leg > > *U*mbrella *S*tand = SEVERUS. Is there supposed to be some clue > > about Severus Snape in the troll's leg US? Hmm... few things that come to mind: Severus & Tripping over/being clumsy: Neville. Also, as it's troll's leg: a Troll was trying to kill Hermione, but Harry&Ron won it with distraction (Harry) and it's own club (Ron). Also, Hermione LIED about her reason to be in there (pulling McConagall's leg in other words). Severus was present when she did that, curiously enough. And, umbrella brings into mind Hagrid (and his broken wand concealed within his pink umbrella). Hagrid's wand was inside an umbrella because Tom Riddle pulled his leg by framing him (and Aragog) during his third year... Tom Marvolo Riddle liked to make the Anagram I AM LORD VOLDEMORT out of his name. Hagrid mentioned meeting someone who gave him a dragon's egg when Harry was questioning Severus Snape... (and that someone was Voldemort)... Severed troll's leg umbrella stand.. SEVERUS. SEVERUS DEMENTOR (Neville's worst fear, and Harry's) - ll's lgubrellastad (dunno what these could add, but if this clue is anagram, I think there will be 'll added...) Finwitch From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 11:55:51 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:55:51 -0000 Subject: Where is our Prince? (And Where Did Those Wizards Get Their Titles?) In-Reply-To: <20040831224529.66996.qmail@web11303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111776 Packaging my responses in a single post . . . Elaine Adamski wrote: > Forgive me, but you have contradicted the string in > the last sentence. If your belief is that the wizards > were titled via a muggle interbreeding, then how could > the House of Black - a pureblood house - be noble? No, I don't think it is. In CoS, Ernie MacMillan establishes his pureblood credentials by citing his ancestry back through nine generations. Assuming an average of 3 generations per century, he's only tracing his ancestry back three centuries, which is after the split with the Muggle world. *Pureblood* status doesn't preclude the existence of a muggle ancestor embedded somewhere in the family tree. Also, that's only an example of what might have happened. Another possibility in the back of my mind was that in some cases a wizard might have been raised to the nobility -- perhaps for some deed or accomplishment that, unknown to the king, had been accomplished through magic. Ffred wrote: > I've always assumed that the foundation of the Ministry and the Statute of > Secrecy came about at the same time, the MoM supplanted the Council to > ensure that secrecy was enforced. > I would surmise (on very little canon evidence) that the Council was a loose > body of wizards, mostly from the Houses with a few eminent scholars, who > kept a fairly loose hand on things, whereas the changeover the the Ministry > was the defining political moment in the WW, the change from an oligarchy to > a bureaucracy. In turn, the new Ministry enforced the Statute of Secrecy in > draconian terms and needed a large staff to do this: I think we're on the same page here. While I think it occurred after the Statute of Secrecy (they needed time to implement the Statute and go into hiding, after all), it had to have been relatively soon afterwards, since QTTA states that the Department of Magical Games and Sports was founded in 1750, and that was surely not the first department to be created. (Though I can't find the reference, I believe it states somewhere that the DMLE is the oldest Ministry department.) Magda Grantwich wrote: The HBP is a > legend, not a person. Voldemort thinks (THINKS) the legend applies > to GG's descendents, just like the whole Heir of Slytherin riff > applied to the last descendent of Salazar Slytherin. OK, I just wanted to clarify whether you intended that the legend be true. Debbie From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Sep 1 12:05:04 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:05:04 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > SSSusan wrote: > > Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL > that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 > Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 > book. I kept racking my brain, racking my brain.... WHAT could be > significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg umbrella > stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being mentioned a couple > of times in the OotP chapter on GP? > > Leah replies: > Any more ideas? > > Leah AmanitaMuscaria now - One thing that occurred to me was the coincidence of the severed troll's leg, and the severed house-elves' heads - maybe there's some use that the Ancient House of Black made of trolls? The other thing is, why have an umbrella stand there at all? what's it supposed to hold? Broomsticks? I can't see the sort of people who'd turn up to visit the Black household arriving disguised as muggles with umbrellas in hand, and there was no mention of anyone placing their broomsticks in the stand when Harry arrived there? If that was its intended use, I would imagine Molly would make sure they used it as such. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Sep 1 12:11:20 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:11:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's eye color and killing curse (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "earendil_fr" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > Interesting idea. I am sure that there is some reason that we are > > always being reminded that Harry has his mother's GREEN eyes. I > > have always wondered if there were some connection with Slytherin > > house. I think Patunia knows more than she is telling anyone, even > > her husband. > > Earendil: > > While reading the last posts of this thread, something suddenly > occured to me. Something really, really stupid (can't say I didn't > warn you), but I'll share anyway. > > We know the Avada Kedavra curse produces green light when cast. > Green light is reflected by green things (which is why you see them > green). And Harry's eyes are green. > > Would that mean the green light of the Avada Kedavra could have been > reflected by Harry's green eyes? > > > Earendil, who's terribly sorry for this stupid post, but she didn't > manage to prevent her scientist self from reaching the keyboard. AmanitaMuscaria now - Earendil, why put yourself down? There've been many more off-the-wall theories than yours. Only problem is, Harry has Lily's eyes. Now, I read that as saying Lily had green eyes, too, so with your theory, Lily should also have survived. But, who knows? Only JKR, and she's not telling us yet! Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Sep 1 12:15:36 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:15:36 -0000 Subject: Learning Voldemort's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jospehine" wrote: > "Deb" wrote: > So . . . most people flat-out refuse to use You-Know-Who's name. > He's obliquely referred to in speaking and in print--up until very > recently (Harry, the OotP, and then the DA), no-one but Dumbledore > uses the man's name. > > How, then, have all of Harry's classmates LEARNED the name so that > they know to shudder, shake, fall off chairs when they hear it? I > mean, if you've heard your whole life about "Harry Potter and He Who > Must Not Be Named" and then you hear somebody say "Voldemort" . . . > how DO you know that that's the same person?? (grin) > > Deb in NJ > > Jospehine now: > I think this is a fun thread. There are many ways that the > name 'Voldemort' could be picked up as a child. Through reading about > him for example, or on the school playground. It's like swear words > when you are at school. Someone's parent lets the name slip once, (or > writes it down while explaining the story for learning purposes) and > the kid runs back to school telling all his friends what he's heard/ > learnt. They then get told off when they bring it up at home and come > to realise that it is a 'bad word' to say. It's not until later that > they realise what the word actually means and why it causes such > fear. Think of the first time you heard the * word. Did you know what > it meant? Nope, but I bet you knew you'd get in trouble for saying > it. And only learnt what it really meant as you grew up. > > Jospehine AmanitaMuscaria now - What concerns me is that Hermione flinches and avoids saying 'Voldemort' as well. Where would she have learnt that it's not said? Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 12:15:09 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:15:09 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111780 AmanitaMuscaria wrote: snip > The other thing is, why have an umbrella stand there at all? what's > it supposed to hold? Broomsticks? I can't see the sort of people > who'd turn up to visit the Black household arriving disguised as > muggles with umbrellas in hand, ... snip Potioncat: The students use umbrellas when they walk to the Quidditch game in the rain. Hagrid carries an umbrella. Though, you wouldn't think wizards and witches would need them. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 12:17:26 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:17:26 -0000 Subject: more questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111781 khinterberg wrote: > I'm re-reading PS/SS right now and there was a comment about > Gringotts that stuck out to me. > > "They had reached a snowy white building that towered over the other > little shops. Standing beside its burnished bronze doors, wearing a > uniform of scarlet and gold, was -- > 'Yeah, that's a goblin,' said Hagrid..." p 72 > > Why is the goblin wearing scarlet and gold, the colors of Godric > Gryffindor? It seems to perhaps add to the argument that GG was > powerful/wealthy/nobility. Finwitch: For one thing, I'd think that the Goblins love gold, and therefore wear it as well! (and is suited for wizarding bank, too) Red (scarlet) is a colour associated with high status (red carpet). Or maybe it has to do with the way gold in the mix of sands to make glass will make the glass red? Or the colour of rubies, which are besides the pure diamonds, the most valuable? Also, red and gold(yellow) are the colors used for warnings (traffic signs, poison) and attention (they shine best...) They're also the colors of phoenix, the eternal bird, that is also most rare, valuable in many ways, strong, fast... No need to mix Godric Gryffindor into this, although I think that he's the founder Goblin's would like the most... Finwitch From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 12:21:21 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:21:21 -0000 Subject: The Age Thing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111782 Dumbledore is very old. No doubt. If Rowling said that wizards indeed live (much?) longer than muggles - that's how it is then. Makes me wonder how then is it possible to keep the WW a secret from ordinary muggles. Example. Hermione is a muggleborn witch - as Im sure many others have been before her. She's supposed to live longer than anyone else in her family (assuming she's the only person in the family with WW- connections). Other muggleborn witches/wizards must have, too, in the past. And nobody (muggle-relatives and friends) ever wondered why this or that person got to be so old? Also, in the muggleworld people are registered from birth, so it must seem very strange that some muggles (I guess other muggles would still consider muggleborns to be muggles ... uh.... normal people - as they don't know about the WW) live to be 120-130 - or more? One more thing. Hermione used as example (as muggleborn) once again. Nobody (other than her parents I guess) in her family know about her being a witch and being at Hogwarts for 7 years. How is she supposed to keep that a secret to her family and muggle- associates when she leaves Hogwarts? I mean - what is she supposed to do for a living then? An ordinary muggle-job? Makes no sense then for her to spend 7 years learning all sorts of wizardry - unless she'll apply for a job inside the WW - and if that is what she does - how can she go on keeping it all a secret to everyone she knows in the muggleworld? Inge From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 12:30:20 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:30:20 -0000 Subject: Learning Voldemort's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111783 > > AmanitaMuscaria : - What concerns me is that Hermione flinches and > avoids saying 'Voldemort' as well. Where would she have learnt that > it's not said? Finwitch: Most likely she _read_ about it. You know how Hermione is, reading about things. In all those history books Harry was mentioned, for example. She mentions several books where Harry's mentioned as she meets him. (And why would Harry be mentioned, if the book did not mention Voldemort?) She also had already spoken to several people... But indeed, why does SHE fear to speak out Voldemort's name so? I mean really, fear for the evil person, OK, but fear for speaking out his name? Harry speaks it, and hesitates only because it upsets people. And he's MET Voldemort in person - so I think Harry has a very good idea as to what he's like... Finwitch From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 13:02:28 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:02:28 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL > that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 > Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 > book. .... WHAT could be significant about Tonks stumbling over a > severed troll's leg umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this > thing being mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? > > Have y'all discussed this to death? ... > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, Asian_lovr2: I hate to be the voice of bordom here, but I think the troll-leg umbrella stand exists solely so Tonks can trip over it and thereby allow us to be abruptly introduced to the Portrait of Sirius's Mother. JKR simply needed an event that caused Mrs. Black to start screaming. That said, I don't discount the possibility that the Troll-leg stand could re-appear in some minor way, like Lucius Malfoy breaks into 12 Grimmauld Place trips over the stand and thereby alerts the Order to his presents. But I seriously doubt that the Troll Stand has any far reaching significants, and agree, other than a minor plot devices, it's just a take-off on an elephant leg stand. Just a thought. Steve/asian_lovr2 From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 1 13:10:02 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 07:10:02 -0600 Subject: first use of the term Potions master In-Reply-To: <009f01c49008$e26897a0$69206bd5@kathryn> Message-ID: <001501c49024$feb454f0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 111785 Hi all, The discussion on the term "potions master" and where it first appeared tickled my memory and I went to check. The first appearance is in the table of contents for SS/PS. I'm sure it's the US edition, but I can't swear to that, since I'm looking at my braille version. The title of chapter eight is "The Potions Master". So it appears to be the title JKR gives Snape. If it has any deeper significance than a formal title, I'm sure we'll be discovering it soon. I hope! Sherry G email and MSN messenger: sherriola at earthlink.net From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Wed Sep 1 13:23:17 2004 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:23:17 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonks_op" wrote: > Snape says "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands > that you reveal the secrets you hide" He does this to use the full > weight and power of his postion to get the map to show its secrets. > He may well have designs on DD's job, but that is not the reason he > uses that word at this time. It is sort of like saying "with the > full power invested in me I hereby demand that you show yourself" It > is in sense a spell directed to the map to show itself, and it is a > spell that requires a show of dominance and power. > > Tonks_op Tonks_op has got it I think. Being old enough to remember British Education in the 1950's the statement 'Master of this School' by Snape is for me a clear invocation of official authority as a member of staff combatting some piece of student skulduggery. It is a conscious use of archaic educational terminology by JKR as a literay effect here. Slightly clearer English might be 'A Master of This School. The invocation is of a formal and rigorous tradition. Teachers with departmental responsibility in those days would be called 'The Latin Master' or 'Geography Master' or 'Chemistry Master' or whatever. Each and every one would be a 'Master' of that particular school. (The Chemistry Master by the way would be informally referred to as 'The Stinks Master' by the pupils. 'Stinks' being the slang term for Chemistry.) I recall an official School expedition when about 30 of us went studying geology in Scotland for a week. In the hotel dining room we explained to other guests why we weren't starting dinner yet, but standing behind our chairs, by saying 'we are waiting for our Masters'. Edis From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 1 13:57:13 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:57:13 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111787 SSSusan wrote: > > Did you see, though, that Pippin provided this tidbit in the post > > previous to yours? > > > > Pippin: > > The closest thing I could find is this: > > > > 'Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, > > because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply > > into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because > > if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, > > whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the > > books.' > > > > Vancouver Sun, Thursday Oct. 26, 2000. Potioncat: > Yes, I think Pippin's post and my post crossed in cyberspace. > > I must be thick. I think I'm fairly knowledgable about the > Bible...but I can come up with several possibilities based on that > quote. Although, she does say "If I talk too freely about what I > think..." would give it away, not if the person is well versed... SSSusan: Yes, that's exactly what I thought she was saying--that she's pleased she *hasn't* been pressed on the specifics of her beliefs, because if she were to outline them, the "intelligent reader" could figure things out. In other words, I don't think she's saying just knowing she's a Christian means people can figure it out; there must be something about the specific beliefs that accompany her take on Christianity which would allow that. So, is it the obvious, that Harry has to sacrifice himself? I've argued for quite some time that I think Harry's **willingness** to sacrifice himself out of love for others will be the key to Voldy's undoing...but I confess I'm holding to a hope that, while the willingness will be necessary and will be present, he won't actually have to die. Sap that I am. Siriusly Snapey Susan From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 14:11:38 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:11:38 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111788 > > Zendemort: > snip > I have not heard another teacher wish to be > > called "master", or refer to him/herself as "master", except > Snape. > "Master" might be an old fashion way of > > addressing a "school teacher", but why would he wish to be > addressed > > in this way? All of the other teachers call > themselves "Professors." > > Why did he call himself "Master of this school" as opposed > > to "Professor of this school"? It's the emphasis on the > > word "master" which shows dominance and power. snip > -------------- > > Tonks: > > Snape says "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands > that you reveal the secrets you hide" He does this to use the full > weight and power of his postion to get the map to show its secrets. > He may well have designs on DD's job, but that is not the reason he > uses that word at this time. It is sort of like saying "with the > full power invested in me I hereby demand that you show yourself" It > is in sense a spell directed to the map to show itself, and it is a > spell that requires a show of dominance and power. Ginger chimes in: Tonks_op, I think you are on to something. As others have stated, Master is an archaic term for teacher. Snape as Potionmaster, because he teaches potions, MM as Transfigurationmistress (try fitting that on your business card) and DD as Headmaster, or Master of Heads (which is slang for loo-that's why the Room of Requirement produced so darn many CPs for the man). What strikes me is the context of his statement. Going to p. 286 of the US paperback, he first asks Harry what it is, gets nowhere with that, then taps the paper with his wand and says "reveal your secret". Nothing happens. He says "show yourself" and taps it again. Nothing happens. Then he gives it the "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal." and *hits* it with his wand. Immediately, the paper responds. My little theory is that at some time in the past, Masters and Mistresses of the school (as they would have been known then) were given a spell to force magical things found in the possession of students to reveal themselves. "I (your name and title here) commands you to yield the information you conceal." Handy spell for ferreting out crib sheets, embarassing love notes that told *way too much* or stopping conspiracies. Too bad no one showed a teacher a certain diary. We have seen that the map is semi-sentient, so it would have known that this would be a really good time to stay incognito as a scrap of paper, and it tries to do so. But under that command (or spell?) it is forced to say something, so it does so in its own charming way. It insults Snape. A possibility? Ginger who bets a doughnut that no one told Umbridge. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 1 14:07:50 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:07:50 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111789 SSSusan: >>Recent discussion of Tonks' clumsiness reminded me of the BIG DEAL that Galadriel Waters made of the troll's leg umbrella stand at 12 Grimmauld Place (which Tonks tripped over) in her New Clues to HP 5 book. .... WHAT could be significant about Tonks stumbling over a severed troll's leg umbrella stand? WHY did GW go nuts about this thing being mentioned a couple of times in the OotP chapter on GP? Is **this** what GW was going off about? Severed troll's leg umbrella stand = *SEVER*ed troll's leg *U*mbrella *S*tand = SEVERUS. Is there supposed to be some clue about Severus Snape in the troll's leg US?<< Asian_lovr2: > I hate to be the voice of bordom here, but I think the troll-leg > umbrella stand exists solely so Tonks can trip over it and thereby > allow us to be abruptly introduced to the Portrait of Sirius's > Mother. JKR simply needed an event that caused Mrs. Black to start > screaming. > > That said, I don't discount the possibility that the Troll-leg stand > could re-appear in some minor way, like Lucius Malfoy breaks into 12 > Grimmauld Place trips over the stand and thereby alerts the Order to > his presents. But I seriously doubt that the Troll Stand has any far > reaching significants, and agree, other than a minor plot devices, > it's just a take-off on an elephant leg stand. SSSusan again: Bummer. I was *so* hoping a creative type like Steve would take this idea and run with it! I wanted some really significant little theory to come out of this (not the least of which because it would involve Snape if my understanding of what Waters is pointing to is right). Oh, well. With these comments, the comments of others who also have no idea about any connection, and Leah's very interesting remarks about the possible parallel between *elephant* leg umbrella stands and the troll leg one [that'd be just like JKR to insert that bit of social commentary, wouldn't it?], I guess I'm ready to say that Waters must've been over-reacting to this "clue." Shucks. Siriusly Snapey Susan From cruthw at earthlink.net Wed Sep 1 14:23:45 2004 From: cruthw at earthlink.net (caspenzoe) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:23:45 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote: > I've replied to ideas from these four posts: > > Caspen- 111580 > Zendemort- 111589 > Melete- 111615 > Pippin- 111616 > > Some debate was common between them, so I only used one quote to show > what concept I was talking about. Snip! > Zendemort wrote: > >>>>Now, Let's go ahead and judge everyone by their "intentions." The > court of law will only put people in jail for their "intentions," > not their actual actions. Just imagine that world.<<<< > > Laurasia: > > To use your own example, the court of law is *all about* intentions > rather than simply the act. Killing a human in self-defense and > killing a person in first-degree murder are two separate things, > although they are both the same act of taking a human's life. > People who show remorse are given different sentences > to those who don't. > > If you refuse to take the intention into account (and focus only on > the action) then Harry should be given the death penalty because > he directly lead to Quirrel's death. The fact that he did it because > he was 2 seconds away from being killed himself, and was also > trying to save the lives of millions of other people who would be > destroyed if Voldemort got the Philosopher's Stone would > therefore be superfluous to the action (killing Quirrel) he > undertook. > > If we ignore intent and focus only on actions, then Harry should have > been expelled in OotP and had his wand snapped in half because > he did produce a Patronus. The intention that he was trying to save > his own and his cousin's lives would be beside the point > > This is complete nonsense. Intent greatly changes the meaning of > actions. This is why the criminal state of mind is so important in > trials. > > A court of law where strives to uncover one sole truth and judge > that. If JKR was aware that he book was conveying the theme > that magic exists even in the real world above the physical plane > (the topic which this discussion originally sprung from) then she > has control over it. If she is not aware of it, then it is just the > same as a snitch flying up your robes- still spectacular, still > enjoyable to watch, but no credit to the author. The theme still > resonates with us, but the credit doesn't go to JKR for writing it in > there, it goes to *us* for reading it in there. > > I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author. > > Very recently there were interpretations that Harry Potter is > anti-French because many of the baddies have French names- > Voldemort, Malfoy, Lestrange. I don't think JKR meant for that to > happen, but there's no denying the three baddest people in the > books have French names. If you want to give JKR the credit > for all the themes which can be interpreted in her books (even > the ones she didn't intend) then why aren't you convinced she > really does discriminate against the French? Or are you? > > Melete: > > >>>>I find this a very complex and strange idea. > Generally speaking as a literture student, its quite > difficult to evaluate author's intentions without > having the author to pick over yourself.<<<< > > Laurasia: > > Intentions change the work. Letting the finished work stand alone for > the author completely removes all intent from it, (which, IMO, is why > so all classics are by dead authors). Making the author anonymous > means the work no longer has one truth to it which is either *right* > or *wrong* according to the author's intent. It can mean a thousand > things to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of > what the author intended. Snip! > Caspen wrote: > > >>>>>William > Shakespeare's "Hamlet" has been well-analysed in terms of Freud's > formulation of the Oedipus complex, although all of his work > precede's Freud's. Is it, therefore, an "accident" that Hamlet > resonates so well with this particular theory of Freud's? I don't > think so.<<<<< > > Laurasia: > > Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* > over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind of > relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered > a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet > was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet > in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the > relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which > was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing > work, it's another to have control over it. > > Caspen wrote: > > >>>>>I think you've missed the irony: she > writes about these things (magical boy/magical world) not only > because they make a good story and provide ample opportunity for > whimsical fun, but also, because she has something to say about the > concept of a supernatural altogether. Otherwise, > She wouldn't, for that matter have raised > the issue of whether and to what extent the supernatural exists in > the first chapters of her first book via Vernon Dursely,<<<<< > > Laurasia: > > I don't think JKR intended for the theme of 'magic as a real world > existence in the spiritual level' to be in Harry Potter like you do. > I would believe it, if it weren't for the simple fact that Vernon > Dursley actually does believe that magic exists. > > Magic has had real physical impacts on his sister and son and > house... If Vernon continued to deny the belief of magic even > when he was confronted with all these things, I would agree > that you have a point. The problem I see is that he doesn't. Vernon > *knows* there is such a thing as magic and is afraid of it in a > very real physical sense. > > I don't think I've missed the irony, I think you're inserting the > irony in. That's just my opinion, but it's only your opinion that > I have missed the irony, so we're square. Snip! Hi Laurasia. I'd hoped this whole issue had been put to rest on the strength of all of the other responses, all of which agree, in substance, with mine, but alas! Your whole absurd assertion that JKR is not "brilliant" rests upon the very dubious assumption that you can discern JKR's ultimate "intentions," (read her mind, in other words) and the even more dubious notion that it is possible to judge the artist's quality separately from the quality of the artist's work. In fact, based upon these, your very shakey criteria, it appears that you would have us believe that nearly all great works of art have, in effect, been produced by idiots savant! Your position (and I mean this in the kindest way) is beyond ludicrous. You provide clear evidence of this in your "reasoning" about Shakespeare: > Laurasia: "Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind of relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing work, it's another to have control over it." Had "control" over it? What, on earth does that mean? Is that supposed to be some kind of cogent distinction? Because if it is, I defy you to explain the following: 1. More people have read Shakespeare's Hamlet than have ever read Freud; 2. More people have read Shakespeare's plays and sonnets than have ever read Freud; 3. Finally, and FYI, Shakespeare did "replicate the success of Hamlet," not just in "another play," but in play after play, after play, and many sonnets - the fact that he didn't feel the need to re- write Hamlet, notwithstanding! He mananged to hit collective nerve after nerve, after nerve (by chance, you would have us believe?)! Hello! If that's not having "control" over one's work, than what is? And why would anyone value your "control" over the creative capacity to produce work of the quality of Shakespeare's for that matter? I'll leave it to other respondents to explain to you why applying legal reasoning to literary analysis is completely inapposite, and to remind you that you, yourself, in a previous post stated that "the work stands alone." I'll leave it to others to re-explain to you why mathematical formulas are inapposite as well, and why "awareness" as you seem to define it is irrelevant to "choice = good author." I'll leave it to others to explain to you how it is possible for others (not being hung-up, as you are, on the whole assumption that they can discern intent) can see "a thousand things to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of what the author intended" even when they know the name of the author (imagine that!) and to point out to you that you're the only one here for whom "intention changes the work" (once again, in contradiction to your earlier statement that the work stands alone). And I won't bother re-explaining to you why discerning "irony" in a work has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's intentions, percieved or imagined in your crystal ball of author evaluation. You clearly have little understanding of literary critcism as a subject, and I clearly have no more patience for explaining it to you. Best wishes, Caspen From earendil_fr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 14:55:53 2004 From: earendil_fr at yahoo.com (earendil_fr) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:55:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's eye color and killing curse (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111791 > > Earendil: > > > > While reading the last posts of this thread, something suddenly > > occured to me. Something really, really stupid (can't say I didn't > > warn you), but I'll share anyway. > > > > We know the Avada Kedavra curse produces green light when cast. > > Green light is reflected by green things (which is why you see them > > green). And Harry's eyes are green. > > > > Would that mean the green light of the Avada Kedavra could have > been > > reflected by Harry's green eyes? > > > > > > Earendil, who's terribly sorry for this stupid post, but she didn't > > manage to prevent her scientist self from reaching the keyboard. > > AmanitaMuscaria now - > Earendil, why put yourself down? There've been many more off-the- wall > theories than yours. Earendil: I wasn't putting myself down, I was simply saying that even *I* think it's a stupid idea (and certainly not a 'theory', BTW *g*) > AmanitaMuscaria again: > Only problem is, Harry has Lily's eyes. Now, I read that as saying > Lily had green eyes, too, so with your theory, Lily should also have > survived. But, who knows? Only JKR, and she's not telling us yet! Earendil: Again, I don't think it's a theory, and certainly not a viable one. I think it will reveal very important in later books that Harry has *Lily*'s eyes, but is the colour in itself important? In other words: Is it important that Harry inherited Lily's *green* eyes? Would it have made any difference if he had inherited Lily's *blue* eyes, for example? Was the colour *green* chosen because it has a yet to be revealed significance or just because having green eyes is a feature rare enough to ensure that everyone would notice Harry has his mom's eyes (which, by the way, would also work with any rare eye colour)? Earendil. From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 15:10:01 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:10:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111792 Hello Everyone! I was very good this time and kept the summary pretty short. Yay! Chapter 25 Summary: This chapter opens with Hermione, Harry, and Ron learning why it is Lord Voldemort is "the happiest he had been in fourteen years." Ten Death Eaters escaped Azkaban, including Antonin Dolohov, Augustus Rookwood, and Bellatrix Lestrange. According to the Ministry, the escapees are likely rallying about Sirius Black. The news causes Hogwarts students to begin considering Harry's explanation that Lord Voldemort is returned as an alternative to the Ministry's flimsy story. The breakout and subsequent discussions in and around Hogwarts are the impetus for yet another Educational Decree from our favorite High Inquisitor, forbidding teachers from giving students any information other than about the subjects they teach. While the escape of ten dangerous criminals created quite a stir at Hogwarts, the murder by Devil's Snare of Unspeakable Broderick Bode caused not a whisper except among Harry, Hermione, and Ron, who have already figured out what LV wants is in the Department of Mysteries. And now they know of a DoM worker injured `on the job' and murdered by assassins unknown. Veeery suspicious. As a result of both bits of news, Hermione has one of her secretive moments and rushes off to owl someone. Meanwhile Hagrid and Trelawney are both on probation thanks to Umbridge's evaluations and she now inspects each and every Care of Magical Creatures and Divination class. It's only a matter of time before Umbridge fires one of them. Harry would prefer it to be Trelawney. The DA continues their practices, working harder with ten escaped DEs on the loose. Neville in particular is working hard and improving very quickly. Harry's Occlumency lessons don't seem to be helping as he continues to dream of the corridor, his scar hurts more, and he's getting more flashes of Lord Voldemort's moods. He tells Ron and Hermione he wishes the door would open. Ron wonders if Snape is perhaps *not* helping to close his mind. Hermione objects again arguing Dumbledore trusts Snape and "if we can't trust Dumbledore we can't trust anyone." Before Harry knows it, Valentine's Day, a Hogsmeade weekend, and his date with Cho arrive (all on the same day). Harry dresses carefully for the day and agrees to meet Hermione, who has received a reply from her letter, at midday. Harry and Cho head to Hogsmeade, discussing Quidditch. In Hogsmeade Cho notes the lack of dementors. Quite odd considering they had so many wandering about when Sirius escaped and now with ten DE's there are none. Harry realizes the Ministry must have really lost control of the dark creatures. The couple goes to Madame Puddifoot's for coffee. The date does not go well. Harry is uncomfortable. There are a lot of conversation gaps and Harry is acutely aware he is surrounded by hand-holding couples, not to mention Roger Davies and his girlfriend kissing nearby. During one of the lulls in conversation Harry brings up the meeting with Hermione. Then Cho mentions Roger asked her out. *Then* she brings up Cedric. Harry has no desire to discuss him and she feels she must talk to Harry about it. He's already talked about it with Ron and Hermione. Cho reacts to this by accusing Harry of having something more than friendship with Hermione. Harry finally understands what is going on but it's too late. Cho storms off before he can explain. With nothing left to do Harry heads off to the Three Broomsticks where he has a conversation with Hagrid, who continues to be secretive about his cuts and bruises, chalking it up to normal duties. Finally he meets with Hermione. He is surprised to find her sitting with unusual company--Luna Lovegood and Rita Skeeter. Hermione arranged the meeting so Harry could give Rita the true story of LV's return. Rita has no choice but to do it or Hermione will spill the beans about her being an unregistered animagus. Luna is there because her father has agreed to run the interview in the Quibbler. All parties consent and Harry gives his account. Comments and Questions for discussion: Please Note: I have a tendency to be Ever So Lame, so if you don't like my questions please add your own. ;-) 1. In GoF, Hermione discovers Rita Skeeter's secret about being an unregistered animagus. To ensure Rita never lies about anyone in her articles, Hermione tells her she can't do any writing for a year or Hermione will turn her in. But in Chapter 25 of OoP we see Hermione has added terms to their agreement. Rather than just keep silent, Rita Skeeter must now do what Hermione asks of her. It seems Hermione might have crossed a line or at least entered a gray area. At first, Hermione was teaching Rita a lesson-not to write nasty lies. But now she's * using* her knowledge to blackmail Rita into doing her bidding. Granted, it's for a good cause but do Hermione's means justify the end? At the Edinburgh Book Festival, JKR said we would be seeing more of Rita Skeeter. Will Hermione continue to blackmail her? Does Rita Skeeter deserve everything she gets? 2. Ten Escaped Death Eaters: In this chapter we have the names of three of them: Dolohov, Rookwood, and Mrs. Lestrange. Since the brothers Lestrange appear at the Ministry battle, we know they were two of the ten as well. That leaves five others. Do we have any ideas as to who they are? 3. To what degree does the desire to see what's behind the door negatively affect Harry's ability to master Occlumency? If this desire, whether it be his or LV's, affects Harry does that then mean no matter how well Snape might teach and how hard Harry practices, he would never be able to master it? 4. Rita Skeeter confirms the Daily Prophet is being pressured by Fudge but also that since no one would want to hear of Voldemort's return, they wouldn't print what Harry says happened, anyway, because it wouldn't sell. Do we want to take a guess on how actively the Prophet is participating in discrediting Harry and Dumbledore? How much is actually Ministry coercion? 5. How is Umbridge able to attend every Divination and Care of Magical Creatures lesson and still teach her own Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons? 6. It's clear to Harry the dementors are out of the Ministry's control. Do you think the dementors left the Ministry entirely with the Death Eater breakout? Or just that the MoM had lost `control' of them and they stuck around for a while after allowing the DE s to escape? Fudge does not report their defection until he finally admits LV returned but we know how reliable he and the Prophet are. ;-) 7. Harry, Cho, and the disastrous date. Actually I have no question. Just thought they might be interesting should any of you like to discuss it. KathyK 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! From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 15:25:14 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies & re-assessments - Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040901152514.95049.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111793 > "Steve" wrote: > I really don't think people are giving enough weight to the fact > that Dumbledore is over 150 years old. In his lifetime, he has > seen the folly of man again and again. > > > Dumbledore knows that effort wasted in fretting over many of > these things and people is just wasted effort. Given time, these > people and events will self-destruct, leaving the bulk of the world > behind to carry on; to carry on and engage in the same folly again. Very true, Steve. It's the same reason he's a good headmaster - usually. He knows that there are some rules than can safely be broken by students (sneaking down to the kitchens for cakes at midnight) and some that have far more serious consequences (flying an enchanted car to the school when you miss the train). He doesn't sweat the small stuff. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 16:21:05 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040901162105.45547.qmail@web90003.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111794 "Brenda M." wrote: (EDIT) I just had an amusing thought right now. How did Tom Riddle know that his mother carried the blood of Salazar Slytherin? Did he discover his Heir-of-Slytherin status and deduce that it must be from his mother's side? Or did she tell him somehow (in a letter or something)? If his mother knew about snaky blood running in her veins... could this mean that Tom Riddle Sr found out about this, and that is why he left her? He found out she wasn't just an ordinary, harmless witch, but a potentially dark, evil witch? Oooh this could be very interesting!! Yay HP Soap Opera!! *happy conspiracy dancing* Griffin782002 now: I have been thinking about Tom Riddle's mother. If I am not wrong they were living in the same village. When he left her, he probably retunred to his parents. If she was following Slytherin's beliefs, and was like the students of Slytherin house why she didn't try to punish him, like her son did years later? What if she wasn't in Slytherin? The whole Black family was in Slytherin exept Surius who made another choice. I wonder if she once made a choice against Slytherin's beliefs. I just wonder. Griffin782002 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From caesian at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 16:41:46 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:41:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Parvati a Seer (was: Trelawney isn't a fraud) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111795 To borrow from Ron, I think she needs her inner eye tested. The hilarious thing about Trelawney is that she DOES see things, but she allows her biases and prejudices to obscure their true meaning. A classic case in point is the tea-leaf Grim - she really does see a giant dog stalking Harry - but her biases lead her to misidentify Sirius as the Grim. And, although she does make predictions that can't be explained by gossip or reasoning (like the exact date that Lavender will get bad news), she never can get the meaning quite right. Ironically, while she may be in a better position than anyone else to See the truth, she is too blinkered and biased to do so. As she says in OotP, Seers are always misunderstood (and in this case, even by herself). Similar problems might be beginning for either Parvati Patil or Lavender Brown. Parvati did very well in her divination exam at the end of PoA, so perhaps it is Parvati who is the budding Seer. In GoF, when the Yule Ball is announced in Transfiguration, Lavender and Parvati dissolve into giggles and crane around to look at Harry. It turns out that Harry does ask Parvati to the Ball - but not exactly for the reason she thinks. She's even miraculously free to go with him, although she and her sister are "the prettiest girls in the year", and Harry left it rather late. I'd say someone predicted Harry would ask Parvati to the ball. Also, like Trelawney, Parvati has been easily blinded by gossip and suggestion (e.g. her reaction to Harry towards the beginning of OotP). Just a fun little parallel, Caesian From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 16:52:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:52:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > 1. In GoF, Hermione discovers Rita Skeeter's secret about being > an unregistered animagus. To ensure Rita never lies about anyone in > her articles, Hermione tells her she can't do any writing for a > year or Hermione will turn her in. But in Chapter 25 of OoP we see > Hermione has added terms to their agreement. Rather than just keep > silent, Rita Skeeter must now do what Hermione asks of her. It > seems Hermione might have crossed a line or at least entered a gray > area. At first, Hermione was teaching Rita a lesson-not to write > nasty lies. But now she's * using* her knowledge to blackmail > Rita into doing her bidding. Granted, it's for a good cause but > do > Hermione's means justify the end? I don't think so. To be honest, there's something very unsettling about the fact that she assembles a pair of people she has little or no respect for (Rita and Luna) and gets them to do her bidding. While principles do sometimes trump the law, blackmailing a well- known reporter is a very different and more morally questionable form of rulebreaking than, for example, stealing potion ingredients, as it involves the assertion of power and control. I think Hermione is treading dangerous ground with Rita -- and was even before she rewrote the deal. Her phenomenal success rate cannot continue; nobody succeeds all the time, yet I think it may have increased her willingness to disregard the rules whenever necessary to achieve her objectives. I'm fully expecting that in HPB Hermione's schemes will get her into a heap of trouble, at which time her blackmail of Rita will be exposed. On the other hand, I think JKR rather enjoys giving mean and amoral characters their just desserts, so perhaps she will vindicate Hermione's deal with Rita. (But even so, that doesn't mean Hermione's success with the Quibbler isn't part of a set-up for a spectacular failure in the coming books.) > 4. Rita Skeeter confirms the Daily Prophet is being pressured by > Fudge but also that since no one would want to hear of > Voldemort's return, they wouldn't print what Harry says > happened, > anyway, because it wouldn't sell. Do we want to take a guess on > how > actively the Prophet is participating in discrediting Harry and > Dumbledore? How much is actually Ministry coercion? In my mind, the Ministry's control of the Prophet is so complete that I think it's more likely than not that it is effectively a state-run newspaper, committed to publishing the party line. The speed of its about-face after the DoM seems to support this, as it would seem to take longer for mere pressure exerted on an independent publication to have its effect. However, when Big Brother himself calls, the flunkies do what they're told. > 5. How is Umbridge able to attend every Divination and Care of > Magical Creatures lesson and still teach her own Defense Against the > Dark Arts lessons? She must be using a Time-Turner. ;-) > 6. It's clear to Harry the dementors are out of the > Ministry's > control. Do you think the dementors left the Ministry entirely with > the Death Eater breakout? Or just that the MoM had lost > `control' of them and they stuck around for a while after > allowing > the DE s to escape? Fudge does not report their defection until he > finally admits LV returned but we know how reliable he and the > Prophet are. ;-) I think that Fudge's handling of the Dementors exemplifies his approach to government, in which all manner of evil is acceptable as long as Fudge hangs onto his power. I have no doubt that Fudge realized that the Dementors allowed the breakout to occur, yet left them in charge at Azkaban, just to maintain the illusion that he was in control. From the Death Eaters' perspective, Fudge's attitude is perfect: it's much better to leave them on guard pretending loyalty to the Ministry. This way they can control who escapes and who stays locked up. Debbie From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 17:07:33 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:07:33 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111797 SSSusan wrote: > So, is it the obvious, that Harry has to sacrifice himself? > > I've argued for quite some time that I think Harry's **willingness** > to sacrifice himself out of love for others will be the key to > Voldy's undoing...but I confess I'm holding to a hope that, while the > willingness will be necessary and will be present, he won't actually > have to die. Sap that I am. > Potioncat: Well, in our culture we use sacrifice differently than in the Bible. Jesus was an intentional sacrifice. We speak of firefighters sacrificing their lives. None of them intended to die, but they were willing to take the risk. I would expect Harry to risk his life, but I'm hoping he doesn't die. Potioncat From caesian at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 17:10:58 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:10:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tonks not male (was: Why is Tonks clumbsy?) In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040830004025.01eaaec0@pop.west.cox.net> References: <6.1.2.0.0.20040830004025.01eaaec0@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111798 On Aug 30, 2004, at 12:49 AM, Lindsay W. wrote: > Hi, I'm Lawless.? Long time lurker, first time poster.? > Maybe Tonks as we know her...is a disguise.? OR...Tonks spends so > much time > in disguise that she can't easily adjust to her "original" body. > > > A) She's "really" a he and has a hard time adjusting to the female > center > of balance. > > or > > B) She is a she, but spends a majority of her time as a he, so that > when > she finally becomes a female again, she has an extremely hard time > getting > used to it, again. > > > ...although she /is/ half-blood, and we can't REALLY know her > gender...or > her age, for that matter (she could really be OldMan!Tonks)...it > could all > be a lie... > > --Lawless > > Caesian responds: It's unlikely that Tonks is male, because her voice is apparently female. Unlike polyjuice potion, which does transform the voice, Tonks the metamorphmagus seems to retain her characteristic voice despite altered appearance. "I'm a metamorphmagus," she said, looking back at her reflection..."It means I can change my appearance at will." No mention of voice in that definition. (OotP, The Advance Guard) And while it is not stated explicitly, the text implies that Tonks in disguise still sounds like Tonks. For example, when she escorts Molly Weasley, Harry and Sirius to King's Cross: An old woman greeted them on the corner. She had tightly curled gray hair and wore a purple hat shaped like a porkpie. "Wotcher [i.e. What Cheer?], Harry," she said, winking. "Better hurry up,..." She is also in disguise on the journey back to Hogwarts on the nightbus, again as an older woman. And again, while there is no direct mention of her voice, she retains her characteristic speech patterns and vocabulary. I've read this to mean that while she may appear different, she will sound like herself. Cheers, Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlawlor at gmail.com Wed Sep 1 17:15:47 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:15:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96773c88040901101559f4623e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111799 KathyK: > 3. To what degree does the desire to see what's behind the door > negatively affect Harry's ability to master Occlumency? If this > desire, whether it be his or LV's, affects Harry does that then > mean > no matter how well Snape might teach and how hard Harry practices, > he would never be able to master it? James: I think Harry's desire to see behind the door (whether it comes from his own curiosity or is a "spillover" of Voldemort's obsession) plays a large part in his failure with Occlumency. Harry even admits this - thinking to himself that he *won't* practice because he *wants* to finish the dream. But ultimately, I think this (unfortunately) can be traced back to Dumbledore's Big Mistake in not teaching Harry Occlumency himself. Dumbledore would have obviously picked up on the fact that Harry was not practicing. Unlike Snape he wouldn't be tempted to ignore it in anger or blame Harry's attitude or perhaps think to himself something like "The great Harry Potter isn't as capable as well all thought - HAH". Dumbledore would have questioned Harry and probably gotten a confession (Hopefully by now Harry would have learned that when Dumbledore says things like "Is there anything you wish to tell me, Harry?" that it's better to let Dumbledore know what he's thinking before he finds himself and his friends in mortal danger). Dumbledore could also have used his gentler form of Legilimency to find out, although we don't know how specific it is (if it's too specific it would introduce a plot hole in CoS). Then the simplest solution to the problem would be to satisfy Harry's curiosity. Tell him what is in the room in the DoM and explain why Voldemort wants to know. That would also have been a good way to tell Harry about the Prophecy (certainly better than having to tell him after Harry had seen his Godfather die - not that I think Dumbledore should have waited any longer though). Of course, had that happened, the book would have been terribly boring. :D KathyK: > 5. How is Umbridge able to attend every Divination and Care of > Magical Creatures lesson and still teach her own Defense Against the > Dark Arts lessons? James: I imagine that Umbridge can rearrange the schedule however she desires - especially with regards to her own class. The schedules at Hogwarts seem to be much more flexible than say one's traditional American public school where generally you have a set schedule for the semester, since throughout the books people say things like "Ugh, we have double Potions with the Slytherins today". They could even change on a weekly basis. > 6. It's clear to Harry the dementors are out of the > Ministry's > control. Do you think the dementors left the Ministry entirely with > the Death Eater breakout? Or just that the MoM had lost > `control' of them and they stuck around for a while after > allowing > the DE s to escape? Fudge does not report their defection until he > finally admits LV returned but we know how reliable he and the > Prophet are. ;-) James: I don't imagine that all the Dementors suddenly up and left Azkaban - there's no possible way anyone could cover that up, unless Azkaban only had 10 prisoners and a few non-Dementor staff members that were absolutely loyal to Fudge. I think it's more likely that the Dementors relaxed their guard on specific DE prisoners aloowing them to escape, and then completely left (or were driven out) at the end of the book when Fudge had to admit that LV had indeed returned. KathyK: > 7. Harry, Cho, and the disastrous date. Actually I have no > question. Just thought they might be interesting should any of you > like to discuss it. James: Ahh, Harry... Poor guy has a lot to learn about what not to say on a date. But I didn't much like H/Cho anyway - I tend to prefer H/G and R/Hr, although I could see H/Hr happening (except - poor Ron!). - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 1 17:14:57 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:14:57 -0000 Subject: Master of this school Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111800 Just a comment on this topic - Could Master of this school be a title for the number 3 person in charge? We have DD - Headmaster, McGonagall - Deputy Headmistress, Snape - Master of school. We often see DD, McGonagall, and Snape together when dealing with problems around the school. Also, McGonagall and Snape have a different relationship (friendly rivalry) with each other than they have with the rest of the staff. Snape often knows things that the other teachers do not know because IMO he is part of the administration staff of Hogwarts. So my vote goes to the Master of the School being the person who gets the reigns when both the Headmaster/mistress and Deputy Headmaster/mistress are absent or unavailable. The Master of the School would have remained at Hogwarts in the PS/SS opening chapter when DD and McGonagall were at Privet Drive. - Karen From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 17:26:50 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:26:50 -0000 Subject: Line of command wasRe: Master of this school In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111801 Karen wrote > Just a comment on this topic - > > Could Master of this school be a title for the number 3 person in > charge? > Potioncat: Well, I think Snape is too young for that, even though it does seem that we see a lot of him and very little of Sprout or Flitwick. It may be due to his role in the Order. In fact, McGonagall is pretty young too, at least to become Headmistress. DD must have been around 120 or 130 when he became Headmaster and she is just in her 70s. Potioncat (who still wonders how so many young people seem to advance so quickly in the WW) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 1 14:32:13 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:32:13 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111802 Zendemort: Why did he call himself "Master of this school" as opposed to "Professor of this school"? It's the emphasis on the word "master" which shows dominance and power. -------------- Tonks: It is sort of like saying "with the full power invested in me I hereby demand that you show yourself" It is in sense a spell directed to the map to show itself, and it is a spell that requires a show of dominance and power. Ginger chimes in: What strikes me is the context of his statement. Going to p. 286 of the US paperback, he first asks Harry what it is, gets nowhere with that, then taps the paper with his wand and says "reveal your secret". Nothing happens. He says "show yourself" and taps it again. Nothing happens. Then he gives it the "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal." and *hits* it with his wand. Immediately, the paper responds. My little theory is that at some time in the past, Masters and Mistresses of the school (as they would have been known then) were given a spell to force magical things found in the possession of students to reveal themselves. We have seen that the map is semi-sentient, so it would have known that this would be a really good time to stay incognito as a scrap of paper, and it tries to do so. But under that command (or spell?) it is forced to say something, so it does so in its own charming way. It insults Snape. Dungrollin can't stop herself: The map didn't respond at first, because he didn't say `I solemnly swear that I am up to no good' (or whatever it was exactly), but I always assumed that the map eventually did respond because he used the words `Severus Snape', (rather than the pompous `Master of this school' bit) and it couldn't resist insulting him. If Snape was always sneaking around trying to work out what the marauders were up to, and trying to get them expelled, it seems in keeping with their characters that when building in the `insult- anyone-who-tries-to-read-you-without-the-proper-incantation' charm, they'd have added a few personalised insults in case Snape was the one who found it. Dungrollin From sali-ii at lycos.com Wed Sep 1 12:32:09 2004 From: sali-ii at lycos.com (Sali Morris) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:32:09 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School Message-ID: <20040901123210.886423384D@ws7-3.us4.outblaze.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111803 Kathryn: > > Even in the UK you wouldn't have referred to the teacher as Master, it's an > archaic synonym for teacher (probably bases on their qualifications as > mentioned by someone else) not a term like Mr. or Mrs. The staff would be > referred to as the masters rather than the teachers . When addressing the teachers you wouldn't use master or mistress > > > K > > Now Sali: In addition to everything Kathryn has said, here's a snippet from the OED online: Master (n.)(snipped various other meanings and usages of the word) II A teacher; a person qualified to teach. 11. A man to whose care a child or children are committed for instruction, esp. in a school; a male teacher or tutor; a schoolmaster. Also: a male teacher of a particular subject; chiefly with distinguishing word, as dancing, French master, etc. (Sali - or Potions master :)) The title of Professor in the wizarding world seems to be a courtesy title as we have no evidence of the existence of wizarding universities (everything Kathryn said about the UK use of the title is correct - think it's intended to give academics power over other academics). As many others have said, you wouldn't use Master as a title in this case (eg Master Snape, teacher of this school) anymore and can anyone really see Snape submitting to being a plain Mr? Sali -- _______________________________________________ Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10 From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 18:20:41 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:20:41 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111804 There's a passage in Terry Pratchett's "The Fifth Elephant" where his protagonist, Vimes, is appalled to find a troll's head mounted on the wall of the embassy he has just taken over. Pratchett certainly uses this as a bit of social commentary, as SSSSusan suggests JKR is doing with the umbrella stand. I just hope Jo gets the next book out soon, before we all drive ourselves mad trying to find significance in such bizarre references. We need something REAL to get our teeth in. Sylvia (sorry to sound like someone's maiden aunt) From garybec101 at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 18:32:26 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:32:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111805 > 1. In GoF, Hermione discovers Rita Skeeter's secret about being > an unregistered animagus. To ensure Rita never lies about anyone in > her articles, Hermione tells her she can't do any writing for a > year or Hermione will turn her in. But in Chapter 25 of OoP we see > Hermione has added terms to their agreement. Rather than just keep > silent, Rita Skeeter must now do what Hermione asks of her. It > seems Hermione might have crossed a line or at least entered a gray > area. At first, Hermione was teaching Rita a lesson-not to write > nasty lies. But now she's * using* her knowledge to blackmail > Rita into doing her bidding. Granted, it's for a good cause but > do > Hermione's means justify the end? > > At the Edinburgh Book Festival, JKR said we would be seeing more of > Rita Skeeter. Will Hermione continue to blackmail her? Does Rita > Skeeter deserve everything she gets? Becki thinks; That Rita would have come around anyway if Hermione didn't jump in and play the "animagus card". She was ready to go until she found out that it would be in the Quibbler, and still is considering it until she found out she was going to have to do it for free. Perhaps she would have writen it just to write something. I do think that since it was published in the Prophet anyway, she will get her notoriety for it, perhaps even a WW version of the Pulitzer. > > 4. Rita Skeeter confirms the Daily Prophet is being pressured by > Fudge but also that since no one would want to hear of > Voldemort's return, they wouldn't print what Harry says > happened, > anyway, because it wouldn't sell. Do we want to take a guess on > how > actively the Prophet is participating in discrediting Harry and > Dumbledore? How much is actually Ministry coercion? Becki wonders too that if Fudge has so much power over what the Prophet prints, why did they make the MoM appear like baffoons in the GoF? Where was the control then? Or could perhaps with the absence of Rita Skeeter, there wasn't anyone viscious enough to carry on anymore? Or- could there be DE's working at the Prophet, therefore changing the direction of the articles now that you-know- who is back? Becki From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 18:49:38 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:49:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > 1. .... To ensure Rita never lies about anyone in her articles, > > Hermione tells her she can't do any writing for a year or Hermione > > will turn her in. But in Chapter 25 of OoP we see Hermione has > > added terms to their agreement. Rather than just keep silent, > > Rita Skeeter must now do what Hermione asks of her. It seems > > Hermione might have crossed a line or at least entered a gray > > area. > Debbie: > > I don't think so. To be honest, there's something very unsettling > about the fact that she assembles a pair of people she has little or > no respect for (Rita and Luna) and gets them to do her bidding. > While principles do sometimes trump the law, blackmailing a well- > known reporter is a very different and more morally questionable > form of rulebreaking than, for example, stealing potion ingredients, > as it involves the assertion of power and control. I think Hermione > is treading dangerous ground with Rita -- and was even before she > rewrote the deal. > Asian_lovr2: Let's take an cold objective look at the Hermione/Rita situation from the outside. In essense, Hermione is saying to a criminal, act in a moral, ethical, and legal manner, or I will tell people you are a criminal. While that may technically fit the definition of Blackmail, is anyone really going to see it that way? Another example; if you tell your kids, do your chores or else ...no allowance. That's blackmail, but would anyone really consider it blackmail? I think not in both cases. On another subject, is Rita really going to hold a grudge against Hermione for giving her the biggest story of the year. In journalistic circles, Rita would be a hero; the lone voice of reason standing against an oppressive government making sure the people heard the truth. They'll probably give her an award. She be the most in-demand reporter in Britian. She'll probably be asked to go on a speaking tour. No, I really don't think Rita has anything to complain about, either in being 'blackmailed' into being a responsible, ethical, and legal person, or in being give an exclusive to the biggest story of the decade. As far as Hermione being headed for a fall; I think we can all agree that independant of Rita, Hermione has to screw up big time sooner or later. > > 4. Rita Skeeter confirms the Daily Prophet is being pressured by > > Fudge ... they wouldn't print what Harry says happened, anyway, > > because it wouldn't sell. Do we want to take a guess on how > > actively the Prophet is participating in discrediting Harry and > > Dumbledore? How much is actually Ministry coercion? > > In my mind, the Ministry's control of the Prophet is so complete > that I think it's more likely than not that it is effectively a > state-run newspaper, committed to publishing the party line. ... > However, when Big Brother himself calls, the flunkies do what > they're told. Asian_lovr2: I don't think anyone would argue that the wizard world falls a little short of a democracy. While an open and free society, it is run by an assortment of committees which inveriably results in a good old boys network. For those who do you favors, you do favors, and for those you oppose, the 'favor' gravy train is cut off. No one can afford to get on the bad side of the current crop of 'good old boys' who are in power. So, the Daily Prophet would be very likely to cooperate. In addition, since the Ministry is complete refuting the claim that Voldemort is back, the Prophet leans in the direction that the wind is blowing. Since they can't show Harry as a Hero, which get's boring very quickly anyway, they show him in a negative light. Let's face it, we see very little positive news in any medium. Bad new sells papers; if it bleeds it leads. From the paper perspective, it far more interesting to show Harry as a mad delinquent. So, I think we are seening a combination of factors coming into play. The return of Voldemort is being completely discredited, and the Prophet is continuing in it's effort to show Harry in a bad light, except now it is being egged on by the Ministry which is helping set the tone and direction of Harry's discreditation. > > 6. It's clear to Harry the dementors are out of the Ministry's > > control. Do you think the dementors left the Ministry entirely > > with the Death Eater breakout? ... > Debbie: > > I think that Fudge's handling of the Dementors exemplifies his > approach to government, in which all manner of evil is acceptable as > long as Fudge hangs onto his power. I have no doubt that Fudge > realized that the Dementors allowed the breakout to occur, yet left > them in charge at Azkaban, just to maintain the illusion that he was > in control. ... > > Debbie Asian_lovr2: I really don't have too much to say specifically on the Dementors, but I do think that both Fudge and Umbridge are going to face a day of public reckoning for their actions. In Fudge's case, I don't think he will be Minister much longer. Given that he absolutely insisted and gave full assuances that Voldemort was not back just days before he had to admit that he'd seen him with is own eyes, I think he would be too disgraced to hang around. If he's smart, he'll voluntarily go off to life of retirement and seclusion. Umbridge, I don't think will have to face full criminal penalties for what she did, but it will become generally known and she to will be a public disgrace. In a sense, she carries a double disgrace, she will certainly be tarred with the same brush as Fudge, but she has the additional disgrace of sending the Dementors after the boy who is now, again, the darling hero of the wizard world. Now the question becomes, will two shunned and disgraced ex-ministry officials be ripe for picking by the DE's? Given their situation, I think they could be swayed to Voldemort's side. Just a few thoughts. Steve/asian_lovr (was bboy_mn) From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 1 18:54:08 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:54:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizards' Ages References: <1094044290.94454.90099.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002c01c49055$10639c80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 111807 Finwitch wrote: >Teaching - well, possibly. But anyone wanting a NEW job is probably >young, considering the old ones are either employed or retired >already. If the WW is in a steady or a rising state population-wise, then the Ministry would continue to want new staff from Hogwarts graduates every year. Given the entrance requirements, it would probably take a majority of them. But it's refreshing to know that the WW doesn't appear to be a gerontocracy and that the Percies and Tonkses of this world don't have to wait for 50 people more senior than them to retire before they can get anywhere! >And as to how it didn't come up yet... I mean, plotwise, how could it >have? What could bring out Harry's interest? Now that he's met >someone older than Dumbledore, he might have wanted to ask about it, >(but Dumbledore was away, as well as any other adult he *could* ask >such a question). When Dumbledore met Harry, there was the Sirius' >death to worry about etc. One interesting point is that you'd expect there to be far more grandparents in evidence than there actually are. The only one we come across (AFAIK) is grandma Longbottom, and even she's a widow. As JKR has said that there's nothing noteworthy about Harry's grandparents, then I presume that this is just perspective and that there wasn't an enormous cull of elders during Voldemort's rebellion! (The WW doesn't in any case behave as if it's recently had this size of trauma,) Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 1 19:05:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:05:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111808 > > Debbie: > > > > I don't think so. To be honest, there's something very unsettling about the fact that she assembles a pair of people she has little or no respect for (Rita and Luna) and gets them to do her bidding. >> > > > Asian_lovr2:> > In essense, Hermione is saying to a criminal, act in a moral, ethical, and legal manner, or I will tell people you are a criminal. While that may technically fit the definition of Blackmail, is anyone really going to see it that way potioncat: It would depend on who was "looking." Hermione didn't have the authority to do this. What if your neighbor allowed a criminal to rent his house as long as he "behaved." Steve: Another example; if you tell your kids, do > your chores or else ...no allowance. That's blackmail, but would > anyone really consider it blackmail? I think not in both cases. Potioncat: But parents have the authority to make and enforce rules. Hermione had no such authority. Had Lucius Malfoy done something like this we'd be very upset. In fact, I've said it before, except for the unfortunate circumstances of her birth, Hermione would make a good Slytherin. Potioncat who thinks Gryffindors and Slytherins have a lot of traits in common. From ejblack at rogers.com Wed Sep 1 19:43:06 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:43:06 -0000 Subject: Tonks not male (was: Why is Tonks clumbsy?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111809 RE the whole Tonks is clumsy because of center of balance changes between male/female etc. What about Rita Skeeter? She goes from a woman to a beetle, yet there is no mention of her being clumsy. Jeanette From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 20:06:33 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <005201c48fa9$33bc25f0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: <20040901200633.32463.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111810 > LadyKat now: > Any ideas? I just cannot accept the idea that DD NEVER looked > into the GH/Sirius betrayal/PP murder more thouroughly. The idea > that he just blindly accepted the party line is almost sacriligious > (in my mind) :)) Maybe he felt that the safest place for Sirius to > be was in Azkaban? We know that he (DD) was willing to have Harry > grow up in a place that was quite unpleasant, just to ensure his > survival. So why not extend the same logic to Sirius? DD may have > felt that in order to keep Sirius alive (maybe to protect him from > himself - he is well-known for acting first and thinking second), > he needed to be locked up. Yes - it stinks - but Sirius will > survive. I don't think Dumbledore was protecting Sirius by putting him in storage in Azkaban. It was never Dumbledore's job to determine Sirius' guilt or not, and Dumbledore had James Potter's assurance that Sirius would never betray him and his family as Secret-Keeper. There was no reason for Dumbledore to suspect that the entire set-up wasn't what it appeared to be. And Sirius never helped himself - either at the time or during POA. He was fixated both times on getting his hands on Pettigrew rather than on coming up with a rational (ie, telling someone else or at least leaving a freaking note) explanation for everyone else. And while I know that he was in the grip of great emotion, had just been betrayed by someone he thought a friend, was grieving for James and Lily, etc. etc. - that doesn't explain why he didn't have more of a clue in POA. A better question IMO would be - why did so many people who KNEW that Sirius and James were like brothers, etc. etc. believe that Sirius was still capable of the most brutal, treacherous betrayal imaginable? Why did Remus believe it? Why did Dumbledore? What was it about Sirius that made it credible that he would sign up with Voldemort? Was it his family background? Did people say "Well, turns out he was a Real Black all along"? Or was it his way of looking at things? In OOTP he's all in favour of the idea of Dumbledore's Army because there's no way he and James would not have ragged "a hag" like Umbridge while they were students. (And his support for the idea makes Hermione doubt it even though it was her idea in the first place.) Did people wonder about his judgement? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 20:13:39 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:13:39 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <01c201c48ef9$2afa63b0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111811 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > > From: > > > 13) He learned that Tom Riddle was the last remaining descendent of > > Salazar Slytherin (pretty unbalanced to learn that much about > > Slytherin and nothing about Gryffindor :). > > > > Charme: > > I would submit only one change to #13: Tom Riddle SAYS he's the last > remaining descendent of Salazar Slytherin. > > Has JKR said specifically said somewhere that Tom Riddle is really the last > remaining descendent of Slytherin? I also don't think DD has ever really > confirmed this in any of the books thus far, has he? > > Just a thought - correct me please if I am mistaken > [snips] > Charme Pat here: I've been re-reading and re-watching the COS movie because of these questions. And I do have an answer for this one. Yes, Dumbledore actually says that Tom Riddle is the last descendant/ancestor of Slytherin. (Note--in the HB version, it says descendant; int the PB version with a LATER publishing date it is changed back to ancestor-- interesting.) This is from Chapter 18, page 332-333, Dobby's Reward (US hardback) "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort--who IS the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin--can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." Pat From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 1 20:20:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:20:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111812 KathyK: At first, Hermione was teaching Rita a lesson-not to write nasty lies. But now she's * using* her knowledge to blackmail Rita into doing her bidding. Granted, it's for a good cause but do Hermione's means justify the end? < > At the Edinburgh Book Festival, JKR said we would be seeing more of Rita Skeeter. Will Hermione continue to blackmail her? Does Rita Skeeter deserve everything she gets?< Pippin: We've already seen Hermione resort to questionable methods in trying to free the House Elves, much to Ron's dismay. It's also interesting that Fred and George seem to have the moral high ground over her in this area. What Bagman did was just as bad, but Fred and George refused to use blackmail against him. Plus, Hermione's a bit careless, isn't she? She already knows there's a danger of being overheard in pubs, yet she says out loud that Rita is an illegal animagus. She might have been overheard. That would make it possible for other people to blackmail Rita. We've already been told that blackmail is one of Voldemort's favorite tactics for recruiting supporters. Here's another Rowling quote from the Vancouver Sun article of October 26, 2000: "because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble.'' I think Hermione is one who might find herself in deep trouble. JKR might also being using Hermione's foray into blackmail to prepare us for a situation where blackmail is or was being used and we don't know about it. We're told that blackmail is one of Voldemort's favorite methods of recruiting followers, but so far we haven't seen it applied. JKR has a tactic --show us with the good guys, tell us with the bad guys, which she used with illegal animagi and polyjuice. There's also another illegal animagus who could have been subjected to blackmail: Peter Pettigrew. Pippin who expects we'll see the bad guys use a time turner too. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 1 20:34:29 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:34:29 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111813 SSSusan wrote: > > So, is it the obvious, that Harry has to sacrifice himself? > > > > I've argued for quite some time that I think Harry's > > **willingness** to sacrifice himself out of love for others will > > be the key to Voldy's undoing...but I confess I'm holding to a > > hope that, while the willingness will be necessary and will be > > present, he won't actually have to die. Sap that I am. Potioncat: > Well, in our culture we use sacrifice differently than in the > Bible. Jesus was an intentional sacrifice. We speak of > firefighters sacrificing their lives. None of them intended to > die, but they were willing to take the risk. I would expect Harry > to risk his life, but I'm hoping he doesn't die. SSSusan: We're probably arguing semantics here, but I'd say that while I understand the difference you're pointing to, there isn't all that much difference in the sense of its being a conscious, intensional decision in both cases. What firefighters do is different from what Jesus did in making a conscious decision *to* die, but every time they go into a burning building to save someone, they are presumably making a conscious decision to die *if need be,* to sacrifice themselves for another. It's just that many times they're lucky/blessed to not have to follow through with that sacrifice. So if it comes down to this, then I think it's the same for Harry. That is, I think for it to be true sacrificial love, Harry must not just think that he's doing something risky but must UNDERSTAND that he is risking his life and KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, choose to enter into whatever the situation calls for, including sacrificing his own life out of love for others. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 1 20:46:07 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:46:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <005201c48fa9$33bc25f0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111814 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathi Russell" wrote: > > It does seem, on the surface, to make NO sense whatsoever, for DD to not have investigated the events at GH more thouroughly and to be more certain of Sirius' guilt. Knowing DD as we _think_ we do, it in no way adds up to a logical chain of events. > What was there to investigate, though? James and Lily had been in hiding for a week. So had Sirius and Peter. No one had seen them, so there were no witnesses to their movements prior to the attack on the Potters. Lupin would testify that the Potters had intended to choose Sirius as their secret keeper, and there were all those Muggles saying they'd seen Sirius attack Peter. Dumbledore could have interviewed Sirius, but I can think of a good reason why he didn't. We know that before the attack on the Potters, Dumbledore already suspected that Sirius might be the traitor. That means that he felt Sirius was capable of lying to him. He must have suspected that Sirius was an Occlumens, and probably a Legilimens as well. Dumbledore was the only one who knew the precautions which he had taken to protect baby Harry, and how they might be defeated. It would not be a good thing for that knowledge to fall into the hands of Voldemort's second-in-command. Whatever Sirius learned from Dumbledore, he might pass to others or to the Dementors, whom Dumbledore considered Voldemort's natural allies. Pippin From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 20:58:12 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:58:12 -0000 Subject: More COS clues: Dobby related Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111815 After reading all the theories on the clues in COS that JKR hints at in several interviews and on her web site, I decided to re-watch the movie--I had already re-read the book recently, looking for some of the clues. Most of them have been mentioned and discussed on the Book Two Discoveries (#111511). So one of the things that seems prominant in both the book and the movie are the powers that Dobby has. We've already talked about his ability to do wandless magic, seemingly apparate and disapparate (even in Hogwarts), he enchants a bludger, seals the entrance to the Hogwarts Express, and purloins all of Harry's summer letters. Even though he isn't supposed to leave his family's house, he does--to warn Harry several times. One of the things I've been looking for is something that was in the movie that was definitely not in the book--because at one point JKR mentions there is something that foreshadows the future books and that she ok'd it. I think I have found it, and wonder why I never noticed it before. Here it is: In the book, after Harry has returned the damaged diary to Lucius inside the sock, Lucius throws it at Dobby, (thereby freeing Dobby). Ch. 18, p. 338, US hardback: "You'll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days, Harry Potter," he [Lucius] said softly. "They were meddlesome fools, too." He then turns to leave, telling Dobby to come along, but Dobby has the sock and says: "Master threw it [the sock], and Dobby caught it, and Dobby--Dobby is FREE." Lucius Malfoy stood frozen, staring at the elf. Then he lunged at Harry. "You've lost me my servant, boy!" But Dobby shouted, "You shall not harm Harry Potter!" There was a loud bang, and Mr. Malfoy was thrown backward. He crashed down the stairs..... "You shall go now," he [Dobby] siad fiercely, pointing down at Mr. Malfoy. "You shall not touch Harry Potter. You shall go now." ************ So, what's the difference in the movie that I think is a clue? Harry slips the sock in the diary and Malfoy hands it to Dobby--a little different, but essentially the same. When Malfoy realizes that Dobby has been freed, he PULLS OUT HIS WAND, points it at Harry, and says something that sounds like "Avada", then is blasted off his feet by Dobby before he can finish the curse. The rest is similar to the book. Now, what I am wondering is about the part that shows that Dobby can stop the avada kedavra curse with whatever that powerful magic is that house elves have, when many wizards aren't able to do it. Of course, Lucius didn't complete the curse, but Dobby was quick enough to prevent that. Whenever we see the use of the AK, the wizard or muggle seems to be paralyzed and unable to do anything to prevent the completion of the curse--and at that point there is no fighting against it. Even Harry and Cedric are unable to do anything about it in the graveyard in GOF. Is this some sort of foreshadowing that the house elves--or at least, Dobby, will be instrumentlal in aiding Harry in the future? In both the book and the movie, the short conversation that Harry has with Dobby after that is full of Dobby thanking Harry for freeing him, and Harry asking Dobby to "promise never to try to save my life again." And in both, Dobby smiles, but doesn't say anything. Ideas? Thoughts? Pat From caesian at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 21:14:37 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:14:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111816 On Aug 30, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Regular readers of this board will be familiar with my take on the HP? > saga - that it's more a mystery tale in form and structure than? > anything else. That we are constantly being challenged with ambiguous? > characters performing ambiguous actions, usually in situations where > we? > have limited or incomplete information. And that we should see it as? > our bounden duty to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and to > present? > a neat and tidy explanation to what the hell is going on. Caesian: What!? Really, this view, coming from Kneasy, is shocking. "Neat and tidy"?! This is like Lupin turning out to be ESE! Snape handing out sweets! My reading comprehension must be slipping. I distinctly remember more of an *unrepentent and bloody* leaning in prior posts. I'll take issue and bite here - the series has not been following the mystery genre, so well characterized by tidy endings. My money is on the glaring lack of resolution for many apparent inconsistencies and ambiguous actions. Snape? Neat and tidy? Not even if he is seen snogging Lily Potter and writing poetry about it - he'd rather die than be neat and tidy. Perish the thought. Will the life and death of Sirius Black ever be unambiguous? Kneasy: > I quite often get castigated for thinking along these lines - "Not? > everything is a conspiracy" True, but I? tend to specifically target? > those bits that *could* be explained by such thinking. Caesian: I too take a dim view of those who underestimate conspiracy as a [the?] basic state of human affairs. Anyone who has ever left two 8-year old kids in a room with cookies (or two Bushes in a room with Saudis) has a conspiracy to contend with. Human nature. However, everything is most certainly NOT up-for-grabs in the Potterverse, if we hold to some basic rules of reading comprehension. Kneasy continues: > An unwillingness to even consider the merits of a theory that has an? > arguable canonical base (even though it may eventually turn out to be? > wrong) shows a deplorable lack of intellectual curiosity IMO. What's? > the point of entering a discussion with pre-formed,? > never-to-be-modified-under-any-circumstances-I-don't-care-what-can-be- > derived-from-canon conclusions clutched firmly to the bosom? Caesian: It is a simple matter and enjoyable of scholarship to offer arguments based on Canon. Many a time has such a theory as "Mundungus (or Ginny) is Crookshanks" been slain by the expedient Canon reference (all 3 appear in the same room at the same time in OotP). The great thing about these false theories is that, like hydra, it takes many a noble poster to subdue the beast - we all feel like heroes once in a while standing over the carcass of "Percy Imperius" and its ilk. However, there is another, less-explicit level of reading comprehension. Derived from canon, yes, but as much from the spirit and repeated patterns presented as specific scenes or dialogue. What, based on this gestalt, is never-to-be-modified? First of all, the author is adhering to basic rules of morality and fair play. She does not lie to us, or withhold vital clues. It is very, very unlikely - based on existing Canon - that trusted and sympathetic adults in Harry's life (such as Dumbledore, Lupin or Lily and James Potter) - will be revealed as evil incarnate. While it is true that many of these possibilities cannot be excluded based on rational extension from the letter of the canon, such an outcome would not be consistent with the spirit of the existing text. The published books have a strong moral tone ("it is our choices...", "what is right vs. what is easy..."). Further, the plot has followed a pattern that excludes major reversals for "good" characters: thus far, no Major character, presented from the outset as sympathetic or trusted by Harry, has been reversed. GoF Moody does not count, because he was an imposter. Quirrell, Riddle, Pettigrew, Fudge, Bagman et al. are marginalized characters that have minimal direct interaction with Harry. Ron's snit-fit in GoF was not a major betrayal. Percy is acting like a git, not a spawn of Voldemort. Good characters are not Lily-white, unambiguous (boring) folk. But their flaws are not equivalent to horrible betrayal. Second, in each book, characters that are perceived by Harry as suspect or hostile are revealed to be at least ambiguous - and often much more positive - than at their initial presentation. Major characters in this pattern include Hermione (not a swot), Snape (not trying to kill Harry), Sirius Black (ditto) and Malfoy (not Heir-of-Slytherin). Minor characters who enjoy a positive re-appraisal include Dobby, Krum, Fleur, Barty Crouch Sr, Zacharias Smith, Dean Thomas, Luna Lovegood, Neville, and (even) Trelawney. In fact, the vast majority of minor characters enjoy a moment in the sun, even if they can be less than perfect. Harry, and the reader though his experience, are repeatedly chastened for holding less-than-Dumbledore attitudes towards others. Kneasy: > And make no mistake, conspiracy and betrayal is at the heart of HP;? > it's what makes it tick; it's the skeleton that is fleshed out with > all? > the other bits and pieces. Caesian: I would say, rather, that the danger of false assumptions is at the heart of HP. The pattern established by Canon is to never assume with absolute certainty the worst of an ambiguous character, nor assume the best about someone you don't know. Sirius Black should have been trusted (or at least given a chance to defend himself). Percy should not extend blanket trust to Ministry Officials. Will the ultimate reality of the Potterverse be that no one can be trusted? The spirit of the Canon, thus far, seems to be directly opposed to this view. Dumbledore trusts when others do not, and this, based on Harry's experience so far, is the path to truth. Dumbledore's one, grievous error thus far was his failure to fully confide in and trust Harry. Therefore, the never-to-be-modified rules of speculation about the Potterverse (for what THAT is worth) are thus: Do not assume you can fully understand based on limited information Consider the source Do not be too hasty in your judgment of others Be willing to forgive or give a second chance Don't hold your breath for neat and tidy - people will not always fit neatly into your stereotype Those who profess to like you, or take your side at one time, are not necessarily your best friends Sometimes you need to disagree with those you care for Good people can make mistakes Those who don't like you are not necessarily bad people And that's as neat and tidy as I can make it, Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 1 21:21:39 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:21:39 -0000 Subject: More COS clues: Dobby related In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111817 Pat: Is this some sort of foreshadowing that > the house elves--or at least, Dobby, will be instrumentlal in aiding > Harry in the future? > Luckdragon: I believe that all of the magical creatures will be forced to choose a side before the end of the series and each of the different species on Harry's side will be instrumental in some way in helping the good side win over the dark side. I think each species will also make sacrifices and suffer deaths in their efforts. I don't think Dobby can stop the curse after it has been uttered, but it is interesting that he is able to act before it happens although I believe during the fight at the ministry there were several attempts by deatheaters to use the death curse and they were stopped by various means. From jmay_71 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 22:07:30 2004 From: jmay_71 at yahoo.com (jmay_71) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:07:30 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <20040901162105.45547.qmail@web90003.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111818 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sp. sot." wrote: > > > "Brenda M." wrote: > > (EDIT) > I just had an amusing thought right now. How did Tom Riddle know that > his mother carried the blood of Salazar Slytherin? > > Griffin782002 now: > > I have been thinking about Tom Riddle's mother. If I am not wrong they were living in the same village. When he left her, he probably retunred to his parents. If she was following Slytherin's beliefs, and was like the students of Slytherin house why she didn't try to punish him, like her son did years later? What if she wasn't in Slytherin? The whole Black family was in Slytherin exept Surius who made another choice. I wonder if she once made a choice against Slytherin's beliefs. > Jmay: If she was following Slytherin's beliefs, what was she doing with a muggle? That would be a big choice against Slytherin. Also, has anyone ever noticed that even thought all pureblood families are related, none are related to the biggest pureblood fanatic, Slytherin? The only one who is, is a half-blood. Are we absolutely sure that Tom Riddle is Slytherin's heir because of his mother? Just cause Tom said so, doesn't make it so... Just a few additional thoughts... Please be kind :) From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 1 22:17:36 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:17:36 -0000 Subject: More COS clues: Dobby related In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > Pat: > > Is this some sort of foreshadowing that > > the house elves--or at least, Dobby, will be instrumentlal in > aiding > > Harry in the future? > > > Luckdragon: > > I believe that all of the magical creatures will be forced to > choose a side before the end of the series and each of the different > species on Harry's side will be instrumental in some way in helping > the good side win over the dark side. I think each species will also > make sacrifices and suffer deaths in their efforts. I don't think > Dobby can stop the curse after it has been uttered, but it is > interesting that he is able to act before it happens although I > believe during the fight at the ministry there were several attempts > by deatheaters to use the death curse and they were stopped by > various means. Pat here: Yes, I thought of that too. But I think the people doing the stopping were fairly powerful wizards--and then, the statues that had been enchanted by Dumbledore, or by someone else. The part that I found significant was that Dobby had that kind of quickness or power--I think it might be some indication that the house elves will play an important role in the last two books. And yes, I agree--I think everyone will have to make a choice (a prevalent theme throughout the books) about whether to join with the good or evil side. Dobby seems to have made that choice already by coming to Harry's defense throughout COS--and then later in GOF. Pat From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Sep 1 22:24:51 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:24:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: . > > Dumbledore could have interviewed Sirius, but I can think of a > good reason why he didn't. We know that before the attack on > the Potters, Dumbledore already suspected that Sirius might be > the traitor. Marianne: Granted I haven't reread any of the books in over a year, but I don't recall Dumbledore saying that he suspected Sirius was the traitor. From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Sep 1 22:35:01 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:35:01 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <005201c48fa9$33bc25f0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathi Russell" <> > LadyKat now: Any ideas? I just cannot accept the idea that DD NEVER looked into the GH/Sirius betrayal/PP murder more thouroughly. The idea that he just blindly accepted the party line is almost sacriligious (in my mind) :)) Maybe he felt that the safest place for Sirius to be was in Azkaban? We know that he (DD) was willing to have Harry grow up in a place that was quite unpleasant, just to ensure his survival. So why not extend the same logic to Sirius? DD may have felt that in order to keep Sirius alive (maybe to protect him from himself - he is well- known for acting first and thinking second), he needed to be locked up. Yes - it stinks - but Sirius will survive. Marianne: Perhaps at the time Dumbledore was more forgiving or accepting of the Ministry and how it was run, and thus, more likely to accept their judgment. Perhaps he felt that the Ministry, while not holding a trial, was doing some sort of appropriate investigation because at some point someone asked Dumbledore for his input and he was able to attest that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. It does seem a bit off to me, especially in someone famous for giving people second chances and the benefit of the doubt. I'd think at least one quick visit for a final chat with Sirius would have been in character. I don't think that DD would have left Sirius at Azkaban to keep him safe. We hear over and over about how it affects people's sanity/mental state. Keeping someone locked up there indefinitely seems like a horrible risk to take, if you expect to get them out some time in the future with their brains moderately intact. Of course, if you subscribe to the idea of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, keeping Sirius locked up makes perfect sense. I absolutely hate that idea, but I can see where it can fit. Marianne From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Sep 1 22:57:29 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:57:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111822 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Debbie: > > > > > > I don't think so. To be honest, there's something very > unsettling about the fact that she assembles a pair of people she > has little or no respect for (Rita and Luna) and gets them to do > her bidding. > >> > > > > > Asian_lovr2:> > > In essense, Hermione is saying to a criminal, act in a moral, > ethical, and legal manner, or I will tell people you are a criminal. > While that may technically fit the definition of Blackmail, is > anyone really going to see it that way > > > potioncat: > It would depend on who was "looking." Hermione didn't have the > authority to do this. What if your neighbor allowed a criminal to > rent his house as long as he "behaved." > > Steve: > Another example; if you tell your kids, do > > your chores or else ...no allowance. That's blackmail, but would > > anyone really consider it blackmail? I think not in both cases. > > Potioncat: > But parents have the authority to make and enforce rules. Hermione > had no such authority. Had Lucius Malfoy done something like this > we'd be very upset. Marianne: I think Potioncat hits on the very note that allows us (or a lot of us) to give Hermione some wiggle room in her actions. We think her motivations are good, whereas we know we can't trust Malfoy. Hermione's not trying to enrich herself or gain something for herself. She's not making Rita do something simply because she holds power over her. She's doing it because she believes she's acting for the greater good. It's very Hermione-ish. SPEW is for the good of the elves. Leading Umbridge to the centaurs is for the greater good of getting out of Dolores' clutches so that she and Harry can do even more good things. And, I think it is exactly this sort of thing that will blow up in her face in Book 6 ot 7. She'll take some sort of arbitrary, manipulative action that she thinks is for the greater good, and this time she will find out that she doesn't have all the answers and that good intentions don't always excuse one's behavior. Marianne From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Sep 1 22:58:51 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:58:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School Message-ID: <1c8.1e094fd8.2e67ae2b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111823 In a message dated 9/1/2004 1:40:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, spinelli372003 at yahoo.com writes: In the United States public school system it is customary to call the teachers Mr. or Mrs., not Master. There is a Principal who is the head of the school. In private schools there is a headmaster. He is still called Mr., very seldom called Headmaster although some do. My son goes to a private Military Academy with a Headmaster ================= Sherrie here: That is true in the modern system - just add "Ms." in there. However, in Victorian times the terms "master" and "mistress" were in fairly common use to refer to teachers - of anything. I recall one Civil War general who was a "dancing master" in his civilian life; and Fannie Adams (later Chamberlain) was a "music mistress" in Georgia before returning to Maine to marry Josh. (Josh himself had been a schoolmaster - as a teenager.) And an ancestor of mine referred to himself as a "school master" in an 1862 letter to his brother, of which we have a copy. And not just teachers - Philinda Humiston was listed as the "wardrobe mistress" of the Soldiers' Orphans' Home in Gettysburg in the late 1860s. Sherrie (whose head is just STUFFED with such useless information) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Wed Sep 1 23:39:09 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya Swaine) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:39:09 +1200 Subject: Help - need a reference Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040902113723.02912eb0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 111824 This has frustrated me. I'm sure that in one of the books, there was a paragraph that described Harry noticing Snape's mood hadn't improved over the holidays. Does anyone know the book and page reference. I haven't been able to find it. Thanks, Tanya From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 00:00:21 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:21 -0000 Subject: more questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: > "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 want anythin' to do with the Dark Side." p 55 > > I don't know why this stood out to me so much, but the only > other "myst'ry" Hagrid points out in that speech is why did > Voldemort try to kill Harry, and that is turning out to be one of > the main mysteries of the series. I think you are right that what Lily and James were/did etc may reveal why LV might be expected by most to have at least considered getting them on his side (or even needed to do so or else kill them) and IMO it is not insignificant that JKR has been keeping this info, inded anything much about Lily and James, from us (and Harry) for such a long time. Like you, I have recently re-read what was said to Harry early on (and by whom) since this would seem to be the most critical information. DD for example seems (in my recall at least) to be throughout SS/PS, yet more careful examination reveals that the first time he and Harry are alone together since DD dumped Harry at Privet Drive is in front of the mirror of Erised. They only talk one on one once more, post QuirrelMort. Indeed, it strikes me how seldom in fact during the entire series so far HP and DD do see one another one-on-one. perhaps this foreshadows revealing too much to LV via Harry. DD is always 'there' (mentioned etc), but he and HP interact in private only very rarely in all the books and always these are scenes loaded with significance, atmosphere and/or revelations of great significance. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 00:12:26 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:12:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Conspiracy Theory: answers to questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902001226.25264.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111826 --- caspenzoe wrote: O.K. Hans (glad to see you here again, by the way!) - have it your way: you're insane! Hans: Thank you, Caspen, for your confirmation. I've long suspected it myself and now I'm certain. Caspen: But I don't understand some of your finer points - which don't, it seems to me, entirely add up. Hans: Before I go into your questions in detail I'd like to make a few points. My conspiracy theory should be read in conjunction with my essay, "Harry Potter - Christian Rosycross in Jeans", which is filed under essays in the group's files. That should fill in quite a few gaps. Once again I feel compelled to point out that my theory is based on RECOGNITION. I recognise the spiritual-alchemical processes which are symbolically represented in the Alchemical Wedding and in the teachings of the Mystery Schools of the past. Please read again my post 107405 which I wrote in response to you. Caspen: Fascinating, but at the point where your analogy begins to fall apart, seems it would be smarter to accept that the finely chisled peg you're trying so hard to drive, doesn't quite fit this hole. Rather than insist on such a fundamentalist approach (one size fits all, and if it doesn't, I'll make it fit), maybe you should consider that JKR's work has it's own unique shape afterall? Hans: Do I detect a slight note of sarcasm there, Caspen? Surely not! Well I forgive you your scepticism because I realise that my theory does sound totally bizarre to the uninitiated. However how I experience it from my point of view is that I feel like someone who's won the highest lottery prize and just can't believe it. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and I ask myself, "Is this really happening? Are these teachings which are known by only a handful of people in the world now being revealed to millions of people in 61 languages?" And, as I've done so often in the last few years, I go through the various events in HP and yes, once again I see clearly the alchemical processes outlined, without a shadow of doubt. Desperate times need desperate measures, and in this post 9/11 world I see HP as the big divine impulse to bring spiritual renewal to humanity. I bring 9/11 into it, because the great Pyramid of Cheops predicted that in September 2001 the old order would come to an end and a new one would begin. The pyramid was built by the same people who inspired JK Rowling and that's why Harry Potter is being published at this time. Surely you all know that Harry Potter is something totally unprecedented? Never before has anything like this happened. For such a record-breaking event there has to be a very special explanation, and mine is that JK Rowling was inspired by the Masters of Compassion, as I call them, who knew what would happen on 9/11 and, as a new spiritual impulse, opened a new spiritual door for humanity. My only concern is whether I'm doing the right thing in revealing these things. I'll be writing another post in a few days in response to someone who said they knew from the first book where Jo is heading. Jo herself has said that she's glad people haven't dug too deeply into her belief in God, otherwise they'd know how Harry Potter would end. See the posts under the subject, "Help!". So, Jo if you ever read this post and I'm telling people more than you want me to, let me know and I'll stop. It's just that I'm so thrilled, exhilarated and excited about my recognition I HAVE to shout it from the rooftops. Harry Potter is so beautiful because it's the TRUTH! Harry Potter is so powerful because it shows the WAY. Harry Potter is so popular because it shows the way to the LIFE! Now to your questions in detail. Caspen: Why is it that the self-sacrifice of the immortal soul as hypothesized in your theory (paragraph 8) "He [Voldemort] knows that the new soul [Harry, the immortal soul] will liberate the human being and take him into the real world, where Voldemort can't exist, and so Voldemort has no choice but to kill the new soul. However he can't if the person [Harry, the immortal soul] is willing to sacrifice his temporary life in hell for the real life in the real world...." has somehow become (paragraph 19, step? you seem to have lost track of the steps at this point) "The old mortal soul (Ron) and the intellect (Hermione) know that the only way Harry can enter the real world is for them to sacrifice themselves. They die for him, knowing that they will live on in him when he enters the real world?" I mean, isn't the immortal soul's sacrifice enough? It is in all of the other similar major allegories/conspiracy theories I'm aware of. Since when is it ok to sacrifice your friends, even in the cause of liberation? And what exactly becomes of the "old mortal soul" and the intellect when our heroe travels to the "real world?" Do they go with him? Do they come back with him when he returns? Hans: Where you're going wrong is what you're inserting in square brackets: "However he can't if the person [Harry, the immortal soul] is willing to sacrifice his temporary life in hell for the real life in the real world...." Not that I blame you; as I said, the whole thing is oversimplified. By "person" here I mean the human being going the alchemical path of liberation, and not Harry, the immortal soul. What JK Rowling is doing, in succession to all the ancient gospel writers, is to personalise aspects of the human being. This is what Shakespeare and Dante did too. That means that an aspect of the human personality is given a human name and given human characteristics. To make it sound believable they are given a childhood, a birthday, etc. and a character more or less in accordance with that aspect of the human being that is being personalised. What I'm saying in the sentence above is: "However he can't if the person [the candidate on the alchemical path of liberation] is willing to sacrifice his temporary life in hell for the real life in the real world...." To put this in practical terms: You, Caspen, have decided to go the Path. Your longing for liberation is rewarded by the divine spark in your heart bursting into flames. Your purity of heart gives the fire oxygen. This divine fire in your heart is the new, immortal soul that is born. REborn in fact, because it existed before the Fall. That's your Harry potter. Voldemort, your higher self, which existed before you were born, knows this divine fire in your heart will mean his end, and so he tries to put this fire out. In practical terms he tries to drown your new soul with doubt and with distractions. He whispers into your heart that the new soul doesn't exist and that liberation is impossible. He tries every possible way to distract you with the glories of this world. If you pay attention to this, your new soul will die, i.e. the fire will die and only the divine spark will be left. Now comes the bit you have trouble with: If YOU, Caspen, are willing to surrender all your interests in this world, if you are willing to go the path no matter what, if you are willing to give up your earthly life for the life of the new soul, then you will protect your new soul. Then Harry will survive Voldemort's attack. His mother, Lilly, and his father, James, will live on in the new soul as purity and longing for liberation. I hope that's clear. At that stage you're not actually sacrificing yourself; you're only demonstrating a willingness to do so. You're making Harry your first priority in your life. It's your attitude that counts at this stage. Harry's only a baby. Your job is to protect him now. Much, much later, when Harry is mature, there comes a time when you must go through the Gate of Saturn. The best way to understand this is to read the Alchemical Wedding. When we have Book 7 we'll all understand better. In the A.W. there are six kings and queens who sacrifice themselves for the rebirth of one king and queen. These represent three aspects of your consciousness. 1. The subjective consciousness. 2. The objective consciousness. 3. the New Consciousness. Each aspect has a positive and negative aspect, making 6. Of course I may have designated these aspects wrongly, but I see Harry, Ron and Hermione as the equivalent of the six monarchs. In the Alchemical Wedding all six are beheaded, and after the alchemical processes in the Tower of Olympus, they are reborn as the young king and queen. You're asking why Ron and Hermione have to die. "I mean, isn't the immortal soul's sacrifice enough?" you ask. Why do all the aspects of the person have to die before there can be a rebirth? The reason is that the human being living on earth today is not in accordance with God's plan. Totally not. We are mortal creatures with short lives. Our only job here is to bring to life the divine spark in the heart. In doing so we have to be prepared to end our mortal lives in sacrifice to Him who is reborn from the spark. We have to sacrifice our whole self to the new soul. We have to sacrifice our heart and mind. The new soul also sacrifices itself. Only when the earthly soul plus the new soul die can the omniscient, divine consciousness be born. That is what the Bible calls the resurrection. As I said, Harry's death will obviously be told as going through the arch with the veil, which I call the Gate of Saturn. He'll follow Sirius. The deaths of Ron and Hermione are less clear to me at this stage. Please read my post No. 106899, where I listed my predictions. May I humbly say at this stage that my understanding is evolving, and I can't be sure exactly how Jo is going to express the alchemical processes in story form. However I want to express emphatically that the death which faces us in the alchemical wedding is TOTALLY devoid of suffering. It is a golden death, a neutralisation of our mortal consciousness which is like the extinguishing of a candle flame that is replaced by a sun. As I said in post 107007 the path of liberation doesn't culminate in suffering, but in holy rapture. Caspen: Since when is it ok to sacrifice your friends, even in the cause of liberation? Hans: It isn't OK to sacrifice your friends. Of course not. But there are 2 mistakes in your statement: 1. Harry's friends Ron and Hermione are aspects of ourselves that have been personalised. They are not real people. 2. Jo would never write the story in such a way that Harry would ask Hermione and Ron to sacrifice themselves. They would do it without Harry's knowledge or ability to prevent it. Caspen: And what exactly becomes of the "old mortal soul" and the intellect when our heroe travels to the "real world?" Do they go with him? Do they come back with him when he returns? Hans: The old mortal personality dies completely and dissolves into the new divine human being. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "I say to you today you shall be with me in heaven." (also 3 people dying! coincidence? No.) The mortal personality is gone forever as a separate entity but lives on in the new, reborn human being. How Jo will describe that in her story I don't know. I can't be absolutely sure Harry will return to earth after the resurrection. In post 106899 I gave it 75%. It depends on the strength of his compassion. Not all liberated beings return to earth. Some work for the liberation of humanity in the Real World (heaven/nirvana). But the exceptionally compassionate entity returns to become gatekeeper. I hope Harry will. Caspen: And a few other things are bothering me: since when was fear ever overcome by "longing?" Not normally, but this is a special longing. I'm talking about Harry's patronus, the stag, being able to drive off 100 dementors. The stag is the symbol for a special power that the new soul has: the longing for God. In Psalm 42 you get the idea of what this longing is: "As a hart longs for the streams, so does my heart long for Thee, o God." Read Also Grimm's tale: "The Glass Coffin". The dementors symbolise the astral forces which attack the new soul. Fear is the most destructive astral power of all. If you fear the dementors they will succeed in sucking your new soul out. However the new soul has a special power: it can long for God. In the astral plane longing or desire results in attracting astral forces in accordance with the quality of the desire. If you long for base, selfish things, you'll attract astral forces of a low vibration rate. The highest desire there is, is the longing for God. This is the soul sending out a call for God's Love. God will always answer this call with a stream of divine Love. There simply isn't anything that has a higher vibration rate than God's Love. This power surrounds the soul with a protection that is absolutely impenetrable. Hence the dementors can't attack the soul. This is why I said that longing drives away fear. OK? Caspen: Why does the immortal soul's (Harry's) mental plan for development (Sirius) get sent on ahead? Seems to me it'd be smarter for the immortal soul (Harry) to keep the plan (Sirius) handy on the journey. I don't blame you for ridiculing this. As I said it's oversimplified and it's natural for us to laugh at things we don't understand immediately. I take the blame for this. The mental plan for development was created by God originally. Take an example. Our body is built up from a recipe in our genes. That's the plan for the development of our body and of future generations. That plan even decides how old our bodies can become. But of course that's a physical plan. A mental plan is a thought-form that holds a position in our aura. It is visible to people with refined spiritual sight. It emanates from the divine spark that we have in the heart. As soon as Harry is born Sirius becomes his God-Father. That means that the development of the new soul is according to the matrix or though-form in the aura. It shines there like the bright morning star. That's how it's referred to in the Bible. As Harry matures, the mental plan grows. The only way that Harry can reach the Real World is to go through the Gate of Saturn. This is the way God wrote his plan - in the laws of the spirit. If you want a tree you have to let a seed die in the ground. If you want eternal life you have to die to enable the original divine human being to resurge. That's the law. Simple Concept. Sirius isn't dead. He's gone through the Gate of Saturn because Harry has to go through it. Harry will meet Sirius there. It's simply the next step in the alchemical process. OK? Caspen: And how does a plan (Sirius) become a life-giving sun? Isn't it basically just a set of directions? The divine microcosm consists of a higher self and a lower self. That's the way God created it. I'm not capable at my stage of development to explain why. The higher self completely surrounds the lower self and feeds it and maintains it with spiritual energy. In the case of a fallen microcosm the higher self is called Voldemort in Harry Potter. Voldemort was originally the divine plan for the human being. The Fall is the result of the human being NOT following the divine plan. The original human soul gradually died and was reduced to a spark in the heart. The higher self does not ever die but continues to live on in reaction to and in support of the lower self. When the lower self started to reject God's plan, this plan was gradually replaced with the undivine plan of earthly human development that has turned our world into a hell. The higher self became demonic and is now called Lucifer. Lucifer USED to be the bright morning star. If you think about the legend of Lucifer you'll see the connection (if you don't take it literally). When Harry now follows the divine plan as symbolised by Sirius, the NEW morning star, both Harry and Sirius will develop according to the divine plan for the human microcosm. Seen as a star in the aura, Sirius will grow in brightness and size. There will come a time, when Harry has triumphed over Voldemort, that he will dissipate, together with Peter, like a column of smoke. In other words the human microcosm is now rid of the old higher self, Lucifer, and the new Higher Self, Sirius, takes his place. He now fills the whole aura and so in that sense becomes bright and big like the sun. Don't forget that Sirius and the sun are both stars! I'm not making this up, you know! The Bible refers to the new higher self as the woman of the Apocalypse, wearing the Sun, and with her feet on the moon. She has a crown of 12 stars, symbolising the new zodiac which gives 12 divine powers to the new divine man. (I doubt if Sirius will be pregnant though) Caspen: Does the plan/sun (Sirius) direct or guide the immortal soul (Harry) back to hell? Hans: Well done! You've asked a question I can't answer. That's way beyond my development. Where does the compassion for suffering humanity come from? Who knows. Every microcosm is different. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. Freedom to sacrifice life in heaven to become a lowly gate-keeper at Hogwarts maybe? Well, thinking about it, probably the human being who has suffered the most has the most compassion. What do you think? Caspen: Does the plan/sun (Sirius) get to accompany the immortal soul (Harry) back to hell? Well after my long ramble you can probably answer that yourself. As Sirius and Harry are in the same microcosm they can't be separated. The higher self surrounds the lower self and bathes it continuously with spiritual light and energy. Harry and Sirius will be together for ever! Caspen: And if not, in what sense does the plan/sun (Sirius) remain a "sun?" And isn't that "sun" (Sirius) going to end up lonely, once again, in the "real" world? That really bites Hans! As I say, Harry and Sirius will never be parted, and together they will rise from power to power and from glory to glory. ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 00:15:58 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:15:58 -0000 Subject: Tonks not male (was: Why is Tonks clumsy?) - also Dale vs Fry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > It's unlikely that Tonks is male, because her voice is apparently > female. Unlike polyjuice potion, which does transform the voice, Tonks > the metamorphmagus seems to retain her characteristic voice despite > altered appearance. > Caesarian then lists well-chosen examples of where Tonks altered appearance is accompanied by a woman's vice recognisable as hers. I agree. IMO Tonks is clearly female. Like others have said she is clumsy in my view to make her more fallible/human as a character and perhaps because she has to do something stupid later (books 6 or 7) that matters. Also JKR is notching up her female characters, of whom there were only a few in the earliest books. She introduces metamorphagy which someone else pointed out may be one of HP's unrecognised skills since he could regrow hair overnight even before knowing of the WW (see SS/PS): Others have pointed out that magic which becomes important later is always first introduced innocently earlier (e.g. polyjuice and timeturners). And by the way, someone mis-translated whotcher as what cheer when any Englishmen knows it means whatch'ya (watch you) as in how are you doing? watch yourself. I think JKR's use of English is a very English use (of England that is) and won't always be picked up upon correctly in the US (her largest market), hence the alternative versions of both text and audiotape (though am surprised at her using Jim Dale who, if Americanised over the years remains an Englishman better known to us elderly ones as a buffoon in 'carry on' films). From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 00:24:55 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:24:55 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <20040901123210.886423384D@ws7-3.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sali Morris" wrote: > Kathryn: > > > > Even in the UK you wouldn't have referred to the teacher as Master, it's an > > archaic synonym for teacher (probably bases on their qualifications as > > mentioned by someone else) Sorry, but yes you would. Masters and boys. Very old school yes, but that's the atmosphere Hogwarts engenders (at least for me). English Public (US read private) school. Schoolmaster. Master = teacher. Headmaster (principal) = chief of the teachers. Headmaster is a term of address, while master is not. However, had Snape said *A* master of this school perhaps the debate would not arise. I can't see this thread really goes anywhere - what should it matter if Snape thinks he's master (best in or chief) of the school? he clearly isn't. DD is. It always surprises me which threads run and run here and which posts go completely unnoticed or uncommented upon. Still, that's my view and what message boards are about - an exchange of often quite different views. I can't deny that I find all the contributions stimulating in one way or another - just so dang hard to get through all of them! From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 2 00:48:47 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:48:47 -0000 Subject: Master of this school - Number 3 / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111829 > Karen wrote > > Just a comment on this topic - > > > > Could Master of this school be a title for the number 3 person in > > charge? > > > Potioncat: > Well, I think Snape is too young for that, even though it does seem > that we see a lot of him and very little of Sprout or Flitwick. It > may be due to his role in the Order. > > In fact, McGonagall is pretty young too, at least to become > Headmistress. DD must have been around 120 or 130 when he became > Headmaster and she is just in her 70s. - From Karen: -- But the difference in ages are what makes Snape being the number 3 in the authority pecking order appealling to me. Harry notices many times that DD (I am picking age 150 at the time of OotP - nice round number) looks tired, old, weary (pick an adjective). In the WW, people come of age at 17. That means DD has been either teaching (since he was 100 or younger - CoS), serving as headmaster (for 28 years - age 122 or younger), working with Flamel, defeating Dark Wizards. DD has been actively working for 133 years, I'd be ready for retirement by then if not before. I think DD took the job of Headmaster in order to protect Hogwarts from the latest in a series of dark wizards - Voldemort. After all Voldy was just beginning his reign of terror at the time DD took the Headmaster job (PS/SS & POA). I think it makes perfect sense that there is a 35 year difference in the ages between McGonagall and Snape. There could have been someone between DD and McGonagall who would have been about 105-110 but is no longer around because he/she taught DADA and was killed, disabled, disgraced, or disappeared due to the curse on the job. The second reason I feel that Snape is the number 3 person at Hogwarts is the lack of "middle age" wizards. There has been a lot of discussion on this list about this lack. IMO the reason for this is because war against dark wizards end up killing a generation or two of wizards. DD is famous for his defeat Grindelwald in 1945 (PS/SS). Voldy was killing whole families (GoF - Arthur Weasly explaining the terror of the Dark Mark). Harry is the last Potter, Siruis was the last Black. The wars with the dark wizards have taken its toll on the WW and the younger generation (Snape, Percy, Fred & George) must be ready to advance and take charge. I still think that Master was a title of authority and not just another name for teacher or professor. After all wouldn't Lockhart have used the term Master if it was available to him? Much more impressive than just Professor. - Karen From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 18:47:09 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:47:09 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111830 Ginger: > My little theory is that at some time in the past, Masters and > Mistresses of the school (as they would have been known then) were > given a spell to force magical things found in the possession of > students to reveal themselves. > > We have seen that the map is semi-sentient, so it would have known > that this would be a really good time to stay incognito as a scrap > of > paper, and it tries to do so. But under that command (or spell?) it > is forced to say something, so it does so in its own charming way. > It insults Snape. > Zendemort again: Well, I do like your theories. However, the incident with the map is not the only place where he refers to himself as "master." He also refers to himself as "Potions Master," when no other teacher refers to themselves as Transfigurations Master or Herbology Master. This leads me to believe that there is something more to Snape's personality. He wishes to be called "master," Regardless of whether this is a proper term for teacher, it STILL shows dominance and power. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 1 19:21:02 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:21:02 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <20040901123210.886423384D@ws7-3.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111831 One final word on this. Remember we are talking about the WW here, not the modern day Muggle world. The WW does many things according to "the old ways". And I like that. Apparently so does JKR and many others. (Ah, the good old days... when you could hang someone by up their toes... opps.. no. I didn't say that.) Tonks_op From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 1 23:11:43 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:11:43 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111832 > Laurasia: > > That's my point exactly, Zendemort. I think that awareness of action > is intrinsic to taking value of that action as a creator. If you are > aware of what your actions mean you are aware of other > alternatives, you can weigh the pros and cons, you realise that > you have a *choice* to do something or not. You are not blind. Zendemort Pipes in: Just because you are not conciously "aware" does not make you "blind." So you are saying that we should take into consideration the "awareness" of the author when evaluating his/her value?? This, I completely disagree. I can give you many examples where the creator might not be conciously aware, but the genie of the creation is still valid, and thus must be attributed to the creator. In physics, this is completely true, as well as mathematics and chemistry. A physicist might be able to solve an equation or anomaly intuitively, but might not yet be "aware" of the direct implications. This does not mean that her/his work should be discredited. However, this is not physics or math. This is art, something FAR more intuitive! and where the genie often lies in intuition (what sounds right, what looks right, what feels right)! But, I believe that JKR is actually becoming more and more aware of what she has created as she writes. Thus, as we go up in the series, the books' significance increases. And yes, you have a "choice" to do something, but sometimes, even if you are choosing on intuition, the product you create is still from the choices you make and the decision you made them with, even if this is more "intuitive" than "reasoning" (as I have said earlier, intuition and reasoning come from the same source). > Laurasia: > To use a great HP example- The fastest snitch capture ever was by > Roderick Plumpton in something like 3 seconds.? However, the > snitch flew up the sleeve of his Quidditch robes without him even > realising it. Of course, he claims to have meant it all along, but we > all realise he was not aware that it happened, therefore, whilst > capturing the snitch in 3 seconds is still spectacular, none of the > credit really goes to Plumpton. Zendemort: What does this have anything to do with creation and creating???? TO follow your example, Harry moves to the left of the field (not because he saw anything, but something inside him told him to go there). All of the sudden, right in front of his eyes is the snitch, and he makes the grap, winning for Gryffindor. He is still going to get all the credit for catching the snitch eventhough he was guided by his intuition most of the time. > Laurasia: > If, unlike me, you refuse to separate the intent from the act, then > it follows logically that you must actually consider a snitch flying > up your sleeve a great display of the talent of Quidditch. > If you are aware, you understand WHY something is good (not simply > that it is) and then you have control over it. Zendemort: Again, this is completely different from catching a snitch. JKR isn't sitting at a cafe sipping some beverage while watching her pen write across the paper. The snitch acts on its own, JKR's pen does not. JKR must write the words, and come up with the story. Very different from having a snitch just appear in your sleave. The snitch comparison correctly would be more along the lines of JKR finding the story in a dumpster and deciding to publish it. > Laurasia: > > To use your own example, the court of law is *all about* intentions > rather than simply the act. Killing a human in self-defense and > killing a person in first-degree murder are two separate things, > although they are both the same act of taking a human's life. > People who show remorse are given different sentences > to those who don't. Zendemort: I believe you did not understand my point. Yes, law takes into consideration the intentions, but it also takes into consideration the actions. If I get up in the middle of the night, stab my partner in the back, but in court say I didn't mean too, I just intuitively felt that it was the right thing to do. I didn't actually think through my actions. I still killed the person!!!!! My sentence might not be as harsh if I can prove that it was not premeditative, but I still committed a murder, and I will still be responsible for my actions (of course not if I was insane, but that's another arguement). Anyway, the law comparison is shifty since most legal matters are complex and situational. But this is not law, it's art!!!! ALL I was trying to say is that imagine if law was NOT based WHAT SO EVER on the actions BUT ONLY on the EXPLICIT intent, the intent the person claims to have and no other intent that might be lurking in the back of that person's mind. > Laurasia: > I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author. Zendemort: Awareness does not equal choice. They are two separate things. Physicist/Mathematicians often love equations because of elegance and the fact that it "intuitively" feels right. Often, these equations turn out to be true, turn out to explain something. Thus, choice does not equal awareness. This is like thinking in black and white terms. > Laurasia: > Very recently there were interpretations that Harry Potter is > anti-French because many of the baddies have French names- > Voldemort, Malfoy, Lestrange. I don't think JKR meant for that to > happen, but there's no denying the three baddest people in the > books have French names. If you want to give JKR the credit > for all the themes which can be interpreted in her books (even > the ones she didn't intend) then why aren't you convinced she > really does discriminate against the French? Or are you? Zendemort: Umm... These interpretations fail to consider that there are "goodies" who don't just have French names, but are French... Who is French that is bad? Fleurdelacour? Maxime? Last time I checked, all the French people that I have seen in HP have been on the "good" side. This argument is rather ridiculous. If there was a consistent use of French people for bad guys, I would say it was her intent. But there is not, obviously. So, she does NOT discriminate against the French. Although, she shows the French having certain characteristics (think Fleurdelacour) which I believe is exactly how she intended to portray the French. From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 2 01:19:22 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:19:22 -0000 Subject: The Age Thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111833 "Inge" wrote: > Hermione ... as example (as muggleborn) once again. > Nobody (other than her parents I guess) in her family know about her > being a witch and being at Hogwarts for 7 years. > How is she supposed to keep that a secret to her family and muggle- > associates when she leaves Hogwarts? > I mean - what is she supposed to do for a living then? An ordinary > muggle-job? Makes no sense then for her to spend 7 years learning all > sorts of wizardry - unless she'll apply for a job inside the WW - and > if that is what she does - how can she go on keeping it all a secret > to everyone she knows in the muggleworld? > > Inge -- From Karen: Hermione has started separating herself from the Muggle world since CoS. She doesn't go home for holidays (CoS, POA, GOF) or she returns to the WW after just a short break (OotP). She was age 11 when she enter Hogwarts. Her friends and extended family are those she meets at Hogwarts and in the WW. She does not mention any Muggle friends to Harry and Ron. In PS/SS, Ted the newsman smiles when mentioning the owl sightings and showers of stars. It has been mentioned that Ted could be a Muggle who is aware of the WW or a Muggle father of half-blood Tonks. Muggles who have knowledge of the WW must have some exception from the Statue of Secrecy. (Elves - Please bare with me on this none HP reference but it supports my point). In the movie "Men In Black" Agent Kay says "A person is smart but people are stupid." A muggle who has knowledge of the WW can react and interact rationally. But Muggles as a group, would panic, demand magic solutions to their problems and be fearful of the WW power. IMO, the Statue of Secrecy has clauses in it to deal with Muggles who are related or marry a member of the WW. Otherwise Seamus, Justin, Tonks, etc would never have been born. -Karen From sad1199 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 01:43:31 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:43:31 -0000 Subject: More COS clues: Dobby related In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111834 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pat" wrote: > > > So one of the things that seems prominant in both the book and the > movie are the powers that Dobby has. > > > When Malfoy realizes > that Dobby has been freed, he PULLS OUT HIS WAND, points it at > Harry, and says something that sounds like "Avada", then is blasted > off his feet by Dobby before he can finish the curse. The rest is > similar to the book. > > Now, what I am wondering is about the part that shows that Dobby can > stop the avada kedavra curse with whatever that powerful magic is > that house elves have, when many wizards aren't able to do it. Of > course, Lucius didn't complete the curse, but Dobby was quick enough > to prevent that. Whenever we see the use of the AK, the wizard or > muggle seems to be paralyzed and unable to do anything to prevent > the completion of the curse--and at that point there is no fighting > against it. Even Harry and Cedric are unable to do anything about > it in the graveyard in GOF. Is this some sort of foreshadowing that > the house elves--or at least, Dobby, will be instrumentlal in aiding > Harry in the future? > > In both the book and the movie, the short conversation that Harry > has with Dobby after that is full of Dobby thanking Harry for > freeing him, and Harry asking Dobby to "promise never to try to save > my life again." > > And in both, Dobby smiles, but doesn't say anything. > > Ideas? Thoughts? > > Pat sad1199 here: Yes! Ideas and thoughts! I have already said in post #107071 that I think somewhere in Lily's heritage there is elvin blood. She who is a mere witch stopped Voldemort from killing Harry by sacrificing herself? I just don't buy it. Now, if she had some sort of stronger powers that were not widely known-such as elvin powers, I could see her stopping the strongest wizard ever (next to Dumbldore, of course). Maybe because she did not have full elvin capabilities she could not stop Voldemort from killing her but she was able to deflect or counter Voldemort's curse on Harry back to himself. I also think Dobby will have more to do in the last two books. He seems to be a small character that has been growing into a larger character throughout the books we have so far. Especially, if it comes out that Lily/Harry are related to him in some way. As was said before it is VERY unusual for a house elf to go directly against his wizard family and Dobby obviously chose to help Harry and go against years(?) of tradition. ...happy, caring, loving... sad1199 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:08:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:08:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111835 > Marianne: > > Granted I haven't reread any of the books in over a year, but I don't > recall Dumbledore saying that he suspected Sirius was the traitor. Alla: Me neither, Marianne, and I reread PoA recently enough. Although, of course I could have missed that. If Pippin refers to Dumbledore's "Sirius did not act as an innocent man", as far as I can remember he said it strictly in relation to what Sirius did after he escaped from Azkaban. Pippin, point us to the right direction, please? :o) From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 02:15:26 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:15:26 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111836 Siriusly Snapey Susan: So if it comes down to this, then I think it's the same for Harry. That is, I think for it to be true sacrificial love, Harry must not just think that he's doing something risky but must UNDERSTAND that he is risking his life and KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, choose to enter into whatever the situation calls for, including sacrificing his own life out of love for others. Bookworm: I'll take this one step further and suggest that Harry may do something that he thinks *is* going to kill him (not just may kill him) but - hopefully - something happens or someone steps in to help/save him. Wormtail perhaps? Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:17:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:17:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111837 > Marianne: snip. >> And, I think it is exactly this sort of thing that will blow up in > her face in Book 6 ot 7. She'll take some sort of arbitrary, > manipulative action that she thinks is for the greater good, and this > time she will find out that she doesn't have all the answers and that > good intentions don't always excuse one's behavior. > Alla: I agree. I was one of those, who thought that Hermione's dealings with Rita WIll blow up in her face in OOP. Alas, JKR decided to let Hermione off the hook for now, but something is bound to blow up. To me, good intentions excuse A LOT, but definitely not everything. On one hand, I like how Hermione dealt with Rita, because I doubt that adults would have dealt with it just as efficiently. But I fully realise that hermione did not have the authority to do so. The question is though whether she had much choice int he matter. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:24:46 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 6 Title -- Hyphen? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902022446.41610.qmail@web12310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111838 --- antoshachekhonte wrote: K Wrote: > > Okay - > > I can't figure out what the big deal is about > the hyphen, no-hyphen > > debate. Can someone please explain this to me? > > > > Thanks! > > > > K > > Antosha replied: The difference is one of those stupid questions that > drive editors bonkers--what is > modifying what? > > A "half-blood prince" is either a prince who is > half-blooded or a prince of the half-bloods. > > A "half blood prince" is a partial "blood prince" > whatever the hell that is--a prince of > vampires was one of the theories I tossed out myself > when this first came up. It is a phrase > that--with what we know to this point--makes no > sense. But it might in light of new > plotlines. > bamf here: Alas, I have found the hyphen usage on the website. My reasoning for not using the hyphen, though, was if an object (statue, painting) of a Blood Prince had been halved, or broken, then the part that remains could be called the half blood prince. Like a reference point, or landmark, in the school (like the statue of Uric the Oddball? and others that are referenced every now and again). That was why I was waiting to see what it was actually called. But it does look like I have to stick the hyphen in. Drat... ;) bamf ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 02:27:02 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:27:02 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Marianne: > > > > Granted I haven't reread any of the books in over a year, but I > don't recall Dumbledore saying that he suspected Sirius was the traitor. > > > Alla: > > Me neither, Marianne, and I reread PoA recently enough. Although, of course I could have missed that. > Pippin, point us to the right direction, please? :o) ===== PoA chapter 10 "So Black was the Potter's Secret-Keeper?" whispered Madam Rosmerta. "Naturally," said Professor McGonagall. "James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself...and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potter's Secret-Keeper himself." "He suspected Black?" gasped Madame Rosmerta. "He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements,"said Professor McGonagall darkly. "Indeed he had suspected for some time that someone on our side had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to You-Know-Who." ===== I gather from this that Dumbledore was already trying to find out who the traitor was and had been unable to eliminate Sirius from his list of suspects. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:33:54 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:33:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111840 Pippin: snips quote in question. > I gather from this that Dumbledore was already trying to find out > who the traitor was and had been unable to eliminate Sirius from > his list of suspects. > Alla: Oh, OK. Thanks. Yes, of course your reading is perfectly valid and reasonable, although "someone had turned traitor" does not necessarily equals Dumbledore suspecting Sirius. Thanks again. From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 2 00:59:20 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:59:20 -0400 Subject: McGonagall and Snape (was: Re: Master of this school) Message-ID: <20040901.211533.1484.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111841 Karen, I like your idea of Snape being 3rd in charge. Makes the most sense to me, re: this "potions master" dilemma. He may not necesarily be "master" because of being 3rd in charge, or the other way 'round, but you point out that Snape does, apparently, have added clout at the school, and being master and granted priveledged information has something to do with it. Potioncat, I don't think age would really factor into whether or not Snape could be 3rd in command. The war killed off a lot of older wizards; plus, it's just a job, not something only an experienced wizard can do. If Snape has the credentials and (for whatever reason) wants the job, I don't see Dumbledore preventing him from it. (Maybe even give it to Snape as consolation for not letting him be the DADA prof?) Anyway, Karen said: > Also, McGonagall and Snape have a > different relationship (friendly rivalry) with each other than they > have with the rest of the staff. So, do you we think McG and S like each other? Not in a shippy way, but I just wonder how Snape gets along with the rest of the staff, if at all. Since I want to see Snape as a 3D character, not a generic "mean grownup," I like to think that Snape can be capable of friendship, conversation, etc with people he's known long enough to trust. But what do the staff think of him? I think they respect him as a decent teacher (or he'd been fired long ago), but on a personal level? "Snape's a little difficult to get along with, but he can be pleasant when he wants to be"? "He's rough on the students because that's his teaching style, but I like him"? Does Snape hang around the teachers' lounge and chat with anyone? Do he and McGonagall play chess? Does he *ever* crack a smile? Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 02:36:57 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:36:57 -0000 Subject: Harry and Salazar (WAS: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111842 >>> Charme wrote: Tom Riddle SAYS he's the last remaining descendent of Salazar Slytherin. [snip] I also don't think DD has ever really confirmed this in any of the books thus far, has he? <<< Bren now: Actually, it is... Tom Riddle: "I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side?" [CoS, 231. UK] Dumbledore: " 'You can speak Parseltongue, Harry,' said Dumbledore calmly, 'because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining *descendent* of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue.' " [CoS, 245. UK - My version has * as 'ancestor'] So I think we can assume that Tom Riddle is in fact the last remaining descendent of Slytherin. And as for JKR's confirmation on the matter, she had to clarify whether it was meant to be "ancestor" or "descendent" many times, so I think we got her "Yes" on the lineage connection either way. Bookworm: I happened to rereading some of the old Rumours on JKR's website earlier this evening and saw this: ".... And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=3 Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:40:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:40:06 -0000 Subject: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111843 > Bookworm: > I'll take this one step further and suggest that Harry may do > something that he thinks *is* going to kill him (not just may kill > him) but - hopefully - something happens or someone steps in to > help/save him. Wormtail perhaps? > Alla: I started being very fond of "stopper in death" lately. Although I am not quite sure how it will work. Snape slipping him a potion without Harry noticing? Hardly. :o) From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 2 00:56:50 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:56:50 -0400 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) Message-ID: <20040901.211533.1484.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111844 Kathryn: > 'please sir, the Chemistry master wanted me to give you this message' Aura: This is another one of those UK private school culture clash things: whenever Hermione says "Please sir," to ask a question, I'm reminded of "may I have some more?" and abused ophans and whatnot. :) To my American ears, it seems like an unnecesarily subserviant thing for Hermione to say, so I assume I'm missing some cultural context here? Edis: >Teachers with departmental responsibility in those days would be >called 'The Latin Master' or 'Geography Master' or 'Chemistry Master' >or whatever. So it *is* a title of sorts that connotes a ranking above just "teacher." Perhaps somethign to do with Snape being house head of Slytherine? Having the title "master" means you're qualified to be the head of a house? Am I the only one who, whenever Snape says "Potions master", mentally adds, "-bater"? Because he's just so lonely and pathetic. I still say that he invokes that title just to puff up his importance, because he's so insecure he feels he needs external things like titles to make people respect his authority. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:48:33 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:48:33 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111845 Kneasy wrote: Regular readers of this board will be familiar with my take on the HP saga - that it's more a mystery tale in form and structure than anything else. That we are constantly being challenged with ambiguous characters performing ambiguous actions, usually in situations where we have limited or incomplete information. And that we should see it as our bounden duty to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and to present a neat and tidy explanation to what the hell is going on. And make no mistake, conspiracy and betrayal is at the heart of HP; it's what makes it tick; it's the skeleton that is fleshed out with all the other bits and pieces. Neri: As usual, Kneasy is very good with helping me to understand where exactly I disagree with him ;-) I agree that HP is a mystery story as much as it is (but not necessarily more than) anything else. Conspiracy certainly plays an extremely important role in it. However, the part of *betrayal* in HP tends to be highly exaggerated by FEATHERBOAS. A quick count will show that in all the five books combined there is only *one* case of classic betrayal: Peter betraying James and Lily. Even this case happened off-page, before the first chapter of the first book begins, and we didn't have a chance to personally meet the betrayer (in human form at least) before the betrayal took place and develop any feelings for him, so the betrayal never came as an emotional shock to us, as a "proper" betrayal should. To Peter's case you might want to add some minor or less than classic cases of betrayal: Snape and Karkaroff betraying the bad guys, Lupin hiding his lycanthropy, Marietta the DA sneak. I hesitate to include Kreacher betraying the Order, since it was pretty clear where his true loyalties were to begin with. This is more the case of the demon unexpectedly breaking his geis. I don't think I'll include Percy changing his loyalties since it was very gradual and until now it wasn't used as a source of any mystery or conspiracy. Considering we already have a huge number of characters in about 2000 pages, the betrayal rate in HP has actually been *very* low for a mystery book. This is a fact. Many conspiracy theorists take it as given that in the next two books a main character must betray the good side, and only disagree about who will it be, but based on the above past statistics I wouldn't put any money on this. Most of the mystery and conspiracy in HP, especially that which is emotionally charged, comes not from betrayal but from cases of faked, assumed or unknown identity (Pettigrew!Sacbbers, Crouch!Moody, Voldemort!Riddle!diary), possession (Voldy/Quirrell, Riddle/Ginny), the Imperius curse (Crouch Sr., Krum, Bode), the unknown intentions of characters who are suspicious to begin with (Snape, Dobby, Lockhart, Sirius, Crouch Sr., Bagman, Kreacher, Umbridge) and mainly unexpected abilities of persons and magical devices (the scar, the mirror of Erised, Parseltongue, the diary, animagi, Trelawney prophesying, the time-turner, the Goblet of Fire, Priori Incantatem, etc, etc, etc.). A member recently asked me offlist about an apparent contradiction in my posts: I do a fair amount of theorizing and speculating but in other posts I seem to condemn all theorizing. My answer is that I don't condemn theorizing at all, not even conspiracy theorizing. It's fun. The question I ask, however, is which kind of theories is likely to prove right (which is, as I wrote here before, not necessarily the same question as how much fun they are). My conclusion is that besides the obvious such a theory also requires two properties that are less obvious. The first property is that the theory has to fit with JKR's style. For example, a theory that is based on other characters continuously playing Harry for a puppet is not a good bet in a saga of which the main hero seems to be Harry Potter and a main theme seems to be Free Will and Choice. Note that there might be a big difference between JKR's style and fandom style or fan-fiction style, which is why it is important to find out what JKR's style *really* is. As in my example above, a lot of fans think that betrayal is JKR's style, but anyone making a quick inventory of betrayals in canon will immediately find out it is not. It is only fandom and fan-fiction style. So if you are working on your ESE!someone theory it can be a lot of fun, but don't complain if JKR won't follow your predictions. If we really seek to uncover the secrets of HP, I believe we first must learn to accept JKR's style, and not impose our own tastes on her. For example, I consider myself a part-time FEATHERBOA and I frequently enjoy much more violent and blood-spattered books than HP, but it's pretty obvious that JKR is not a FEATHERBOA, so I don't expect blood when reading HP or when theorizing about it. Luckily there are enough other good qualities in HP or I wouldn't be a HP fan. In a similar way I like blues music, but this doesn't mean I expect electric guitar riffs when listening to renaissance and baroque music, which I like for other qualities. One of the great hopes of FEATHERBOAS and other types of HP theoreticians is that JKR will change her style to suit their tastes. "The books are getting darker" is repeated a lot. And maybe JKR was easy on the betrayal theme because she saves her BIG guns for the climax. Could be, but I wouldn't bet on it. When JKR says "darker" she means darker by *her* standards, not by FEATHERBOAS standards. Yes, the tone of the books has considerably changed from Book 1 and will probably keep changing, but it will still be JKR and it will still be Harry Potter. Another kind of theoreticians who are frequently disappointed with JKR are SHIPpers. It is a sad fact that all the shipping in the HP saga could be combined to fit into a single chapter. Not even one important plot development that we know of happened because of romantic love. The shippers hope this situation will improve when Harry gets older. Well, I hope so too, since personally I could easily accommodate five times as much shipping, but I doubt very much it will be such a dramatic change. JKR is just not a romance writer. If you can't stand it go read/write fan-fiction, but don't expect JKR to change into something she's not. She writes these books for herself. So if your theory hinges on romantic love, it could be a lot of fun, but you might be in for a disappointment. A second property that I believe is very important for a good HP theory is that it should simplify the picture rather than complicating it further. This is especially important in the post- OotP era. In five books the HP saga grew into something incredibly huge and complex. The number of characters, plotlines, mysteries, clues and red herrings is staggering, and we already know that JKR plans at least one new main character (the HBP/"lion man") for Book 6. All these should somehow come to a satisfying resolution within just two books, which means that there must be A LOT of convergence of plotlines soon. Furthermore, almost all of it must be described from the point of view of Harry. This is a very severe limitation that JKR took upon herself. Harry can be only at one place and follow a single plotline in any given moment (except when he's using a time turner). Anything he doesn't see happening will have to happen off- page, which is no way to bring about a proper resolution of any plotline or making justice to any character. Consider for a moment only the "heart of it all" plotline. We already have the thread of Lily's "ancient magic" that now includes also Voldy's resurrection and Petunia's pact, we have the thread of the powers that were transferred from Voldy to Harry, we have the mind link/Occlumency thread (that until now JKR has kept completely separated from the transferred powers thread), and we have the "power behind the locked door" thread. To this JKR just recently added the thread of Voldy's immortality. That's already five different plot threads that JKR has kept practically separated from each other, yet they somehow must be all woven together in any satisfying "heart of it all" theory, complete with explanations for the "gleam in DD's eyes", "in essence divided", "neither can live while the other survive", and probably incorporating Wormtail's life debt and silver hand and explaining what exactly is Neville's part in the prophecy. What? Do I hear somebody's shouting "impossible"? But this is exactly what JKR promises to do. And I didn't even begin to discuss the plotlines of double-agent Snape, Neville's parents, Ron and Hermione's share, a satisfying explanation of Sirius' death, Lupin's contribution, a very likely role for the veil, a possible time-travel gambit, the destiny of Slytherin house, the WW's political future, the fate of the House Elves... OK, you get the picture. I'm not saying a theory is worthless unless it explains EVERYTHING. What I'm saying is that you want to try, when theorizing, to leave the overall picture slightly simpler than what it was before. If you've found a terrific explanation for some mystery, but this necessitates three other mysteries that otherwise wouldn't exist, then you are complicating things instead of simplifying them. If OTOH you've made a single assumption and it explains three or four mysteries that previously seemed not to be connected at all, then there's a good chance you're on the right track. If your theory explains ten different mysteries but in order to bring it about you had to make twenty assumptions that are not canon, then you've perhaps written the plot for great fan-fiction, but chances are it's not the story that JKR is writing. Here are some possible directions for theorizing that concur with the two principles above: 1. JKR loves mysteries based on faked or assumed identity, and in OotP she had given us a great new way to bring it about: metamorphmagi. So which character in the books (other than Tonks) is a metamorphmagus and which other character did he/she impersonate in the past so that one of the current mysteries would be solved? 2. How did Snape manage to worm his way into Voldy's grace again? JKR loves using magical devices and magical abilities in an unexpected way, so here also the key might be instrumental rather than some espionage plot. Maybe Snape uses the Pensieve to hide memories he doesn't want Voldy to see, but this doesn't seem enough. The ideal case would be for Snape to implant false memories in his mind for Voldy to find. Could perhaps another magical device or ability be combined with the Pensieve to do that? 3. The HBP: there were many theories who he might be, but very few theorize how he might help to solve some of the existing mysteries. 4. The Longbottoms bubblegum wrappers message: many try to guess *how* it is encoded, but not many ask *what* is this message? What could the Longbottoms know for which they were attacked 14 years ago and could still solve a recent mystery? 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. Just think about it: in three, four, or five years at most we'll have Book 7 in our hands, and then there won't be much point anymore in any speculations and theories. *I'm* going to make the most of it while I still can. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 02:51:55 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:51:55 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > What, based on this gestalt, is never-to-be-modified? > > First of all, the author is adhering to basic rules of morality and fair play. She does not lie to us, or withhold vital clues. It is very, very unlikely - based on existing Canon - that trusted and sympathetic adults in Harry's life (such as Dumbledore, Lupin or Lily and James Potter) - will be revealed as evil incarnate.< Pippin: Evil incarnate, no. But Voldemort would not be able to accomplish much if only those who were as evil as he is did his bidding. Psychopaths are blessedly rare, but people who can be gulled or charmed or blackmailed into helping them are unfortunately far more common. Caesian > The published books have a strong moral tone ("it is our choices...", "what is right vs. what is easy..."). Further, the plot has followed a pattern that excludes major reversals for "good" characters: thus far, no Major character, presented from the outset as sympathetic or trusted by Harry, has been reversed. < Pippin: What about Pensieve!James? > Caesian: > I would say, rather, that the danger of false assumptions is at the heart of HP. The pattern established by Canon is to never assume with absolute certainty the worst of an ambiguous character, nor assume the best about someone you don't know. Sirius Black should have been trusted (or at least given a chance to defend himself). Percy should not extend blanket trust to Ministry Officials.< > > Will the ultimate reality of the Potterverse be that no one can be trusted? The spirit of the Canon, thus far, seems to be directly opposed to this view. Dumbledore trusts when others do not, and this, based on Harry's experience so far, is the path to truth. Dumbledore's one, grievous error thus far was his failure to fully confide in and trust Harry.< Pippin: I would say the ultimate reality is that we should trust people based on their choices, and not the easy choices but the difficult ones. Dumbledore had ample opportunity to observe that Harry was making choices worthy of any adult wizard. I would be readier to trust Lupin if his choices so far had been wiser. He's sympathetic and likable, but he keeps taking the easy path. Look for Lupin's moral fibre and you'll find Kleenex where Harry has Kevlar. I would also say, in regard to the mystery plots, that I expect them to be resolved--we *will* find out why Snape left the DE's, what was in that note to Petunia, why the language describing Sirius's murder is not more specific as to who killed him, who betrayed Sturgis Podmore, etc, etc. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 02:55:25 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:55:25 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111847 > Zendemort Pipes in: > > Just because you are not conciously "aware" does not make > you "blind." > So you are saying that we should take into consideration > the "awareness" of the author when evaluating his/her value?? This, > I completely disagree. I can give you many examples where the > creator might not be conciously aware, but the genie of the creation > is still valid, and thus must be attributed to the creator. Alla: Indeed, Zendemort. May I just say that I find this whole topic to be fascinating? Now, a few words from the layperson, who just loves to read. I am also having incredibly hard time agreeing with the possibility of judging the author by his/her intentions. How can we know FOR SURE what author's intentions were when he/she wrote the work? First of all, the author may choose not to share the supposed intentions with the readers. Something, which was shared, may not be a complete truth, etc. Yes, the work of art at some point acquires the life of its own. Surely, many of us are reading in Harry Potter many significantly different things from what JKR wanted us to read. Why should it counts against JKR, if we dissect a richer meanings from the books, something that she may not be consciously aware of, when she just started? > From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 02:59:14 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:59:14 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111848 Tonks wrote: > One final word on this. Remember we are talking about the WW here, not the modern day Muggle world. The WW does many things according to "the old ways". And I like that. Apparently so does JKR and many others. (Ah, the good old days... when you could hang someone by up their toes... opps.. no. I didn't say that.) > potioncat: You are so right! I mean, the man wears a nightshirt to bed for Heavens sake! How many man do you know who wear nightshirts?...not that I know what a lot of men wear to bed, you understand... The sort of mixed up sense of time is an interesting and funny part of this series. The adults, although not so much older than the kids, seem to be from a different century. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 03:03:28 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:03:28 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111849 > Caesian wrote previosly: snip. >thus far, no Major character, presented from > the outset as sympathetic or trusted by Harry, has been > reversed. < > > Pippin: > What about Pensieve!James? > Alla: Was James reversed though, Pippin or did he just acquired some greyness in him? James was painted as a boring Saint. JKR added some colours to him. If pensieve Scene was James at his worst, than to me he has along way to go before I consider him to be evil From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 03:15:21 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:15:21 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death (WAS: Help!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Bookworm: > > I'll take this one step further and suggest that Harry may do > > something that he thinks *is* going to kill him (not just may kill > > him) but - hopefully - something happens or someone steps in to > > help/save him. Wormtail perhaps? > > > > > Alla: > > I started being very fond of "stopper in death" lately. Although I > am not quite sure how it will work. Snape slipping him a potion > without Harry noticing? Hardly. :o) Bookworm: I've wondered about that too. It is such a great speech there has to be something more to it. Maybe Snape could get Remus or Hermione to persuade Harry to drink it? They are less distrusting of Snape. Or Dumbledore, if he is still around by then? Ravenclaw Bookworm From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 03:24:16 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:24:16 -0000 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) In-Reply-To: <20040901.211533.1484.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111851 - > > Aura: > This is another one of those UK private school culture clash things: > whenever Hermione says "Please sir," to ask a question, I'm reminded of > "may I have some more?" and abused ophans and whatnot. :) To my American > ears, it seems like an unnecesarily subserviant thing for Hermione to > say, so I assume I'm missing some cultural context here? > Potioncat: I do think it's a cultural thing. I say that because I grew up in the Southern U.S. where "Ma'am and Sir" were used always when speaking to an adult, even to parents. Movies almost always get it wrong. It's made to be a demeaning, bullying sort of behavior, to expect someone to address you that way. But is wasn't like that at all. Same in the military...sir, ma'am, Captain...are just polite terms. Anything can be abused of course. (Mommy, Dearest comes to mind.) From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 03:52:57 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:52:57 -0000 Subject: FILK: Old Mother Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111852 Old Mother Black To the tune of Wernher Von Braun by Tom Lehrer http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/vonbraun.htm Dedicated to Pippin SIRIUS: Picture this while I sing you of Old Mother Black: Quite long you must Google Through both Bosch and Bruegel To find a Munch-kin with a louder attack "So, what did that pig meant?" screams Old Mother Black. Don't call her ravings Draconian Say rather she's Francis-Baconian "If a Mudblood drops in, I'll make subtle wisecracks: You boil in oils!" yells Old Mother Black. She's had harsh words ever since I came back She's rather more grislier Than famed Mother Whistlier Like the Saturn of Goya who on his sons snacked: He's garnered approval from Old Mother Black. Soon, I'll make a stick charm ban, though And my mum will away in a van go "You'll find me on sale, `midst Dark Arts bric-a-brac Here at Borgin & Burkes," cries Old Mother Black. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm P.S. Since The Scream has been in the news again recently, I hope that my pun on "Munch-kin" wasn't too obscure. If it was, click here: http://www.museumsnett.no/nasjonalgalleriet/munch/eng/innhold/fullsize /ngm00939.html And the Francis Bacon I refer is the modern artist (1909-1992), not the Elizabethan philosopher http://www.francis-bacon.cx/popes/velazquezii_50.html And if you need a reminder on the Goya: http://www.jordan.palo- alto.ca.us/staff/lgoldman/public/mmart3/class/16/merry.html FILKS WITH FOOTNOTES, exclusively at HARRY POTTER FILKS From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 05:32:59 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 05:32:59 -0000 Subject: Help - need a reference In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040902113723.02912eb0@pop3.xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tanya Swaine wrote: > This has frustrated me. I'm sure that in one of the books, there was a > paragraph that described Harry noticing Snape's mood hadn't improved over > the holidays. Does anyone know the book and page reference. I haven't > been able to find it. > > Thanks, Tanya dcgmck: Been listening to OotP and am pretty sure I heard your line today, though a quick glance at the text has been to no avail. Hope this helps you narrow down the books, at least. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 05:45:37 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:45:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: Oops! Error in Answers to Conspiracy Theory Questions Message-ID: <20040902054537.53488.qmail@web25103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111854 Would anybody reading my post, "Answers to the Conspiracy Theory Questions" please delete the word "personalise" wherever occurring and substitute the word "personify" in lieu thereof? It's all Caspenzoe's fault, of course. It's her fault I'm sitting up into the small hours of the night rambling on and on when my brain has long stopped functioning. Apologies. ===== 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 gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 2 06:59:36 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:59:36 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: Tonks: > > One final word on this. Remember we are talking about the WW > here, not the modern day Muggle world. The WW does many things > according to "the old ways". And I like that. Apparently so does > JKR and many others. > potioncat: > You are so right! I mean, the man wears a nightshirt to bed for > Heavens sake! How many man do you know who wear nightshirts?...not > that I know what a lot of men wear to bed, you understand... > > The sort of mixed up sense of time is an interesting and funny part > of this series. The adults, although not so much older than the > kids, seem to be from a different century. Geoff: Two things... First, may I remind you, on the question of addressing staff, what I wrote in message 111762: 'In my experience, pupils would address teachers either by their name: Mr.Jones, Mrs.Smith, Miss James, Dr. Johnson etc or as "Sir" or "Miss" (even of married staff) and I would describe myself as a schoolmaster or a schoolteacher - more usually the latter.' The other point is, that although I said that the use of "master" was becoming old-fashioned, one of the largest teaching unions in the UK today is the NASUWT (National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers). Historically, the NAS was a male, rather chauvinistic, union and the UWT was set up as a counter to it. They came together in, I think, the 1970s, because of the pressure for equal opportunities legislation. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 07:17:44 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:17:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > > > > 4. Rita Skeeter confirms the Daily Prophet is being pressured by > > Fudge but also that since no one would want to hear of > > Voldemort's return, they wouldn't print what Harry says > > happened, > > anyway, because it wouldn't sell. Do we want to take a guess on > > how > > actively the Prophet is participating in discrediting Harry and > > Dumbledore? How much is actually Ministry coercion? > > In my mind, the Ministry's control of the Prophet is so complete that > I think it's more likely than not that it is effectively a state- run > newspaper, committed to publishing the party line. The speed of its > about-face after the DoM seems to support this, as it would seem to > take longer for mere pressure exerted on an independent publication > to have its effect. However, when Big Brother himself calls, the > flunkies do what they're told. > To me the Daily Prophet seems like a caricature of main-stream press in RL, which have more or less degenerated to The Voice of Concensus. Like in the Daily Prophet, the voice of government, the official version, is given prominence, with more subversive voices squashed in the last paragraph. Think the Iraq war, the WMD debacle - I can't remember main-stream press voicing any real doubt as to their (WMD in Iraq) existence prior to the war. The Bush-Powell-Blair version was presented as (more or less) the common sense truth. I think that's the way the Daily Prophet works. And, by the way, if it was a state run newspaper, there would be no need for Fudge to exert pressure on the editors. The very fact that he needs to do that implies, IMO, that it is supposed to be free press. After all, there is a long history in RL of governemnts in democratic countries trying to influence the press. Naama, cynic From J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk Thu Sep 2 07:35:06 2004 From: J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk (Jospehine) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:35:06 -0000 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111857 "potioncat" wrote: Aura: This is another one of those UK private school culture clash things:whenever Hermione says "Please sir," to ask a question, I'm reminded of "may I have some more?" and abused ophans and whatnot. :) To my American ears, it seems like an unnecesarily subserviant thing for Hermione to say, so I assume I'm missing some cultural context here? Potioncat: I do think it's a cultural thing. I say that because I grew up in the Southern U.S. where "Ma'am and Sir" were used always when speaking to an adult, even to parents. Josephine now: This is definitely a cultural difference. I am English and I was at secondary school in the UK from 11-13 then moved to the US to attend High School in its entirity. I think JKR has depicted English schooling very well, and it isn't just based on private schools either. In my UK school (non private) we were made to stand up as the teacher entered the room and chorus 'Good morning Mr. ****' and he would then signal for us to sit down. It is certainly not a bizarre thing for Hermione to say 'Please, sir' as she *is* one for following rules, etiquette and manners. Sadly respect for teachers is decreasing more and more these days, but certainly while I was at school, which would have been the same years as our Hogwarts bunch, we were very polite and suitably frightened of being 'troublesome' to our teachers. The difference in the US, which we certainly don't see in any HP British school moments, is that teachers are generally more relaxed and more approachable in the States. (I'm making a sweeping comparison here, not on an individual basis). The only time we see Harry break the boundaries between student and teacher is with Lupin, and even then he remains a little guarded and polite up until Lupin resigns. There is less discipline in the US (which I think is sometimes a good thing) and lessons are less strict. The classroom as HRH know it is miles away from the way that most American schools teach. (I'm not going to get onto my high horse about the things that the UK schooling system could learn from the US) What we have to think while we are reading about HRH in lessons is that they are frightened of being told off, and are aware of the esteem that they must show to their elders. In short saying 'please, sir' is the norm, and a sign of respect. Phew! That seemed complicated for such a simple point! I must stop this babbling habit... Thanks! Jo From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 2 08:33:46 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:33:46 -0400 Subject: Muggles Aware of Wizards (was Re: The Age Thing) Message-ID: <001a01c490c7$908f2b50$52c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 111858 -Karen "In PS/SS, Ted the newsman smiles when mentioning the owl sightings and showers of stars. It has been mentioned that Ted could be a Muggle who is aware of the WW or a Muggle father of half-blood Tonks. IMO, the Statue of Secrecy has clauses in it to deal with Muggles who are related or marry a member of the WW. Otherwise Seamus, Justin, Tonks, etc would never have been born." DuffyPoo: I just wanted to point out that Ted Tonks is Muggle-born not a Muggle. "Andromeda's sisters ar still here because they made lovely, respectable pure-blood marriages, but Andromeda married a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks..." (OotP The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black) Apart from that I think you're quite right and that the familes of Muggle-born witches/wizards are a special case. Even the Dursleys fit into this category since they have a wizard living with them two months of the year (approx). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 03:06:16 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:06:16 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111859 > Laurasia: > Archetypes are so common because we *need* them. ?If the Baddie > was a white wizard who was kind to the hero and gave him > presents and good advice, but them suddenly pealed off a mask > we'd be confused. We'd probably laugh. Putting on a black cloak > immediately lets the audience know who to empathise with and > who to boo and hiss at (unlike life where things are more > complicated). > > I wasn't talking about surface details which make one archetype > differ from another- whether the hero's name is Harry Potter or > Luke Skywalker, whether he's been told his parents were killed > by Darth Vadar or Lord Voldemort, whether he's living with his > aunt in Surrey or his uncle on Tatooine. Those are all surface > details which define the milieu of the world but have nothing to > do with the structural story elements. Take Harry Potter and set > it in space and change all the magic to science and you've > got the same story. Zendemort once more: I believe you are missing one thing here. "Surface details" are what make art. I could compare Mozart to Beethoven, and find very similar melodies, but as I put on the extra stuff, e.g. "surface details", they become different works of art, with a completely different feel. HP and Star Wars share similarities, I wouldn't deny that. But they are ENTIRELY different stories. Why? Because of "surface details" which are what make many works of art different from one another. These "surface details" define the importance of an artwork. Saying that HP and Star Wars have the same story is like saying that the Book 1984 and a brave New World also have the same story, because they follow the same "archetype" of a "Big Brother" government. But they're not, they have completely different views, that create completely different stories... again because of the "surface details." It's like saying that one of Pablo Picasso's paintings of a nude woman is the same as one of Magritte's paintings of a nude woman. Both paintings deal with the a nude woman, so why wouldn't they convey the same meaning??? Of course they don't, they are completely different paintings that convey completely different meanings. Again, because of "surface details." I would like to warn you not to judge a person by their skeleton!!! > Laurasia: > > I think Dumbledore *is* the mentor archetype, and that is what his > role is in the story. I like archetypes, I think we need them > because there is not enough time to go into elaborate detail > about every single character. I am reaffirmed when I read > Dumbledore because his role is immediately apparent to > me, he reinforces what I wish to believe about the real world. > If you want to quarrel about surface details I think you've missed > the point of what an archetype is. The idea is that they are > constant over all stories- not just fantasy stories, but the appear > in teen comedies and westerns and detective stories. > The idea is that despite any superfluous surface details they still > perform the same role. Zendemort: Hopefully, by now you understand. "Archetypes" are just skeletal structures of characters that come up in life (certainly in my life I've had a mentor figure...etc), but the importance is not these Archetypes, but their "surface details." This is what makes the story. This is what makes the books unique. > Laurasia: > > Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* > over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind of > relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered > a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet > was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet > in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the > relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which > was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing > work, it's another to have control over it. Zendemort: Freud made up an idiotic way of analyzing people that is completely irrevelant in today's science of psychology. If I went to a psychologist, and he started talking about the Oedipus Complex, I would say that he is a complete idiot, and knows nothing about the science, which is more about analyzing many different people than exclusively the insane, which is where Freud got many of his theories, working in an insane asylum. Jung was not as bad, but completely archaic in terms of modern psychology... Oh, and we don't need "archetypes," that is another ridiculous concept by an archaic psychologist. The mentor, the bad guy dressed in black (actually most of the time, Voldemort couldn't dress himself at all)... the reason why these "archetypes" are so prevalent is because they actually DO come up in life. And remember, the good guy in HP is also dressed in black (or is that just a surface detail). From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 03:12:27 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:12:27 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111860 > Alla: > First of all, the author may choose not to share the supposed > intentions with the readers. Something, which was shared, may not be > a complete truth, etc. > Zendemort: Yes, that is completely true. How do we know JKR's intentions... or that she will actually tells us them, and be truthfull? >Alla: > Yes, the work of art at some point acquires the life of its own. > Surely, many of us are reading in Harry Potter many significantly > different things from what JKR wanted us to read. > > Why should it counts against JKR, if we dissect a richer meanings > from the books, something that she may not be consciously aware of, > when she just started? Zendemort: I couldn't agree with you more!! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 03:55:22 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:55:22 -0000 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) In-Reply-To: <20040901.211533.1484.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111861 > Kathryn: > > 'please sir, the Chemistry master wanted me to give you this > > message' Aura wrote:: > (snip) To my American ears, it seems like an unnecesarily > subserviant thing for Hermione to say, so I assume I'm missing > some cultural context here? > snip> > I still say that he invokes that title just to puff up his > importance, because he's so insecure he feels he needs external > things like titles to make people respect his authority. Not sure if I got the snips right.. but Tonks here: First anyone over the age of 70 in the U.S. will tell you that showing respect for your "superiors" was a normal thing here before the 1950's. Only younger people today think that this is a terrible thing. It was just accepted as good breeding and the way the society was. In the U.K. they have not changed as much as we have in the U.S. (They still have some manners there I believe.) I can remember a discussion with an older friend where I told her that the employees where I worked were taking up a collection to get our boss a Christmas gift, and she says "he is your superior, and it is not acceptable to give him a gift". Now as to Snape: Snape is a Potions Master because he is very good at what he does. (He is the Master, not the student. Master/Student is a very normal concept.) He is very intelligent and he knows this. HE IS NOT INSECURE, he is arrogant. If you have met any really intelligent people who knew that they were more intelligent than the people around them...well some of them are ok and nice, but many are very arrogant and impatient with others. And Snape is like this. He is very self assured, there in nothing at all insecure about him!! Tonks_op From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 09:33:51 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:33:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > Marianne:I don't recall Dumbledore saying that he suspected Sirius was the traitor. > > > > > > Alla: Me neither, > > Pippin, point us to the right direction, please? :o) > Pip: > ===== > PoA chapter 10 > "He suspected Black?" gasped Madame Rosmerta. > > "He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been > keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements,"said > Professor McGonagall darkly. "Indeed he had suspected for > some time that someone on our side had turned traitor and was > passing a lot of information to You-Know-Who." > ===== > > I gather from this that Dumbledore was already trying to find out > who the traitor was and had been unable to eliminate Sirius from > his list of suspects. > > Pippin Valky: I interpret this differently to Pippin. I see that this canon does yet imply that DD may have eliminated Sirius as a suspect. If, perchance, DD was concerned that the traitor might still have access to the secret because *Sirius* trusted them. Naturally DD would assume, if the traitor was close to James then he's close to Sirius too. DD may have judged Sirius to be trustworthy as did James, but too sensitive, too emotionally involved with the traitor, as James did not. From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 2 04:29:01 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:29:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) Message-ID: <20040902.002914.3692.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111863 On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:24:16 -0000 "potioncat" writes: > Potioncat: > I do think it's a cultural thing. I say that because I grew up in > the Southern U.S. where "Ma'am and Sir" were used always when > speaking to an adult, even to parents. Movies almost always get it > wrong. It's made to be a demeaning, bullying sort of behavior, to > expect someone to address you that way. But is wasn't like that at > all. I just meant the "Please" part, not the sir/ma'am. I do know that in the South, sir and ma'am are common, while southerners who move elsewhere get funny looks if they say it a lot. But I meant the way that Hermione almost always preceedes a question in Potions (especially if she's sort of interrupting) with "If you please." I was wondering if "if you please" is one of those phrases that isn't taken literally, like "all right?" for "what's up?" and "beg your pardon?" for "repeat that?" If so, does "if you please" preceeding a question mean "excuse me for interrupting" or "don't think I'm dumb, but...?" or something else? Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 2 04:22:08 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:22:08 -0400 Subject: old-fashioned profs (was: Re: Master of This School Message-ID: <20040902.002914.3692.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111864 > potioncat: > You are so right! I mean, the man wears a nightshirt to bed for > Heavens sake! How many man do you know who wear nightshirts? Aura: But everyone wears robes in Hogwarts, too. BTW, what do men wear to bed? I'm gay, so, not exactly anything I'd experience. I think my father only wore (ew ew EW!) underpants -- and now a hundred Alan Rickman fans' eyes are unfocusing as they're imagining that scene in PoA as if that was what Snape wears to bed. I think there is a huge cultural gap between the kids and the adults, though. It may be because of the global culture that all kids in the 90s were new for growing up in, i.e. American pop culture infusing every corner of the globe. However, I wonder if the last Vold War somehow led to more Muggle culture leaking into the wizarding world. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From spoonmerlin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 06:20:43 2004 From: spoonmerlin at yahoo.com (Brent) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:20:43 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111866 Tooks: > consider what JKR said about how we should question what LV did to > stay alive and add to that the "misprint" of DD telling Harry that TR > was, indeed, the last remaining ancestor of SS it seemed a rather > harmless. But, although I fail to remember where the quote came > from, JKR explained that despite it was a misprint it was not > technically untrue. She was refering to the word ancestor and not descendent. She meant to use descendent as SS was the Ancestor having been born first. She says it is technically correct because some people use ancestor for people born to and those that bore them. i.e. Most people would not say you are not your grand fathers ancestor but some might meaning you are related. From camilla at vaughan3.fsnet.co.uk Thu Sep 2 09:20:20 2004 From: camilla at vaughan3.fsnet.co.uk (millimagus) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:20:20 -0000 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111867 > Josephine: > In my UK school (non private) we were made to stand up as the > teacher entered the room and chorus 'Good morning Mr. ****' and he > would then signal for us to sit down. > > The difference in the US, which we certainly don't see in any HP > British school moments, is that teachers are generally more relaxed > and more approachable in the States. (I'm making a sweeping > comparison here, not on an individual basis). >Snip > There is less discipline in the US (which I think is sometimes a > good thing) and lessons are less strict. The classroom as HRH know > it is miles away from the way that most American schools teach. > What we have to think while we are reading about HRH in > lessons is that they are frightened of being told off, and are > aware of the esteem that they must show to their elders. In short > saying 'please, sir' is the norm, and a sign of respect. Milli: I taught in (state) secondary schools in Britain for 4 years, until July 2003. It's definitely right to say that 'Sir' and 'Miss' are used regularly but, to be honest, it's now more out of habit than anything and it's amazing how kids can make it sound disrespectful! The standing up at the beginning of class is now very rare. I'd also like to stand up for British schooling at this point. The atmosphere in lessons is obviously dependent on the teacher but I know that my lessons, and those of the majority of my colleagues, were relaxed and the teachers approachable. And not many of the kids were afraid of being told off - which was not ALWAYS a good thing!! To me, Hogwarts seems to be based on British public schools (for all those Americans out there, that means elite private schools and not state funded schooling). Milli. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Thu Sep 2 11:02:17 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (susanadcunha) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:02:17 -0000 Subject: Why is Tonks clumbsy? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040830004025.01eaaec0@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111868 Lawless wrote: "Maybe Tonks as we know her...is a disguise. OR...Tonks spends so much time in disguise that she can't easily adjust to her "original" body." ----------- Ok. I thought this fire deserved another log. Instead of thinking she's in disguise because she's the half blood prince, imagine she/he is a DE impersonating the real Nynphadora Tonks. Though she's Sirius cousin, they haven't seen each other in a long time and she was probably recruited to the Order through him. No one would really know her that well. And Crouch could fool DD who knew Moody. Maybe the DEs didn't even try to enter the Order. They wanted to spy on the aurors. One of them is a Mutaformagus and when they look at the aurors he could impersonate they come across Tonks, coincidently also a mutaformagos but, most importantly, fresh out of the auror academy. Inexperienced and easy(er) to kidnap. Sirius tries to get word to his family (the part he cares about) that his innocent and... Bingo! The DEs have a spy inside of the Order! Susana From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 2 11:04:28 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:04:28 -0000 Subject: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff (was: Re: Master of This School) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "millimagus" wrote: Milli: > > I taught in (state) secondary schools in Britain for 4 years, until > July 2003. It's definitely right to say that 'Sir' and 'Miss' are > used regularly but, to be honest, it's now more out of habit than > anything and it's amazing how kids can make it sound disrespectful! > The standing up at the beginning of class is now very rare. Geoff: I taught in the same state school in South-west London for 32 years (1961-93). I was there for such a long time because it gradually changed from an 11-15 boys' school to a 13-18 mixed. But, as I said on a post in a related thread, pupils would normally address a staff member by name - "Mr.Jones", "Mrs.Brown", "Miss Jackson" - or as "Sir" or "Miss" (no Mrs. or Ms. here!). milli: > I'd also like to stand up for British schooling at this point. The > atmosphere in lessons is obviously dependent on the teacher but I > know that my lessons, and those of the majority of my colleagues, > were relaxed and the teachers approachable. Geoff: I would agree there certainly. With me, it became interesting when I started to teach the offspring of former pupils, who always demanded to know the foibles of their parent(s). :-) It was also interesting when I joined the Friends Reunited website (which is a site designed to link up folk from the same school). I have been in contact with about three dozen ex-pupils and we have had some great reminiscences via email about the "good old days". Milli: > To me, Hogwarts seems to be based on British public schools (for > all those Americans out there, that means elite private schools > and not state funded schooling). Geoff: I wouldn't agree entirely. I went as a pupil to a state grammar school in Battersea and much of the Hogwarts style and ethos is very familiar to me. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susanadacunha at gmx.net Thu Sep 2 11:08:50 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (susanadcunha) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:08:50 -0000 Subject: The Age Thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111870 Inge wrote: "Also, in the muggleworld people are registered from birth, so it must seem very strange that some muggles (I guess other muggles would still consider muggleborns to be muggles ... uh.... normal people - as they don't know about the WW) live to be 120-130 - or more?" ----------- Hi, Ingue. I don't think that's a very difficult question to answer. I'll use Hermione as an example as you did: Imagine she has uncles, cousins and some (two or three) close friends she kept from childhood (age 10). By the time she leaves Hogwarts she has barely kept in touch with them (in her case, she has barely seen her parents though I'm sure she wrights). Her parents have probably told everyone she's at a special school for the gifted witch I'm sure raised no suspicions among family and friends. Furthermore, no one will find odd if she's recruited for research work by a very hush-hush company sited no-one-knows-where that does no-one-knows-what-but-I'm-sure-is-very-important. But we really don't need to go that far. About 90% of my friends and family have never seen the place I work and their curiosity about my work is more on the are-you-happy level rather then what-are-your- tasks. And of course, if you don't want people to ask about your job just say you're an accountant (sorry, accountants out there, but most people find it dull ? it's a fact). If you meet a real accountant you can say you want to get work out of your head for the moment. Back to Hermione, she will have a job in the WW and eventually a house with wizard neighbourhood and/or a discrete muggle neighbourhood. She will visit her parents who will die before she does without that being odd in any way. Her friends and cousins are a different story: they will grow old and wonder why a 90 year old is not retired. If she's still close to them by that time, that is. Eventually they will die envying her health and that's that. I don't see anyone calling the authorities because it's not normal that she's so old and yet so fresh. Now imagine you're Hermione's neighbour. Imagine you move into a neighbourhood at the age of 30 and there's a nice old lady next door, a Miss Granger. You have kids, they grow up, and at the age of 50 you see her pass by your door carrying heavy-looking shopping bags [why was she shopping in the Muggle World is beyond me]. You think: `I remember her always being old but obviously she wasn't that old. I guess she always looked old to me but she was probably 50 and now she's 70' 20 years later you awake one morning to find out you starting to have incontinence problems and you see her strolling on a bicycle. You think: `I need to do more exercise! Look at her. She must be 90 and I bet she's not incontinent.' As you leave the house you come across another old neighbour having trouble picking up some loose change that had fallen and you say: `Miss Granger doesn't have a problem moving around. I just saw her in her bicycle. And she must be 90, right?' The neighbour answers: `90, you think? I always thought she was 20 years older than me. But that would make her 100; you must be right, of course.' Eventually you reach 80 and Miss Granger is energetically chasing a dog out of her back yard for ruining her daisies. You think: `Gee, I wish I would reach her age with that vigour. She must be 95 by now!' Finely you're 90. You look out the window from your wheel-chair and you see her strolling on her bicycle again. You think: `I don't remember Miss Granger having a daughter. My mind is starting to play some serious tricks on me." *Bless them, those muggles. They don't see anything do they!* Now, the official registry is another mater. But a simpler one! Most governments do periodic `clean ups' to their registries. When they do, they find a small amount of 150 years old citizens. This is due to emigration, disappearances, and the `John-Do's at the morgue. They assume those people are dead and that's the end of it. No need to get into faking death and getting false identities. Susana From vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be Thu Sep 2 11:13:32 2004 From: vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be (Vicky Gwosdz) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:13:32 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111871 OK, I haven't been reading all of the speculations on the subject (the explanation for this being a baby daughter ;-) ), so if somebody else beat me to it, my apologies... (I did search the forum, but didn't really find anything though). My thoughts on the HBP is that it might be Godderic Gryffindor. There was a very small reference to him in the second book, and it has always bothered me that there was no additional explanation on the fact that harry was able to draw the sword out of the sorting hat. Since JKR states on her site that she initially intented to elaborate on the story behind the HBP in book two, but then decided it better fit book 6, I assume that explaines the annoying lack of info. Any thoughts on this? From kcawte at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 2 11:14:26 2004 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:14:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School References: Message-ID: <00ad01c490de$2e6113f0$69206bd5@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 111872 > > Kathryn: > > > > > > Even in the UK you wouldn't have referred to the teacher as > Master, it's an > > > archaic synonym for teacher (probably bases on their > qualifications as > > > mentioned by someone else) > > > > Sorry, but yes you would. Masters and boys. Very old school yes, but > that's the atmosphere Hogwarts engenders (at least for me). English > Public (US read private) school. Schoolmaster. Master = teacher. > Headmaster (principal) = chief of the teachers. Headmaster is a term > of address, while master is not. However, had Snape said *A* master > of this school perhaps the debate would not arise. > K again You missed my point. I actually *said* that the term Master was used to refer to them in the third person. Someone seemed to be suggestion that it was used for directly addressing a teacher in place of sir or whatever. I was simply pointing out that while a teacher would be a master they would not be addressed as such. i.e. you wouldn't say "Yes Master" you would say " Yes Sir" and that it would be very very uncommon to call someone Master Jackson or whatever but rather Mr Jackson, one of the masters or Mr Jackson, the chemistry master. As you say master is not a term of address - exactly my point. K From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 11:55:51 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:55:51 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111873 "zendemort" wrote: snip So why does Snape > call himself master of the school? I wonder what he is after? Does > he wish to become the Headmaster of Hogwarts at one point? > hmmm....... > This could provide clues into his personality... and his private > thoughts (possibly, he considers himself greater than Dumbledore, > the true master?)... But can it also tell us anything yet to come? > Potioncat: Well, this generated a lot of posts! One thought came to my mind was how slight cultural differences give readers very different impressions of characters. Which happens in RL too, doesn't it? I had assumed that a Potions Master was a level of expertise..sort of like a Master Carpenter. That a student would finish at Hogwarts and then study at St. Mungos or apprentice with an established Potions Master. A Potions Master would make potions at St. Mungos (pharmacist) or have his own shop...etc. So I always thought Lupin's praise of Snape's potion making skills a little odd. Sort of like comparing a surgeon's skills to ordinary men, not to other surgeons. (Lupin wasn't comparing Snape to potion masters but to wizards in general.) But that makes sense. He is saying Snape's skills exceed what you would expect even of a teacher. See, I always thought there was something fishy in Lupin's praise and gave that gave a little push in the ESE!Lupin direction. I also think this misunderstanding along with the opening potions speech is why so many of us seem to assume that Snape was a potion maker before coming to Hogwarts. Potioncat From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 2 12:03:34 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:03:34 -0400 Subject: Stopper in Death (WAS: Help!) Message-ID: <001d01c490e4$e0d168e0$3462d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 111874 > Alla: > > I started being very fond of "stopper in death" lately. Although I > am not quite sure how it will work. Snape slipping him a potion > without Harry noticing? Hardly. :o) Bookworm: "I've wondered about that too. It is such a great speech there has to be something more to it. Maybe Snape could get Remus or Hermione to persuade Harry to drink it? They are less distrusting of Snape. Or Dumbledore, if he is still around by then?" DuffyPoo: I have thought that Snape made one of his stopper death potions for LV while he was an active DE which turned, or helped turn, LV into Vapormort when he AK'd HP. What HP may need to find out, with Snape's help, is the exact potion used and the antidote for the formula. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 2 12:08:38 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:08:38 -0400 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: <002101c490e5$94f9dcd0$3462d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 111875 "He suspected Black?" gasped Madame Rosmerta. "He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements,"said Professor McGonagall darkly. "Indeed he had suspected for some time that someone on our side had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to You-Know-Who." ===== Pippin "I gather from this that Dumbledore was already trying to find out who the traitor was and had been unable to eliminate Sirius from his list of suspects." DuffyPoo: I've thought that was a very good non-answer on McGonagall's part, possibly to the point that DD hadn't suspected Sirius until after the blowing up of Pettigrew incident. As has been said before, everyone suspected everyone else. The original Order members were being picked off one by one, at that time, yet the spy remained. Everyone was a suspect. Except, of course, Peter Pettigrew. DD knew he himself wasn't the spy so the spy had to be someone else. Sirius knew he wasn't the spy so the spy had to be someone else. Etc, etc. DD apparently didn't know about the S-K switch or he wouldn't have given testimony that Sirius was the Potters' S-K. Did James/Lily/Sirius/others suspect DD and so he wasn't in on the switch? It was made nearly a week before the attack, after all, plenty of time to tell him. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Thu Sep 2 12:36:57 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:36:57 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > AmanitaMuscaria wrote: > snip > > The other thing is, why have an umbrella stand there at all? > what's > > it supposed to hold? Broomsticks? I can't see the sort of people > > who'd turn up to visit the Black household arriving disguised as > > muggles with umbrellas in hand, ... > snip > > Potioncat: > The students use umbrellas when they walk to the Quidditch game in > the rain. Hagrid carries an umbrella. Though, you wouldn't think > wizards and witches would need them. AmanitaMuscaria again: Yes, but that's at Hogwarts. We're in the Black household, and I can't quite see a line of students trooping up to Mrs. Black's front door (though I'm getting a vivid mental picture of their reception!) Somehow, I can't imagine young Sirius bringing his schoolfriends home for tea! Any visitors to the Black's household would use magical means, I'd wager. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 12:48:55 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:48:55 -0000 Subject: Troll's leg umbrella stand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111878 > AmanitaMuscaria again: > Yes, but that's at Hogwarts. We're in the Black household, and I > can't quite see a line of students trooping up to Mrs. Black's front door (though I'm getting a vivid mental picture of their reception!) Somehow, I can't imagine young Sirius bringing his schoolfriends home for tea! Any visitors to the Black's household would use magical means, I'd wager. > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria Potioncat: Well, that was too funny to snip! And it made me think. So far, everyone has come in the front door at Grimmauld Place. I wonder what Madam Manners would say about this? "The proper witch announces herself by floo before Apparating outside the front door. The hostess is ready to open the door at once so that guests are not inconvenienced by the weather." Or do you open your umbrella just before Apparating? Or do you Apparate at a nearby alley then walk to the house in question? Potioncat who is doing a great job of avoiding RL today. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 13:11:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:11:56 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Caesian wrote previosly: > snip. > >thus far, no Major character, presented from > > the outset as sympathetic or trusted by Harry, has been > > reversed. < > > > > Pippin: > > What about Pensieve!James? > > > > > Alla: > > Was James reversed though, Pippin or did he just acquired some greyness in him? > > James was painted as a boring Saint. JKR added some colours to him. If pensieve Scene was James at his worst, than to me he has along way to go before I consider him to be evil< Pippin: ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before we recognize it? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 13:28:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:28:46 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111880 > Pippin: > ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a > werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding > someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > we recognize it? > Alla: Ooo. Sorry, Pippin. We diverge here. Becoming animagi and keeping company to Remus to me was noble intentions and a bit screwed up execution of the said intentions. I cannot see or smell anything grey here. Pensieve scene was bad, very bad. But evil? No, sorry. Who knows, maybe I am reluctant to condemn James based on that because I suspect that Snape gave back as good as it gets, we just did not see it yet. Evil does not have to be wearing a robe and a hood, but evil should do significantly more before I call it such. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 13:43:49 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:43:49 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Pippin: Evil is holding > > someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > > in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > > we recognize it? > > > > > Alla: > > Pensieve scene was bad, very bad. But evil? No, sorry. Who knows, > maybe I am reluctant to condemn James based on that because I suspect that Snape gave back as good as it gets, we just did not see it yet. > Potioncat: Well, how would we see it if we changed the characters? Draco and Harry? But we know something about them and that would influence our take on it. How about Unknown Hufflepuff and Unknown Ravenclaw? Potioncat (forming her opinion of this idea) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 13:51:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:51:46 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111882 > Potioncat: > Well, how would we see it if we changed the characters? Draco and > Harry? But we know something about them and that would influence > our take on it. How about Unknown Hufflepuff and Unknown Ravenclaw? > Alla: You mean Harry holding Draco upside down or vice versa? Yes, I would pretty much say that Draco deserved it based on their dynamics, I actually would doubt that Harry would do it under normal circumstances. Two unknown students, where two bullying another one? Again, as two people doing something bad, but I will need to know much more before I condemn them as evil. Actually, I am reluctant to condemn any child as evil, unless said child commits a murder in front of me, I guess. I am significantly less forgiving towards FICTIONAL adults. :o) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 11:37:12 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:37:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111883 Debbie: > > > I don't think so. To be honest, there's something very > unsettling about the fact that she assembles a pair of people she > has little or no respect for (Rita and Luna) and gets them to do > her bidding. > >> > > > Potioncat: > But parents have the authority to make and enforce rules. Hermione > had no such authority. Had Lucius Malfoy done something like this > we'd be very upset. > > In fact, I've said it before, except for the unfortunate > circumstances of her birth, Hermione would make a good Slytherin. > > Potioncat who thinks Gryffindors and Slytherins have a lot of traits > in common. I agree with Potioncat in that Gryffindors and Slytherins have a lot in common, and that several of our favourite Gryffindor heroes would, as the sorting hat would say, 'do well in Slytherin.' The members of Slytherin encountered so far in the book are not, in my opinion, typical of that house. Out of necessity for the plot, the Sytherins we meet are 'bad,' while the Gryffindors are all fine upstanding citizens. We know that this can't possibly be true simply from knowledge of human nature. If you consider the evidence of what is written about members of Slytherin in the books alone, all Slytherins would have to be ugly, cowardly, lazy and stupid. But the Sorting hat, who knows as much about it as anyone, seems to suggest that Slytherins are in fact often brave and clever. It surprises me that a pair of such servile and unintelligent clods as Crabbe and Goyle ever got sorted into the house meant for those of great ambition. When we meet the young Severus Snape in OoP, he rather reminded me of Hermione, desperately writing reams and reams in cramped handwriting, and on leaving the exam poring over the question paper rather than celebrating. We know Snape is brave, as he risks his life as a spy, and we have to assume that he isn't purely bad either. He's also a very talented wizard, supported by various feats of his throughout the books. And in PS/SS Hermione is able to solve his logic puzzle, and even appear to enjoy doing so, although she states that few wizards would be able to. With view to Herminone's behaviour towards Rita Skeeter, I agree that were she a Slytherin, we would consider it in a very different light, since we are conditioned to think all Slytherins act or the worst, all Gryffindors for good. Perhaps part of the difference lies in whether Hermione enjoys exercising this power, or whether she uses it without really thinking about the ethical consequences it implies. Although she is clever, Hermione is still only 15, and lacks the experience to identify and fully understand her behaviour. I think she is so carried away with the idea of helping Harry out, that she doesn't give a thought for if it is right or wrong to use Luna and Rita like this. Whether this is better or worse than continuing with full realisation is another matter. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 2 12:14:34 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:14:34 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111884 I continue to be very interested in the 'Evans' family history. JKR seemed to be indicating that 'Petunia the squib' was fairly close to the mark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure a squib is a non- magical person with two magical parents. Therefore, could Petunia be a non-magical child with only one magical parent! There seem to be number of possibilities here. Since Evans must be a muggle surname, which would have come from the father either; 1. Petunia and Lily's mum was a witch (unlikely due to the whole mudblood thing!) or 2. Petunia and Lily's father was a wizard, who for some reason left the scene, to be replaced by the stepfather - Evans (could explain JKRs interest in the Petunia-squib comment) or 3. Lily's mum had an affair with a wizard and she was the result (whether Lily's mum told Mr. Evans/Petunia, I wouldn't know!!!) Any thoughts?? Brother Fry (who remains convinced that Lily is descended from Gryffindor) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 2 12:25:10 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:25:10 -0000 Subject: Godric and Slytherin (Blood Brothers??) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111885 There seems to be a lot discussion lately as to whether Harry and Slytherin are related. But what if GG and SS are linked in some way. The sorting hat states that GG and SS were the best of friends. There is also a continuing theme of 'blood' in the HP books. Is there such a thing as blood brothers in the WW? If so, what would this mean for the participants? I think that maybe GG and SS were 'blood brothers' and that some pact was made between them during their friendship. This pact - sealed in blood - could then be passed down to future generations. If it is Lily who is the descendant of GG then it could be that her counter-charm was all the more effective because of this link between GG and SS! Any thoughts?? Brother Fry (still convinved that Lily is the heir of Gryffindor) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 2 11:57:13 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:57:13 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111886 Vicky:> > My thoughts on the HBP is that it might be Godderic Gryffindor. > There was a very small reference to him in the second book, and it > has always bothered me that there was no additional explanation on > the fact that harry was able to draw the sword out of the sorting > hat. I think that it must absolutely definitely be Gryffindor. I think the reason that the HBP storyline was originally in COS was that surely Hermione would have looked into Salazaar Slytherin's history whilst researching the COS. She would have then discovered what happened between the two great friends Slytherin and Gryffindor. I am sure that whatever took place will have some relevance to Harry's confrontation with Voldemort. Brother Fry From vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be Thu Sep 2 14:25:50 2004 From: vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be (Vicky Gwosdz) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:25:50 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > I think that it must absolutely definitely be Gryffindor. I think the > reason that the HBP storyline was originally in COS was that surely > Hermione would have looked into Salazaar Slytherin's history whilst > researching the COS. She would have then discovered what happened > between the two great friends Slytherin and Gryffindor. I am sure > that whatever took place will have some relevance to Harry's > confrontation with Voldemort. > > Brother Fry I didn't even consider that, but knowing Hermione, that has to be true as well. I'm betting on GG to be the HBP, and hoping that I'm right about this for a change! From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 14:31:31 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:31:31 -0000 Subject: Son of Insecure!Snape (Was: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonks_op" We had a discussion about this a few ages ago, but I really don't remember where it is in the archives...pity, because it was a fun argument... > Now as to Snape: Snape is a Potions Master because he is very good > at what he does. (He is the Master, not the student. Master/Student > is a very normal concept.) He is very intelligent and he knows > this. HE IS NOT INSECURE, he is arrogant. If you have met any > really intelligent people who knew that they were more intelligent > than the people around them...well some of them are ok and nice, > but many are very arrogant and impatient with others. And Snape is > like this. He is very self assured, there in nothing at all > insecure about him!! Personal preface: I'm a graduate student, I intend to go into academia, and as such, I'm a quasi-professional observer of academic mores and follies and all that. Sure, different context than Hogwarts, but some things seem rather similar. I did my undergraduate work at a place where it was normal and practically expected to refer to professors by their first names, with only a few exceptions. I'm doing graduate work at a place that you would never, ever do that. But my general experience is that those who *insist* on the titles and honors, with a continual reference to them, are those who really aren't quite comfortable or assured in their position. There's a point when it's an insistence upon common courtesy, but there's also a point where it's an attempt to solidify one's power and control over the students. Everyone I've talked to in academia knows at least one of those--their tendency to snap back comes out of an intense defensiveness. Attacking their ideas is like attacking the person themself. Snape strikes me as one of those, and after OotP revelations, I'm not surprised. He's gone from being the victim (so far as we know, after one instance--I'm not going to establish a complete life history of him and the Marauders without more information) to being in a position of power that he can be the bully (and yes, yes he is, per interview and any reading that doesn't explicitly try to minimize that aspect of his personality.) There are a few 'issues' left over there, methinks. There's also situations such as his treatment of Lupin's DADA class, and behavior in PoA during and after the Shrieking Shack. Why, oh why, does he try to shut down Hermione in the Hospital Wing with such vengeance? And a creepy echo of Voldemort's words to Lily? Feeling a little...threatened? No, I think dear Severus is somewhat insecure in addition to being arrogant, as the two are definitely not mutually exclusive. It's part of what makes him both so endearingly human and so incredibly frustrating. -Nora does the dance of having passed translation exams From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 14:35:20 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:35:20 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111889 > Pippin: > ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a > werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding > someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > we recognize it? Ginger ponders: Wow, this is one of those areas where I don't think there will ever be a consensus drawn. We all bring in our pasts and experiences. Personally, I don't think James and Sirius were any worse than the kids I grew up with. I knew plenty of guys who got "pantsed" on the schoolyard. I never got "pantsed" myself, but I did get "bra-ed". Then there was that little incident with the faminine product stolen out of the girls' room trash and thrown from guy to guy around the classroom as they announced to whom it belonged. That's what you get for being "first". If these were the worst things that happened in my life, I'd be a happy duck. Or maybe I'd obsess on them because nothing else worse had happened to make me realize how trivial they were. As is, they make amusing stories to tell when rehashing the "good old days". So does this make the people who did this "evil"? Not in my mind. Immature, tactless, vulgar, insensitive... sure. None of them grew up to be evil. That's why I have a hard time labeling J&S as "evil" based on the Penseive scene. Schoolyard brats, certainly. Evil, to me, means a deeper lack of moral concern. I think that had they continued on in this fashion they could have become evil. They were showing a definate lack of compassion towards Snape, which, had they continued to treat others with that same lack of compassion, could have lead to a downward spiral. I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that if I label J&S as "evil", then I have to label the RL people I know who did the same things as "evil" as well. I can't do that, because I know they are not. Anyone who may have a different definition of "evil" is most certainly entitled to consider them as such, but for me, they fall short. As I said, I don't think this is an area on which we (meaning the list) will ever agree. Such is the case with relative terms. But it does make for interesting discussion. Ginger, feeling the dormant psych minor rising as she waits to read both sides of this issue. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 15:29:56 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:29:56 -0000 Subject: Wizards' Ages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Why do you think this is so important? GEO: Possibly it's one indication why those muggle and wizard/witch relationships don't work out too well or why it would be rather difficult for a wizard or witch to live and marry in the muggle world. > If they live so long, and > appear to work so long, how do young people like Snape and Percy > advance so quickly? You'd think candidates for DADA and Potions and > Ministry Officialdom would be coming out of the woodwork! GEO: Possibly because most people don't live to their potential lifespan possibly due to their lack of commonsense or due to the fact that the wizarding world is a much more hazardous and violent world. If you look at the people on the semi-canonical chocalate frog cards, you see that few of them manage to surpass 100 yrs. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 16:01:17 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <004101c48f3a$e7962b30$0cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20040902160117.32112.qmail@web12305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111891 DuffyPoo: After all, it only took Tom Riddle having a Muggle father who deserted his witch mother for him to hate, not only TR Sr, but all Muggles/Muggle-borns as well. Alina now: I can very well believe that he would be near-obsessed with his mother's lineage, not only to discover a past he's been missing for eleven years, but to further diminish the father he's learned to hate. bamf here: Forgive me, but I didn't think Tom's hatred for all Muggles came just from his father abandoning Tom's mother (and Tom). I thought a lot of it stemmed more from the Muggle Orphanage that he was forced to stay live at. After all, his whole reason to expose Hagrid as the person who set a monster on muggles was so that Tom could stay at Hogwarts over the summer. My other thought, and this goes along with the geneology thread, was that Tom's mother died just after giving birth and naming him. His father wasn't around. I'm assuming Tom went straight to an orphanage. When did he track down his father? And how? I doubt the little town had an orphanage. Thought? bamf, who really wishes this migrane would go away... ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 16:02:52 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:02:52 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Pippin: > > ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before we recognize it? > > Ginger ponders: > > Wow, this is one of those areas where I don't think there will ever be a consensus drawn. We all bring in our pasts and experiences. > > Personally, I don't think James and Sirius were any worse than the kids I grew up with. I knew plenty of guys who got "pantsed" on the schoolyard. I never got "pantsed" myself, but I did get "bra-ed". . Schoolyard brats, certainly. Evil, to me, means a deeper lack of moral concern. I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that if I label J&S as "evil", > then I have to label the RL people I know who did the same things as "evil" as well. I can't do that, because I know they are not. Pippin: Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. Lily doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? My dictionary says that 'evil' adds to 'bad' "connotations of depravity and corruptive influence." I think that adult Sirius and Lupin were cognizant of those elements. Sirius says that they were berks, a word with an obscene derivation, which concedes depravity even as it masks it. Lupin says he knew at the time they were out of line, so that's corruptive influence, especially since James tries to get the community to approve his actions, "Who wants to see me take off Snivelly's pants?" But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are you saying that in the Potterverse,a person who does evil and repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the first place? Pippin From drliss at comcast.net Thu Sep 2 16:14:25 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:14:25 +0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: <090220041614.5113.413746E0000E185D000013F922007621949C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 111893 "He suspected Black?" gasped Madame Rosmerta. "He was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements,"said Professor McGonagall darkly. "Indeed he had suspected for some time that someone on our side had turned traitor and was passing a lot of information to You-Know-Who." ===== Pippin "I gather from this that Dumbledore was already trying to find out who the traitor was and had been unable to eliminate Sirius from his list of suspects." Lissa: Don't die of the shock, but I agree with Pippin! ;) I think Dumbledore had whittled it down (by process of literal elimination) that Sirius, Remus, or Peter had to be the traitor, but he couldn't figure out which one it was. Sirius definitely suspected Remus (although we don't know for how long- I tend to favor a matter of days or less), and we don't really know who Remus suspected. (That line about forgiving him for thinking Sirius was the spy can certainly be read to believing for 13 years that Black WAS guilty!) I don't think DD wanted to believe it about any of the three of them, and I don't think he had evidence to accuse any of the three of them. I think James's insistance on Sirius was simply that Sirius WAS his best friend, and he did trust him. I think he still trusted DD, but simply trusted Sirius even more. Voldie did a pretty good job on messing with all their heads, didn't he? :) Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 2 16:09:44 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:09:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Help! (was: Conspiracy Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902160944.70445.qmail@web25106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111894 > Hans wrote: > JK Rowling said in an interview in Canada that 'If you understand the resurrection you understand Harry Potter'".< Pippin: The closest thing I could find is this: 'Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.' Vancouver Sun, Thursday Oct. 26, 2000. Hans now: Thanks Pippin. The person who originally mentioned the word resurrection hasn't reacted to my request, so I must conclude that Jo hasn't used that word. I suspect that what happened is that the person saw the interview you quoted and drew their own conclusions. They remembered their own conclusions and not the literal quotation. I'm sure that's quite normal. Not that it makes any difference to my argument. But I just thought I'd thank those people who've helped me look for the quotation. Thanks, friends! ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 2 16:18:13 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:18:13 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape In-Reply-To: <20040901.211533.1484.3.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111895 > Karen said: > > Also, McGonagall and Snape have a > > different relationship (friendly rivalry) with each other than they > > have with the rest of the staff. > Aura said: > So, do you we think McG and S like each other? Not in a shippy way, but I > just wonder how Snape gets along with the rest of the staff, if at all. > Since I want to see Snape as a 3D character, not a generic "mean > grownup," I like to think that Snape can be capable of friendship, > conversation, etc with people he's known long enough to trust. > > But what do the staff think of him? I think they respect him as a decent > teacher (or he'd been fired long ago), but on a personal level? "Snape's > a little difficult to get along with, but he can be pleasant when he > wants to be"? "He's rough on the students because that's his teaching > style, but I like him"? Does Snape hang around the teachers' lounge and > chat with anyone? Do he and McGonagall play chess? Does he *ever* crack a > smile? > > Aura > Yes I think Snape and McG like each other. Both are strict (remember McG took 150 points from her own house in PS/SS) and know how to control a class. In POA we see Snape in the teacher's lounge sitting on a chair. The relationship of the teaching staff was shown indirectly in both Cos and OotP. They banded together against Lockhart and Umbridge. IMO they are almost like a family but I don't think Snape has figured that out. I think Snape still holds himself apart from the rest because of his childhood (at least the snippets we have been able to see in OotP and POA). Snape had a very difficult transistion to make with the staff at Hogwarts. He was a student there 5 years before he became a teacher. This would not be easy for anyone but he has gained the respect of Hagrid, the trust of DD, a rivalry (Quidditch cup/house cup) with McG, and Filtch provided first aid in PS/SS. I'll even go a step further and say I think Snape has a closer relationship with the students in Slitheryn than McG has with the Griffindors. It would not surprise me to learn that Snape spends time in the Slitheryn common room making sure the Slitheryn's get all the homework help they need to increase their chances of winning the house cup. After all, Crabbe and Goyle are still passing their classes. Part of what interests me about Snape is that next to Harry, he is one of the more complete characters we have in the series. He has a past and we have been shown enough of it to try and put motives to his actions. As for laughing - no I think Snape is one of those people who don't laugh (the best I can get from my father-in-law after 35 years of trying is a slight smile). IMO - Snape is one of those people who feel lonely in a crowd because they can't figure out that people like them. - Karen From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 16:22:24 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:22:24 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which > should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' > normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody > 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line > and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. > Lily doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? Lily doesn't, but... "Students all around had gathered to watch. Some of them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer to watch. Some looked apprehensive, other entertained... Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular... 'It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...' Many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book didn't, and neither did Lily." Loathsome as we may (and I certainlny do) find James' behavior, there are very strong textual hints that a lot of the students are, frankly, getting a kick out of it. It's Lily the Muggleborn who doesn't buy into the larger community standards here. > But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are > you saying that in the Potterverse,a person who does evil and > repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the > first place? I think James is certainly being cruel, and it's an awful action, but I personally am reluctant to term it 'evil', partially because of the rather unclear motivation and intention--the pantsing seems to be a misdirected vengeance for Snape's calling Lily a Mudblood. There's also questions of scale, and let's not succumb to the slippery slope here. -Nora gets ready to go into full hibernation mode in a nice cold library From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 2 16:32:49 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:32:49 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111897 > Pippin: > Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which > should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' > normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody > 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line > and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. > doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? > But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are > you saying that in the Potterverse,a person who does evil and > repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the > first place? Jen: Potterverse barely flinched when a teacher turned a student into a bouncing ferret, much to the ferret's public humiliation; it turned a blind eye to the Trio leaving Draco, Crabbe & Goyle unconcious on the Hogwarts Express with tentacles and various other disfigurements sprouting from their faces; schoolkids can libel and slander each other in the Daily Prophet with no apparent consequence. I'd say in Potterverse there's a rather wide berth given for the behavior of kids at Hogwarts, and that the Marauders behavior with Snape, while reprehensible, was not considered evil by the other students (or fromw hat we know so far, the teachers). Jen Reese From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 2 16:40:50 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:40:50 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > > Caesian: > What!? Really, this view, coming from Kneasy, is shocking. "Neat and > tidy"?! This is like Lupin turning out to be ESE! Snape handing out > sweets! My reading comprehension must be slipping. I distinctly > remember more of an *unrepentent and bloody* leaning in prior posts. > Kneasy: True. But the two are not incompatible "Neat and tidy" refers to motivation; blood-stained scenery is outcome. Caesian: > I'll take issue and bite here - the series has not been following the > mystery genre, so well characterized by tidy endings. My money is on > the glaring lack of resolution for many apparent inconsistencies and > ambiguous actions. Snape? Neat and tidy? Not even if he is seen > snogging Lily Potter and writing poetry about it - he'd rather die than > be neat and tidy. Perish the thought. Will the life and death of > Sirius Black ever be unambiguous? Kneasy: It's motivation again. At some point JKR is going to have to give some sort of explanation of why these characters are acting the way they are. Personally, I don't mind what happens to any of the personae (so long as it's not too outrageous and unbelievable), but I do want to know *why* they act the way they do. So far we've been given a half-assed rationale of Tom - rejected by family, orphanage etc. Not a credible excuse for wanting to rule the world IMO. And I don't believe that JKR thinks it's credible either. I'm hoping (expecting) to read a lot more about Tom and his transformation from chip-on-shoulder teenager to Evil Mastermind in the coming books. The mystery is why, what happened in the back-story to them to make them behave as they do. Mystery comes in different flavours, there's the classic Agatha Christie type (which is how I think you are reading my words) and there is, say, as a crude example, the "Citizen Kane" type - the mystery being why was his last word "Rosebud?" What led to this? It's probably my liking for delving into characters pasts to see what makes them tick that explains my preference for the adults in the books rather than the youngsters. Apart from one incident Harry is an open book(!), not so DD, or Snape, or Sirius, or Lupin etc. It's what we don't know about them that interests me. Let's face it; HP attracts all sorts. > Caesian: > However, there is another, less-explicit level of reading > comprehension. Derived from canon, yes, but as much from the spirit > and repeated patterns presented as specific scenes or dialogue. > > What, based on this gestalt, is never-to-be-modified? > > First of all, the author is adhering to basic rules of morality and > fair play. She does not lie to us, or withhold vital clues. It is > very, very unlikely - based on existing Canon - that trusted and > sympathetic adults in Harry's life (such as Dumbledore, Lupin or Lily > and James Potter) - will be revealed as evil incarnate. Kneasy: Evil incarnate? I'll probably cause a sharp intake of breath among some, but I don't get that immersed in fantasy fiction; I read books for their entertainment value. 'Evil incarnate' is a label, it's a mask in a Greek Chorus - I don't worry about it much. Seen too many deaths and distress in Real Life to get worked up about it in fiction. It's a necessary part of the plot structure - it *has* to be there - so why rail against it when it appears? Think of it as being 'differently moralled.' True, I doubt DD, etc. will acquire this label, but I have hopes that there will be a further demonstration that mis-applied 'good intentions' can be as destructive as outright malice. Probably by one of the younger members of the cast. Might apply to events past, too. > Caesian: > While it is true that many of these possibilities cannot be excluded > based on rational extension from the letter of the canon, such an > outcome would not be consistent with the spirit of the existing text. > The published books have a strong moral tone ("it is our choices...", > "what is right vs. what is easy..."). Kneasy: Hmm. Understandable, I suppose. Though I prefer books to be presented in a morally neutral manner, leaving it up to the reader to sort out the sheep from the goats. Some readers have expressed misgivings about the moral tone of parts of the books; the treatment of Elves and other races; the way Draco and friends keep getting zapped by overwhelming odds at the end of each book. Not something that bothers me - in fact I see such stuff as exemplars showing that morals vary according to when and where. And JKR is the one that describes the moral boundaries in the WW. One thing I don't do is impose my own on her world. > Caesian: > Further, the plot has followed a > pattern that excludes major reversals for "good" characters: thus far, > no Major character, presented from the outset as sympathetic or trusted > by Harry, has been reversed. GoF Moody does not count, because he was > an imposter. Quirrell, Riddle, Pettigrew, Fudge, Bagman et al. are > marginalized characters that have minimal direct interaction with > Harry. Ron's snit-fit in GoF was not a major betrayal. Percy is > acting like a git, not a spawn of Voldemort. Good characters are not > Lily-white, unambiguous (boring) folk. But their flaws are not > equivalent to horrible betrayal. Kneasy: Ah! But we haven't reached the climax yet! I have hopes, I have hopes. Quirrell and Tom try to kill him, yet have minimal interaction? What a strange concept of minimal interaction. A theory of mine that you've probably erased from your mind - that of forced betrayal. Crouch!Moody and the Imperius curse - Harry learned to fight against it. Nobody else in the class did; Ron seemed particularly susceptible.... Warms the cockles of a plot-sniffers heart, that does. Lovely possibilities! > Caesian: snip > Harry, and the reader though his experience, are repeatedly > chastened for holding less-than-Dumbledore attitudes towards others. > Kneasy: Oh, come on! Please! Harry is so chastened at Snape saving him at the Quidditch match that he hates his guts. Harry hates Draco. And Lucius. And Umbridge. And the Dursleys. And Aunt Marge. And Kreacher. And that's as it should be. It's rational and understandable. And Harry is not moved by anything DD says. Neither am I. And just what are DD's attitudes? I strongly suspect that his are governed by knowledge and information that he's keeping to himself. Harry suffers 10 years of misery at the Dursleys; DD does nothing. Lucius damn near causes the death of Ginny and Harry - and gets a warning regarding his future behaviour. His only concern at the Dementing of Crouch!Moody is that he's lost a witness. He shows no regret or distress after the deaths of James and Lily. Not rational - with the information we have at the moment. DD has his own agenda, and we are not yet privy to it. To know all is to understand all - and we don't. > > Caesian: > Therefore, the never-to-be-modified rules of speculation about the > Potterverse (for what THAT is worth) are thus: > > Do not assume you can fully understand based on limited information > Consider the source > Do not be too hasty in your judgment of others > Be willing to forgive or give a second chance > Don't hold your breath for neat and tidy - people will not always fit > neatly into your stereotype > Those who profess to like you, or take your side at one time, are not > necessarily your best friends > Sometimes you need to disagree with those you care for > Good people can make mistakes > Those who don't like you are not necessarily bad people > > And that's as neat and tidy as I can make it, Kneasy: I'd modify those a bit to suit a teenager who is hated so much by some that they've been trying to kill him for years : Totally trust no-one. Unless they're dead. Even then, be suspicious; they may be faking. Be very, very careful when giving second chances - if a dog bites you once, it's the dogs fault; if he bites you twice, it's your fault. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Friends will forgive you, enemies won't. Turning the other cheek is fine for a kiss, but not when someone is trying to knock your teeth out. People who don't like you are not your friends. You don't get a second chance if you're dead. From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 2 16:48:47 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:48:47 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111899 Brother Fry wrote: > I continue to be very interested in the 'Evans' family history. JKR > seemed to be indicating that 'Petunia the squib' was fairly close to > the mark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure a squib is a non- > magical person with two magical parents. Therefore, could Petunia be > a non-magical child with only one magical parent! There seem to be > number of possibilities here. Since Evans must be a muggle surname, > which would have come from the father either; > 1. Petunia and Lily's mum was a witch (unlikely due to the whole > mudblood thing!) or > 2. Petunia and Lily's father was a wizard, who for some reason left > the scene, to be replaced by the stepfather - Evans (could explain > JKRs interest in the Petunia-squib comment) or > 3. Lily's mum had an affair with a wizard and she was the result > (whether Lily's mum told Mr. Evans/Petunia, I wouldn't know!!!) > > Any thoughts?? > 1. No - According to JKR's web site, Lily's grandparents were Muggles. This means both her parents are muggles. JKR also stated during the Edinburgh Book Festival that Petunia was not a Squib that she is a Muggle but she laughed so there is more to Petunia than Vernon and we know. 2. No - See the reason for number 1 plus Dean Thomas has this background (JKR's website) and he is a half-blood. 3. No - this would make them half-bloods not Muggles. It is from the biological parents that a witch or wizard gets their blood line. I again reference Dean Thomas' history on JKR's web site. My interest in Petunia is her remark about "that boy". Did she mean James or someone else? Let's think for a moment about what we know about James and his friends. Hmmm..."You never saw one without the other." James and Sirius -- so what if James and Sirius visited Lily's parents house. What if Sirius is the "that boy"? Did James drag his best friend along so that Petunia would be occupied while James and Lily spent time together? I like the idea put forth in previous emails that part of the deal with DD will be magical powers for Petunia. But I think it will be a case of becareful what you ask for -- you just might get it. - Karen From pcsgames at toltbbs.com Thu Sep 2 17:18:58 2004 From: pcsgames at toltbbs.com (Phil Vlasak) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:18:58 -0400 Subject: Goblin Theory. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040902131559.02ae5e80@mail.toltbbs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111900 Phil's Goblin Theory. Of all the creatures in the Fountain of Magical Brethren, Goblins have yet to be introduced as main characters. We know a lot about House Elves and Centaurs, but little about Goblins. Griphook was a goblin introduced in the first book, but was not described and had a very small part. But in the fifth book, Ragnok, a goblin that was raging about the Bagman business, may be a goblin of more importance. Bill was talking to him about taking the side of the order. What do we know about goblins? From PS there is a short description: The goblin was about a head shorter than Harry. He had a swarthy, clever face, a pointed beard and, Harry noticed, very long fingers and feet. And their accent from GOF: "The goblin's English isn't too good ... it's like being back with all the Bulgarians." And Bladvak means pickax. My theory is that Ragnok will get a much larger part in book six, and could even be the Half-Blood Prince. Could he be half Goblin and half Wizard? Phil who hopes he can read Jo's mind correctly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 17:12:36 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:12:36 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111901 > > Pippin: > > Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. Lily doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? Nora: > Lily doesn't, but... > > "Students all around had gathered to watch. Some of them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer to watch. Some looked apprehensive, other entertained... > > Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly unpopular... > > 'It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...' > > Many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book didn't, and neither did Lily." > > Loathsome as we may (and I certainlny do) find James' behavior, there are very strong textual hints that a lot of the students are, frankly, getting a kick out of it. It's Lily the Muggleborn who doesn't buy into the larger community standards here.< Pippin: Lupin is not a Muggleborn. He is the one in charge of enforcing community standards and keeping them from being corrupted, and he admits that he failed to do so. How is the behavior of the watching students different from the behavior of the crowd at the QWC? GoF ch, 8 "Loud jeering, roars of laughter, and drunken yells were drifting towards them; [...] More wizards were joining the marching group, laughing and pointing upward at the floating bodies." Nora: > I think James is certainly being cruel, and it's an awful action, but I personally am reluctant to term it 'evil', partially because of the rather unclear motivation and intention--the pantsing seems to be a misdirected vengeance for Snape's calling Lily a Mudblood. There's also questions of scale, and let's not succumb to the slippery slope here.< Pippin: I don't see any slope to slide down here. James's motivation isn't unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend was bored with celebrating. How is that different than hating Mr. Roberts and being bored with celebrating? James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. Pippin From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Sep 2 17:30:20 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:30:20 -0000 Subject: "Weak" Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111902 Jekatiska: "Has anyone else noticed how Pettigrew is always described as 'talentless' and 'weak,' yet he has managed some quite impressive magic? ...killed twelve people with a single curse, which must be very advanced dark magic.... Is there more to Peter than meets the eye?" theotokos: "Maybe it wasn't a curse to kill 12 people but a spell to blow up the street giving Wormtail access to the sewers? The concrete and blown gas lines killed the pedestrians as a result." mhbobbin: "The contrast between how Pettigrew is described and his supposed actions is very strange. McGonagall describes Pettigrew as 'hopeless at duelling.' Yet he supposedly got the better of a more clever wizard, Sirius. And yet the characters never question this contrast.... And Sirius never credits that Pettigrew learned how to transform into a rat.... It's hard to reconcile poor weak Peter Pettigrew with a wizard who was a traitor to one his best friends for about a year--clever enough that DD, James, Sirius and Lupin never suspected him; finally delivered the Potters to LV; was able to transform into an animal; blew up a street in a duel with a more powerful opponent; and eventually finds his way to a distant place and locates LV, bringing him back to power. Was Peter just faking it...?" Matt: I tend to agree with theotokos' explanation of Peter's duel with Sirius: Peter's spell was not designed to kill the bystanders but simply to cause a large explosion. It was the explosion and resulting wreckage that killed the bystanders. (Possibly, as theotokos speculates, there could have been secondary explosions from the gas lines as well. All we know is that "gas explosion" was the excuse the MOM clean-up crew left with the muggle authorities.) While it presumably takes some serious magical mojo to blow up a street, it would seem to be a matter of brute force rather than the sort of focused energy that more precise spells (transfiguration or charms or the unforgivable curses) require. Not "powerful dark magic," in any event. More generally, I think the descriptions of Peter as "weak" do not reflect an underestimation of his talents so much as a comparison with those around him. People saw James and Sirius, and even Lupin, as so talented that Peter always looked like a pushover by comparison. Yes, McGonagall says Peter was "hopeless" at dueling, in a discussion about the duel with Sirius. She might equally well describe Neville as "hopeless" at transfiguration, if she were comparing him to Hermione, or to other more talented students. But she still thinks he's capable of decent, OWL-level work (or so she tells him, anyway). And Dumbledore et al. thought Peter talented enough to make him a member of the original Order. We know that Peter was talented enough to manage the animagus transformation (although he had more trouble than James and Sirius, and perhaps there is an implication that transforming into a rat is simpler than the transformations to large animals), that he successfully spied on a secret society that included at least one powerful Legilimens (Dumbledore) over a lengthy period of time, and that he packed enough punch to blow up a whole street, possibly with another wizard's wand (Voldemort's -- presumably that would be more difficult than with his own wand, though perhaps the familiarity of the wand matters less for an unfocused "blasting" spell). He clearly is no pushover. On the other hand, we also know that after managing all that he went into hiding as a rat for twelve whole years without (it appears) ever once transforming back to human form. It certainly does not seem as though he had very high confidence in his own powers if he did not think he could sneak away and live a single day as a person. Taking the balanced view of Peter, he is a reasonably accomplished wizard, though not as exceptionally talented as were his friends; he suffers from low self-esteem (which seems to have been encouraged by his old friends, and surely has been cemented by his current master); he seeks power and influence -- and probably also seeks to build up his self-image -- by allying himself with stronger wizards; and he is capable of extreme self-deprecation and -deprivation when needed to convince those more powerful wizards of his friendship or loyalty. He also seems to be quite effective at convincing his (supposed) allies of his loyalty to them, when it appears that his only true loyalty is to his own self-interest. -- Matt From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 17:50:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:50:50 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111903 > Pippin: > > I don't see any slope to slide down here. James's motivation isn't > unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend > was bored with celebrating. How is that different than hating Mr. > Roberts and being bored with celebrating? > > James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I > think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided > into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. > Alla: Sorry, Pippin, but "because he exists" could cover A LOT of things. Who knows what encounters James and Snape or Sirius and Snape had prior to that. But of course I am just speculating and it could be a statement from a bully, who simply does not like Snape walking on this Earth, From vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be Thu Sep 2 18:07:55 2004 From: vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be (Vicky Gwosdz) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:07:55 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111908 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > My interest in Petunia is her remark about "that boy". Did she mean > James or someone else? Let's think for a moment about what we know > about James and his friends. Hmmm..."You never saw one without the > other." James and Sirius -- so what if James and Sirius visited > Lily's parents house. What if Sirius is the "that boy"? Did James > drag his best friend along so that Petunia would be occupied while > James and Lily spent time together? > > I like the idea put forth in previous emails that part of the deal > with DD will be magical powers for Petunia. But I think it will be a > case of becareful what you ask for -- you just might get it. > > - Karen I always thought the "that boy" remark was rather interesting, and for myself don't really believe that it was James. Sirius would make a good candidate. Isn't it possible that Lily liked Sirius first and finally fell in love through Sirius with James? And that that's maybe the big thing we are to discover about Lily in book 6? Vicky From maritajan at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 18:30:06 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902183006.40541.qmail@web12108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111909 --- Vicky Gwosdz wrote: > I always thought the "that boy" remark was rather interesting, and > for myself don't really believe that it was James. Sirius would make > a good candidate. Isn't it possible that Lily liked Sirius first and > finally fell in love through Sirius with James? And that that's maybe > the big thing we are to discover about Lily in book 6? > > Vicky > This is the first time I've given any thought to this subject, but now that I have..... It occurs to me that Petunia's dislike of anything and everything magical may stem from more than just sibling jealousy. We know from Harry's trips down memory lane that Sirius was a handsome fellow indeed. If James *did* take Sirius along, it's very possible that Petunia fell for Sirius and was rejected...or even that she fell for James himself. How galling would it then be to watch her sister fall in love and marry? Sounds like a great source of the deep well of bitterness we see in Petunia. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From juli17 at aol.com Thu Sep 2 18:47:55 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:47:55 -0400 Subject: McGonagall and Snape Message-ID: <131C520D.5C007AAA.0004E520@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111910 Aura said: Juli sez: My opinion is that Snape does get along with the rest of the staff. That doesn't mean he's best buddies with all, or even any, of them. But I think we'd hear if there was a lot of tension between Snape and other teachers, and I refer here to the permanent staff, not the revolving door known as the Defense Against Dark Arts position. Since we mostly see Harry's POV, we don't really get to witness much interaction between Snape and other teachers, except with Dumbledore and McGonagall. We know Dumbledore trusts Snape and believes his story, and all indication is that McGonagall trusts Snape equally. Whether that is from her own personal experience or because she trusts Dumbledore's opinions without question, I don't know. But I do think McGonagall respects Snape as a fellow teacher and an ally against Voldemort, while at the same time enjoying their house rivalries. She might even like him a little, enough to perhaps have an occasional social conversation with him over a cup of tea (which would take a bit of bravery and tolerance, I should think!). As for the other teachers, the best example comes from Hagrid, I believe. Whenever Harry accuses Snape of anything devious or unsavory, Hagrid repeatedly defends Snape. That's not an indication that Hagrid actually likes Snape or would seek out his company, but he does seems to respect Snape's teaching ability and integrity. I have a feeling the other teachers feel the same. You can respect someone without having the least desire to engage in a social relationship with that person. Juli From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 18:54:14 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:54:14 -0000 Subject: Wizards' Ages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greatelderone" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > Why do you think this is so important? > > GEO: Possibly it's one indication why those muggle and wizard/witch > relationships don't work out too well or why it would be rather > difficult for a wizard or witch to live and marry in the muggle > world. Asian_lovr2: I think to some extent, wizard/muggle marriages are just like real world May/December relationship. Tony Randal (stage & screen actor) married a woman in her 30's, I believe, and even fathered a child. In that relationship, the two of them went into it knowing that Tony would most likely die long before his wife. More than dying before her, since he was in his 70's, he would very likely die in the next 10 to 15 years. As it was, they married when he was about 75, had their baby when he was 77, and he died at age 84. On a more general field, most women accept that they will out live their husbands (statistically). But time does not stop love. In the case of Seamus's parents, his mother didn't tell his father she was a witch until after they were married, and may have waited years before the 'magic folk live long' issue became apparent. By then, the course was set, and they surely just accepted it. However, to be very fair, it seems only right that you tell someone before you get married, both about the magic thing and the age thing. > > Potioncat continues: > > > > If they live so long, and appear to work so long, how do young > > people like Snape and Percy advance so quickly? You'd think > > candidates for DADA and Potions and Ministry Officialdom would be > > coming out of the woodwork! > GEO: Possibly because most people don't live to their potential > lifespan possibly due to their lack of commonsense or due to the > fact that the wizarding world is a much more hazardous and violent > world. If you look at the people on the semi-canonical chocalate > frog cards, you see that few of them manage to surpass 100 yrs. Asian_lovr: First, this is my standard analysis of lifespan in the wizard world. Note I said lifespan, not average life expectancy. A point which I've made note of several times before. I suspect that wizards have about twice the potential lifespan that muggles do. The potential lifespan of a muggle is about 120. I believe we have seen people live to the age of about 116, to the best of my knowledge, so 120 seems like a fair max potential. If we double that, we have a maximum lifespan for wizards of about 240. (Several very old thread discuss this in great detail.) You mentioned many old 'chocolate frog card' wizards, few of whom made it past 100. But, when did they live; in what era? It wasn't that long ago that the average muggle lifespan was less than 40. Gradually as sanitation and health care improved, it's worked it's way up to about 75. But remember 75 is the average, the are lots and lots of people older than 75, and a substantial number who are 100 or more. Note, I said substantial, not huge. So, 75 to a muggle is like 150 to a wizard. Now if you use 'lifespan' to illustrate where people are in their lives, McGonagall at about 70 is at the same place in her life that the average 35 year old muggle is. Time to start settling down, but still plenty of time and opportunity ahead. Given the immense lifespan, I would suspect most wizards go through several careers in their lifetimes. If for no other reason than just to break the bordom. Do you really think Mr. Weasley will be content to work at his job for 100 years? Would anybody? I suspect most wizards and witches put in a full career in one field, say 20 to 50 years, then move on to something else. You could have 2 to 5 career changes and still have time left over for an enjoyable retirement. I also suspect that wizards quickly move out of their entry level jobs which opens them up for new graduates. I seriously doubt that Percy planned a 50 year career being someone's personal assistant. Once he learn the ropes, he would logically start looking for more responsibility, better pay, and greater opportunities. So, my conclusion is that entry level jobs are continually opening up, inviting in recent Hogwarts graduates. Wizards are able to move up, because older wizards move on, they seek complete changes in career direction, and that opens their job for less senior but none the less experienced wizards. For muggles, 50 years at one job is about all you could hope for. After that, you just retire and wait for death to come. But for a wizard, you could still have TWO more 50 year careers ahead of you. Just a few thoughts. Steve/asian_lovr2 (was bboy_mn) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Sep 2 19:29:15 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:29:15 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> Nora: > > I think James is certainly being cruel, and it's an awful action, > but I personally am reluctant to term it 'evil', partially because > of the rather unclear motivation and intention--the pantsing > seems to be a misdirected vengeance for Snape's calling Lily a > Mudblood. There's also questions of scale, and let's not > succumb to the slippery slope here.< > > Pippin: > > I don't see any slope to slide down here. James's motivation isn't > unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend > was bored with celebrating. How is that different than hating Mr. > Roberts and being bored with celebrating? > > James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I > think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided > into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. > > Renee: No, it isn't. But I think its wrong to call someone evil basing yourself exclusively on his behaviour as an adolescent, especially as the text suggests James underwent a change of heart. If the sum of his life is that he's evil because he hexed people in school, regardless of what he did later, we can stop discussing Snape, too. He was a Death Eater once, so he's evil: his chosing Voldemort in his youth determines once and for all where he stands in the moral continuum. I never had the impression that the philosophy of the HP books can be summarised as 'once a thief, always a thief'. What is necessary here, I think, is to make a difference between doing bad things - something no one can entirely avoid - and the principal choice for evil. Or rather, the choice for a personal philosophy that doesn't even acknowledge the existence of good and evil, but only believes in power and the ability to wield it. Renee From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 14:49:00 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:49:00 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death (WAS: Help!) In-Reply-To: <001d01c490e4$e0d168e0$3462d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111913 Bookworm: > It is such a great speech there has to be something more to it. > Maybe Snape could get Remus or Hermione to persuade Harry to > drink it? They are less distrusting of Snape. Or Dumbledore, if > he is still around by then? DuffyPoo: > I have thought that Snape made one of his stopper death potions > for LV while he was an active DE which turned, or helped turn, > LV into Vapormort when he AK'd HP. What HP may need to find out, > with Snape's help, is the exact potion used and the antidote for > the formula. Now Dungrollin: I'm sitting here with my copy of Chambers English Dictionary, worried, because I always interpreted this passage differently... I'll just quote some bits from the entry for 'stop' (it's quite long, so I won't put it all in). Stop (vt): to cause to cease, to bring to a standstill; to hinder or prevent the passage of ; to prevent (etc etc etc)... Stopper (n): a person who stops; that which stops; a plug; a plug (usu glass) for a bottle; a short rope for making something fast (naut). (- vt): to close or secure with a stopper. I understood 'even stopper death' to mean put death in a bottle with a stopper, i.e. 'even bottle death'. I'm not going to start a discussion on how JKR uses language (although throughout OotP I was getting a little sick of people saying things 'breathlessly') but if I had wanted to imply 'even prevent death' I'd have used different words, or just said 'even stop death'. Did anyone else understand it in this way, or am I just being weird? Cheers, Dungrollin. From mich_acosta at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 15:05:58 2004 From: mich_acosta at hotmail.com (vcu20032003) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:05:58 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111914 I apologize if someone has posted on this before, but I was just thinking about what will happen to Kreacher and to Grimmauld Place now that Sirius is dead. With Harry being his godson and no other living relatives, does that mean that Kreacher will now be indebted to work for Harry and that Harry will now own Grimmauld Place (the secrte headquarters of OOTP)? It makes my head spin thinking about all the implications... --one of many fan(atic)s ("vcu20032003") From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 2 16:03:58 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902160358.59521.qmail@web80808.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111915 > Marianne: snip. >> And, I think it is exactly this sort of thing that will blow up >> in her face [snip] she will find out that she doesn't have all >> the answers and that good intentions don't always excuse one's >> behavior. Alla: > I agree. I was one of those, who thought that Hermione's dealings > with Rita WIll blow up in her face in OOP. [snip] To me, good > intentions excuse A LOT, but definitely not everything. On one hand, > I like how Hermione dealt with Rita, because I doubt that adults > would have dealt with it just as efficiently. > > But I fully realise that Hermione did not have the authority to do > so. The question is though whether she had much choice in the matter. Theotokos (me) now: I have been following this thread some and I cannot stand it anymore. Hermione doesn't owe that woman anything! Rita made Harry and Hermione's lives miserable in GofF and never had a seconds pause about it. Hermione is allowing her to write AS LONG AS she tells the story as it is reported to her. The problem with Rita is that she wouldn't report; instead she would make up stories all the while pretending to be reporting truth. She attributed feelings and statements to Harry that were absolutely false-- quite different to reporting from a point of view that may be different or attributed to misunderstanding. Rita lied purposefully. Hermione is letting her off of her year ban AS LONG AS she reports the story accurately. Why should Hermione be concerned about how hard it is on Rita to not write for a year? Rita should be thankful. Theotokos From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 16:22:22 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:22:22 -0000 Subject: Son of Insecure!Snape (Was: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: There's a > point when it's an insistence upon common courtesy, but there's also > a point where it's an attempt to solidify one's power and control > over the students. Everyone I've talked to in academia knows at > least one of those--their tendency to snap back comes out of an > intense defensiveness. Attacking their ideas is like attacking the > person themself. > > Snape strikes me as one of those, and after OotP revelations, I'm not > surprised. ---------------------------- Tonks here: I also think that Snape does not like teaching, and probably has that position because after his DE days it was all that he could get. It takes something of a Saint IMO to enjoy teaching... especially teenagers!!! Of course Snape wants some control over the little demons!!! He is the teacher, THE MASTER, and he SHOULD have control of his classroom. Not like that wimp of a professor Bimms, who is even surprised if a student is actually listening! And in the old school a student would never dream of "attacking their (professor's) ideas". The student is there to learn. Mouth shut, ears open!!! I have great empathy for Snape. (And no I have never been a teacher.) Tonks_op From BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 18:55:12 2004 From: BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com (bamajenny12) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:55:12 -0500 Subject: Snape and DADA References: <131C520D.5C007AAA.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: <000b01c4911e$62a45600$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111917 Just a question that keeps popping into my head. Does anyone else ever wonder WHY Snape has never gotten the DADA position? We read repeatedly that Snape wants the position, and Dumbledore trusts Snape, so why does Dumbledore not give Snape the one teaching position that Snape really wants? Jenny ps: If this has been answered some where in the books, please forgive me and tell me where, because for the life of me I don't remember it. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 19:09:11 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:09:11 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111918 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > > My interest in Petunia is her remark about "that boy". Did she mean James or someone else? Let's think for a moment about what we know about James and his friends. Hmmm..."You never saw one without the other." James and Sirius -- so what if James and Sirius visited > > Lily's parents house. What if Sirius is the "that boy"? (snip) > > I like the idea put forth in previous emails that part of the deal with DD will be magical powers for Petunia. Snip -------- Tonks here: I think that Petunia fell in love with Sirius and either was rejected by him or felt that she could not live with a wizard in the WW. Maybe Petunia is a witch that has choosen for some reason to live as a Muggle. Tonks_op From klevasseur at earthlink.net Thu Sep 2 19:47:45 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:47:45 -0000 Subject: OoTP, Percy's letter, chptr 14, Cryptic message? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111919 In the "New clues to HP: Book 5" by Galadriel Waters, they have "found" clues in the letter that suggest that ; 1. The escape of 10 Azkaban prisoners 2. The whereabouts of Peter Pettigrew 3. Info about the War. They say that you have to read the letter like Sirius would have read Harry's previous letter, as if it were written in code. "Think about Harry's letter to Sirius", they say. I have read and re-read that passage, and I can see that you could get some other things out of the letter, but not what they are suggesting. Does anyone else have ideas about this? It is starting to keep me up nights. Looking forward to some discussion on this one. Karen Richmond, VA From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Sep 2 20:12:49 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:12:49 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111920 Dungrollin asks: > I understood 'even stopper death' to mean put death in a > bottle with a stopper, i.e. 'even bottle death'.... > Did anyone else understand it in this way, or am I just > being weird? No you are not being weird; it is the natural reading of the passage. Snape is trying to introduce the subject of potions and says "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death." The typo in the quotation reflected in the subject line ("stopper in death") might be misunderstood, but "stopper death" can't mean anything but to put death in a bottle -- particularly when it is juxtaposed with "bottle fame." Now, perhaps there could be some disagreement as to what it means to put death in a bottle. I assumed that Snape had simply chosen a poetic way to refer to poisons. A more fanciful reading might be that there is some potion involving bottling up one's own death (to control the timing of it? to prevent it from occurring altogether?), sort of like "If I could save time in a bottle...." For my money, I think I will stick with the horses rather than the elephants. -- Matt From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 20:17:57 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:17:57 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Nora: > > > Lily doesn't, but... > > > > "Students all around had gathered to watch. Some of them > had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer to watch. Some > looked apprehensive, other entertained... > > > > Several people watching laughed; Snape was clearly > unpopular... > > > > 'It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean...' > > > > Many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius and > Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book > didn't, and neither did Lily." > > > > Loathsome as we may (and I certainlny do) find James' > behavior, there are very strong textual hints that a lot of the > students are, frankly, getting a kick out of it. It's Lily the > Muggleborn who doesn't buy into the larger community > standards here.< > > Pippin: > > Lupin is not a Muggleborn. He is the one in charge of enforcing > community standards and keeping them from being corrupted, > and he admits that he failed to do so. How is the behavior of the > watching students different from the behavior of the crowd at the > QWC? > > GoF ch, 8 > "Loud jeering, roars of laughter, and drunken yells were drifting > towards them; [...] More wizards were joining the marching > group, laughing and pointing upward at the floating bodies." My point was not about Lupin being a coward and failing to reign in his friends. The point was more that a notable amount of the student body is getting a kick out of watching what they do to Snape--no one but Lily is intervening, no one is gasping in horror or expressing open outrage--in other words, this doesn't seem to be something deeply shocking to the student body. Perhaps we should note that it is, as is so often in the WW, a case of where the official written 'community standards' and the standards that the community itself actually holds to in action are not exactly the same thing? > Nora: > > I think James is certainly being cruel, and it's an awful action, > but I personally am reluctant to term it 'evil', partially because > of the rather unclear motivation and intention--the pantsing > seems to be a misdirected vengeance for Snape's calling Lily a > Mudblood. There's also questions of scale, and let's not > succumb to the slippery slope here.< > > Pippin: > > I don't see any slope to slide down here. James's motivation isn't > unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend > was bored with celebrating. How is that different than hating Mr. > Roberts and being bored with celebrating? > > James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I > think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided > into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. I'll go on record as suspecting that there's a little more behind that than just simply 'because he exists'--or, we might unpack that statement, which is far less clear than it seems in both cases. The DEs are toying with the Muggles because they believe that they are inferior creatures who can be treated as objects of amusement by those with superior power. Why exactly James is toying with Snape (who is fully capable of fighting back) is another question that is, one must admit, still rather canonically open. My suspicion is that it comes out of a hatred and fear of anything associated in his mind with the Dark Arts. I don't know--I just know there's something behind it. (And analystically, we continually admit that we don't know the full range of reasons for why Snape is being nasty to the kids--shouldn't we extend the same common courtesy of admitting we don't know everything in this situation?) This poster, at least, would like to make a difference between tormenting the truly helpless, and tormenting and abusing someone who has at least some capacity to fight back. I do think the parallels are intentional, but I think one act is considerably more vile than the other. The slippery slope here is to assert them as complete parallels, which elides out the profoundly different contexts. -Nora gets her research groove on--fun with madrigals From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 2 20:27:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:27:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: <20040902160358.59521.qmail@web80808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111922 snipping other posts > Theotokos wrote: > I have been following this thread some and I cannot stand it anymore. > Hermione doesn't owe that woman anything! Rita made Harry and Hermione's > lives miserable in GofF and never had a seconds pause about it. Potioncat: Well, look at this differently. Someone in your child's school commits a crime. Your neighbor, instead of turning the criminal in, blackmails the criminal. The crime is no longer beining commited, but the criminal is not only not arrested, no one knows about it. How would you feel about that? Because this is fiction, we can cheer when the good guy pulls one over on the bad guy, and not think too much about it. Of course, not thinking too much isn't what this group does. I'm wondering if JKR gave Hermione these Slytherin tendencies on purpose, or if she doesn't see them as such. Potioncat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 20:42:25 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Weak" Pettigrew (Re: What Pettigrew did at Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902204225.39019.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111923 --- mhbobbin wrote: > It's hard > to reconcile poor weak Peter Pettigrew with a wizard who was a > traitor to one his best friends for about a year--clever enough > that > DD, James, Sirius and Lupin never suspected him; finally delivered > the Potters to LV; was able to transform into an animal; blew up a > street in a duel with a more powerful opponent; and eventually > finds > his way to a distant place and locates LV, bringing him back to > power. Was Peter just faking it all through school, or did he > become more clever and powerful after school without his friends > realizing it. Were they so dismissive of him, so sure of the niche > they placed him in they didn't realize he was gaining on them? I think that last question comes close to the real answer. Sirius and James thought they knew Pettigrew, well enough to know how he'd respond to any circumstance. They didn't make him SK because they thought he was super brave or resourceful: Sirius was nasty about it in the Shrieking Shack in POA but they probably did think that "No one would EVER suspect old Peter as the SK! It's a perfect plan!" Needless to say, old Peter might have felt a bit...nettled...at being dismissed so casually. We got a good look at how they regarded him in the pensieve scene in OOTP: affectionate contempt and certainly no probing beneath the surface. I don't think we know enough yet about Pettigrew to judge where his strengths as a wizard lay. Lupin says he needed all the help James and Sirius could give him to become an animagus and the image of weak!Peter is reinforced, but I think that what probably happened is that Pettigrew said "Oh, guys, I'm too dumb to go to the library with you and research animagus spells. I'll stand guard by the door while you go in under the invisibility cloak." Nor do I buy his "I'm too dumb to know what a werewolf looks like" line in OOTP either. Pettigrew was very adept at getting other people to help him with his work and didn't mind giving up his personal dignity as long as he didn't have to exert himself. It's clear that Sirius cannot understand Pettigrew either as the teen he thought he knew or the man/rat he confronts in POA. And Pettigrew knows it and played on it for all it was worth. His values were not Sirius' or James' - and they never realized it. They wanted to be the best and the coolest - he simply wanted to laze through life without exerting himself. He likes to be the Big Guy's right-hand-man and with Voldemort he's closer than he's ever been to that role. The Marauders thought they knew him but didn't because Pettigrew was a good actor. He did it to James and Sirius, and I suspect he did it to the Trio in POA, and I'll bet he's doing it to Voldemort too. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 20:44:47 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:44:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: snip. > I'm wondering if JKR gave Hermione these Slytherin tendencies on > purpose, or if she doesn't see them as such. > Alla: Potioncat, I would prefer if that was on purpose, but I am afraid JKR does not see it as such. I did not realise till recently that her JKR's FAO on website were updated (about myself part). I think it happened quite some time ago, but I only looked at it recently. Which house she thinks she woulod be sorted into? Gryffindor. What does she value the most? Courage. Nope, JKR does not like Slytherins at all. :o( I am becoming more and more adamant that the best fate that can await Slytherins at the end is the dissolution of all Houses. I passionately dislike, even hate Slytherin's ideology, but I cannot stop thinking that it is a bit sad that even "good values" of Slytherins are not acknowledged. P.S. Snape for Gryffindor. :o) From enigma_only at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 21:04:50 2004 From: enigma_only at hotmail.com (fiondavhar) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:04:50 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111925 Karen wrote: snip What if Sirius is the "that boy"? Did James > drag his best friend along so that Petunia would be occupied while > James and Lily spent time together? snip Bonny now: I like this theory, but there is a hole. At the beginning of PoA, the Dursleys are watching a news broadcast about the escaped convict, Sirius Black, and Petunia doesn't really react. If she knew him from long ago, wouldn't she be shocked and suprised? Sure she might not recognize his face, considering what Azkaban did to it, but surley she would remember the name! This is Petunia, and we know how she retains information. But then, I suppose her eventual reaction could be taken two ways: "Aunt Petunia, who was bony and horse faced, whipped around and peered intently out of the kitchen window." - pg 19, PoA, softcover Canadian edition Is Petunia just nosy, or does she have a legitimate reason for peering so intently out of the window? And, if she does have a legitimate reason, how composed would she have to be to hide such an intense reaction as would likely occur from her husband and nephew? Bonny From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 21:07:04 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:07:04 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111926 Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? Angie From caesian at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 21:11:42 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:11:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111927 > > > Caesian? wrote previosly: > > snip. > > >thus far,? no Major character, presented from > > > the outset as sympathetic or trusted? by Harry, has been > > > reversed.? < > > > > > > Pippin: > > > What about? Pensieve!James? > > > > > Alla: > > > > Was James reversed though, Pippin or did he just acquired > some? greyness in him? > > > > James was painted as a boring Saint. JKR added some > colours to him.? If pensieve Scene was James at his worst, than? > to me he has? along? way to go before I consider him to be evil< > > Pippin: > ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a > werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding > someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > we recognize it? > > Pippin Caesian: Oh for heaven's sake. :: slaps forehead :: I see the light! I mean, even though (obviously) the author intended that when we look back on that scene, we'll all realize that it was Lupin who was really, really evil. Lupin who kept trying to read his book, and didn't laugh when James insulted Snape. But I'm just going to have to eat my words on James. Even if he /was/ well liked by students and staff alike and he was head boy (probably just following in Riddle's footsteps, right)? Even if so-saintly-she's-Canonized Lily eventually considered him reformed enough to marry him. And although he actively defied Lord Voldemort in the defense of good in general and friends in particular, and then died in the defense of his wife and son - well, I for one think that one moment at the age of 15 is enough to put him on the evil list for good, don't you? And I don't mean sorta-not-nice, or can-be-repented-of-later evil, I mean "evil" - as in eating little children or wishing genocide on Muggleborns. And after that revelation, I realize I'm probably doomed too, just for writing this snarky email (not to mention all the stuff I did when I was 15!) - but,... I might as well send it anyway, because thinking about doing something and then not acting is even worse, right? sigh. Caesian, more silly than snarky, who thinks that Pippin enjoys logic play, and the humor in it, too [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Thu Sep 2 21:23:21 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:23:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <000b01c4911e$62a45600$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111928 Jenny: > Just a question that keeps popping into my head. Does anyone > else ever wonder WHY Snape has never gotten the DADA > position? We read repeatedly that Snape wants the position, > and Dumbledore trusts Snape, so why does Dumbledore not > give Snape the one teaching position that Snape really wants? > > Jenny > ps: If this has been answered some where in the books, please > forgive me and tell me where, because for the life of me I don't > remember it. Eloise: Not in the books, but in the interview that JKR gave with Stephen Fry at the Albert Hall: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/quickquotes/articles/2003/0603- AlbertHall-FryRowling.htm ................................................................... JL: Prof Snape has always wanted to be the defence against the dark arts teacher. In book 5 he still doesn't get the job Why does Professor Dumbledore not allow him to be the defence against the dark arts teacher? SF: There JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defence against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape Somewhat JKR: So he said I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there ..................................................................... What this tells us is that those of us who had always believed that Snape wanting the DADA job was just a student rumour were wrong. He can't even have been bluffing about it with Umbridge; he *wanted* the job. It is interesting, though, that he does seem to be such an accomplished potions maker, with what, given the evidence of his opening speech in PS/SS seems to be a passion for the discipline. Lupin testifies to his skill in making the tricky Wolfsbane potion and he is defensive of his position to Lockhart. Is this a case of over-compensation, making the best of the circumstances? Or is he just (naturally or through diligence) talented in more than one field? What is more intriguing from the plot development perspective is just how this is important to the next two books. Just what is it that could be given away by JKR answering this question fully? what *is* the worst that would be brought out in him? Why the laugh at that point, the "somewhat"? It reads to me like the consequences would be pretty dire and I have a strong feeling that Dumbledore knows something about it that he's not told Snape and which consequently JKR can't tell us. And just why is Snape so keen to have the DADA position anyway? Is it because he enjoys it? Because he feels it's his strongest suit? Because he's truly a convert back to the cause and wants to equip his students in the fight against evil? It seems a little strange to me. I have always believed that Snape is at heart a Dark Magician, at least temperamentally. I have no doubt of his loyalty to Dumbledore, but I don't think he enjoys the position he finds himself in. Inside I think he's still the boy who came to school knowing all those curses. Being nice just isn't his thing and I'm sure that cursing comes more naturally to him than counter-cursing. Now that isn't to suggest that he doesn't have a good knowledge of DADA. If you mix in the company which Sanpe used to keep, being able to defend yourself is surely as important as being able to *use* Dark Magic. It's just that it seems to me an odd thing for him to want to teach. The students equate an interest in the Dark Arts with an interest in DADA (that's the basis of the first thing we're told about his wanting the job, that he knew an awful lot about the Dark Arts, not that he knew a lot about defence); although the two do naturally go together, the desire to practise the Dark Arts is not the same as the desire to teach others to defend themselves against them. I find myself going back to an interview with Alan Rickman around the release of the first film. At the time I wondered whether this was his interpretation, or whether it was from what JKR had told him. Now I think it must have been the latter. ................................................................... "A: Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry." ( http://www.unreel.co.uk/features/featurealanrickman.cfm ) ................................................................... Of course, as others have noted, it's also curious that he was able to *ask* for DADA and be offered Potions. Were there two vacancies? Was there a reshuffle of teachers? Although given the time of the appointment, I suppose it's not unlikely that a couple of teachers had met their ends at the hands of the DEs. Perhaps they were among the dead members of the original OoP shown to Harry in OoP ch. 9? ~Eloise From sweetface531 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 21:47:07 2004 From: sweetface531 at yahoo.com (Justine) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:47:07 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111929 Pippin: James's motivation isn't unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend was bored with celebrating. James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. Alla: Sorry, Pippin, but "because he exists" could cover A LOT of things. Who knows what encounters James and Snape or Sirius and Snape had prior to that. But of course I am just speculating and it could be a statement from a bully, who simply does not like Snape walking on this Earth, Justine: We must remember that Snapes's existence includes an extremely nasty attitude, (at that point) a pureblood superiority mindset, and, most importantly, an obsession with the Dark Arts. James loathes the Dark Arts, because they are what he views as evil, and Snape "exists" with a love for and propensity toward them. In James's mind, he's battling evil, even though he and Sirius are being ::ahem:: hugely, extraordinarily arrogant idiots (and most of it is for show... they are the popular ones, and the popular ones usually feel they have to live up to their reputations each and every day). Of course, the world isn't divided into evil people and non-Death Eaters; it's not divided into good and evil either--there are shades between, probably innumerable. So James and Sirius aren't pure goodness. They're not pure evil, either. They're fifteen years old and infinitely full of themselves and intensely averse to thinking things through. Immature and stupid? Yes, intensely so. Evil. No. Good people? For the most part, I think, at least later in their lives. Let's give Lily *some* credit for her husband-choosing skills... Justine, who's just as afraid of confrontation as Remus, and I'm definitely the least evil person I know... From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 2 22:25:05 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:25:05 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111930 > > Pippin: > > ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a > > werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding > > someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > > in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > > we recognize it? > > > > Pippin > > Caesian: > Oh for heaven's sake. :: slaps forehead :: I see the light! I mean, even though (obviously) the author intended that when we look back on that scene, we'll all realize that it was Lupin who was really, really evil. Lupin who kept trying to read his book, and didn't laugh when James insulted Snape.< Actually, I think that is exactly what JKR intends. We will see that Lupin's choice to look the other way while what he considered to be really bad things were being done foreshadowed similar behavior in the future. I haven't seen JKR demonstrate there is any difference at all between evil that puts you on the evil list for good, and evil that you repent of, except that you decide to take your second chance, as Dumbledore puts it. But your original statement as I understood it, was that we wouldn't learn anything about the people whom Harry thinks are good which would provoke the reader to reassess their moral character. Now maybe schoolyard bullying doesn't qualify as evil in your opinion, but did you think, before the Pensieve scene, that Teenage!James was a schoolyard bully who was given to the kind of things we saw him do? I would say that most readers, and Harryhimself, did reassess their opinion of Teenage!James. For most of us, not being Tom Riddle wouldn't be a choice between what's right and what's easy. Very few of us are capable of following in Riddle's footsteps. Most of us would not decide on our own to commit genocide or eat little children, but history shows that a great many of us are sadly capable of looking the other way while these things are being done, or of being led to do them ourselves if no one is brave enough to stop us. IMO, JKR is not addressing herself to potential Riddles, she's addressing herself to the complacent and the apathetic. Harry complacently made some assumptions about his father that turned out to be wrong, and I suspect most readers were just as surprised as he was. Pippin From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 22:30:54 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:30:54 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Dungrollin asks: > > I understood 'even stopper death' to mean put death in a > > bottle with a stopper, i.e. 'even bottle death'.... > > Did anyone else understand it in this way, or am I just > > being weird? > Matt responds: > > Snape ... introduce the subject of potions and says "I can > teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death." The > typo in the quotation reflected in the subject line ("stopper in > death") might be misunderstood, but "stopper death" can't mean > anything but to put death in a bottle -- particularly when it is > juxtaposed with "bottle fame." > > Now, perhaps there could be some disagreement as to what it means to > put death in a bottle. I assumed that Snape had simply chosen a > poetic way to refer to poisons. ... > > -- Matt Asian_lovr2: For starters, Snape has a theme going in his little speech; Brew, Bottle, and Stopper; brew it up, put it in a bottle, and put a cork in it. So to some extent when he refers to 'stopper', he is just continuing that theme. To some extent, carrying the figure of speech or theme through puts a limit on the absolute accuracy of the statement. I guess you could call it poetic license. As to the meaning of 'stopper', it means, put a cork in it, as in put a cork or a stopper in a bottle. That could be view in different ways. It could mean to contain death, not contain it as in 'what's in this bottle will kill you', but to contain it the way an plague or epidemic is contained. So, the interpretation would be, what's in this bottle will stave off death, keep it at bay, or to cause death to stop. Formal definitions - (Am. Heritage 3rd Ed/CD-ROM) stopper - n. 1. A device, such as a cork or plug, that is inserted to close an opening. 2. ***One that causes something to stop: a conversation stopper. Other's, as noted, are reading stopper death, as being the same as 'bottle death'. This bottle is filled with a substance that will cause death. The alternate is that this bottle contains a substance that will prevent death (presumably within reasonable limits). I've always interpreted it as 'contain death' as in keep death at bay or keep death away. Again, I want to emphasize that Snape's statement is colored or distorted by his attempt to make everything fit in the 'Brew/Bottle/Stopper' theme. That makes his statement more poetically colorful than absolutely literal. Just a thought. Steve/asian_lovr2 (was bboy_mn) From caesian at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 22:41:46 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:41:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <455C2810-FD31-11D8-AE42-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111932 On Sep 2, 2004, at 9:40 AM, arrowsmithbt wrote: > Caesian wrote previously: > the series has not been following the mystery genre, so well > characterized by tidy endings.? My money is on the glaring lack of > resolution for many apparent inconsistencies and ambiguous actions.? > Snape?? Neat and tidy?? Not even if he is seen snogging Lily Potter > and writing poetry about it - he'd rather die than be neat and tidy.? > Perish the thought.? Will the life and death of Sirius Black ever be > unambiguous? > > Kneasy: > It's motivation again. At some point JKR is going to have to give some > sort of explanation of why these characters are acting the way they > are. > Personally, I don't mind what happens to any of the personae (so long > as it's not too outrageous and unbelievable), but I do want to know > *why* they act the way they do. So far we've been given a half-assed > rationale of Tom - rejected by family, orphanage etc. Not a credible > excuse for wanting to rule the world IMO.? And I don't believe that > JKR thinks it's credible either. I'm hoping (expecting) to read a lot > more > about Tom and his transformation from chip-on-shoulder teenager to > Evil > Mastermind in the coming books. The mystery is why, what happened in > the back-story to them to make them behave as they do. > > Caesian responds: I do believe we will continue to gain insight into complex characters, especially Snape, Harry's father, probably his mother, and current minor mysteries (e.g. Ludo Bagman). Tom Riddle may be explained more, and I agree it could be interesting. The intensity of Harry's empathetic response Tom Riddle foreshadows some follow-up: he just stands stupidly and stares at Tom, thinking how much they seemed alike a moment before. I think Riddle is an excellent example to use here, because what we mean by the "rationale" for a character might be a bit different. In the end, none of us will ever be able to understand why Tom did what he did, anymore than we really think that Hitler did what he did because he was a frustrated artist. Bending human behavior to the mold of rational motivation is, in the end, inadequate. The books increasingly reflect a more mature, less tidy view of human interaction. We will never understand what it is like to be Lupin. Harry can't understand his father by his own standards, because despite their similarities they are completely different people. But, we can gain glimpses and extrapolate, and I agree with you that Rowling will be generous with these insights by the end of the series. I do think many of us will be left with conflicted feelings about the lives and choices of these characters. I also am not a sci-fi or fantasy reader (and I believe we share that background with JKR, unless you consider ancient myths Fantasy), but I expect "rationale" and resolution of a similar ilk to that presented in Lord of the Rings. I choose this as example as many of us have read this text, as well as for its "Inkling" designation, etc. There are some differences in tone that make me think Rowling will be slightly more personal. The tone of the Potter series is not like LOTR's terrible majesty, and few characters in LOTR have such mundane characterization as the endless bickering between Ron and Hermione, for example. I think HP has a great deal more humor, etc. In spite of these available inroads, I believe few of them will be part of Harry's journey or ours. We will be left to exercise our imagination in many cases. And, in the end, how many of us really understand Harry's "rationale" right now, after 5 books? We have a road map, and can understand in a rational sense why he would choose to stand and fight, why he went through the trapdoor, why he went into the chamber of secrets, and why he always goes alone. But how many of us would have travelled the same road given the same choices? If that is sufficient "rationale" then we agree. > > Caesian: > However, there is another, less-explicit level of reading > comprehension.? Derived from canon, yes, but as much from the spirit > and repeated patterns presented as specific scenes or dialogue. > What, based on this gestalt, is never-to-be-modified? > > First of all, the author is adhering to basic rules of morality and > fair play.? She does not lie to us, or withhold vital clues.? It is > very, very unlikely - based on existing Canon - that trusted and > sympathetic adults in Harry's life (such as Dumbledore, Lupin or Lily > and James Potter) - will be revealed as evil incarnate. > > Kneasy: > Evil incarnate? I'll probably cause a sharp intake of breath among > some, > but I don't get that immersed in fantasy fiction; I read books for > their > entertainment value. 'Evil incarnate' is a label, it's a mask in a > Greek > Chorus - I don't worry about it much. Seen too? many? deaths and > distress in Real Life to get worked up about it in fiction. It's a > necessary > part of the plot structure - it *has* to be there - so why rail > against > it when it appears? Think of it as being 'differently moralled.' > Caesian: OK. I can respect that. Although I think we have quite enough evil in the plot to contend with already, I agree it's going to get worse. But, I just don't think that it's likely that a trusted character with extensive prior interaction with Harry is going to intentionally harm him. This is like suggesting that Molly Weasley is going to suddenly come after him with a meat cleaver (as much as I'd like to read that scene). And I don't count Imperious as a "betrayal" - that's a weakness on the part of someone who hasn't the skill or natural talent to fight back, it's not a moral failing. There are all sorts of motivations and moralities presented in the books, and I entirely agree that all is not rosy and right. But, I do think that in all probability, the author is writing these books with the mindset of both young and old readers. She /will/ allow Harry to be betrayed, and she will certainly show us betrayal of every variety (including a very nice analogy between Riddle's diary and internet chat rooms: Aesop for the modern age). However, I wager that she will not betray her young readers by allowing someone we/Harry TRUST to be actively deceitful. It happens, it's realistic, I know. But, it would destroy the illusion she has labored to achieve: our identification with Harry. > > Caesian: > > While it is true that many of these possibilities cannot be > excluded based on rational extension from the letter of the canon, > such an outcome would not be consistent with the spirit of the > existing text. The published books have a strong moral tone ("it is > our choices...", "what is right vs. what is easy...").? > > Kneasy: > Hmm. Understandable, I suppose. Though I prefer books to be presented > in a morally neutral manner, leaving it up to the reader to sort out > the sheep from the goats. Caesian: Yes! Exactly. That is why we will never be given a full or pat "rationale" for the decisions made by a character. > > Caesian: > > Further, the plot has followed a pattern that excludes major > reversals for "good" characters: thus far, no Major character, > presented from the outset as sympathetic or trusted by Harry, has been > reversed.? GoF Moody does not count, because he was an imposter.? > Quirrell, Riddle, Pettigrew, Fudge, Bagman et al. are marginalized > characters that have minimal direct interaction with Harry.? Ron's > snit-fit in GoF was not a major betrayal.? Percy is acting like a git, > not a spawn of Voldemort.? Good characters are not Lily-white, > unambiguous (boring) folk.? But their flaws are not equivalent to > horrible betrayal. > > Kneasy: > Ah! But we haven't reached the climax yet! I have hopes, I have > hopes. Quirrell and Tom try to kill him, yet have minimal > interaction? What a strange concept of minimal interaction. Caesian: Yes, but Harry had minimal interaction with Quirrell prior to the revelation of his betrayal. It wasn't like Lupin was waiting for him at the mirro, he barely knew Quirrell. Kneasy: > A theory of mine that you've probably erased from your mind -? that > of forced betrayal. Crouch!Moody and the Imperius curse - Harry > learned to fight against it. Nobody else in the class did; Ron seemed > particularly susceptible.... Warms the cockles of a plot-sniffers > heart, that does. Lovely possibilities! Caesian: This is a big possibility, I agree. I wouldn't consider it a true betrayal because it is not a moral failure. > > Caesian: > >?? Harry, and the reader though his experience, are repeatedly > chastened for holding less-than-Dumbledore attitudes towards others. > > > Kneasy: > Oh, come on! Please! > Harry is so chastened at Snape saving him at the Quidditch match that > he hates his guts. > Harry hates Draco. And Lucius. And Umbridge. And the Dursleys. And > Aunt Marge. And Kreacher. And that's as it should be. It's rational > and understandable. And Harry is not moved by anything DD says. > Neither am I. Caesian: Yes, but were you wrong about Snape in SS? Did you know Tom Riddle was the bad guy when you first met him? Did you believe Hermione and Ron about Trelawney before the prophecy? Were you wrong about Moody? Did you mistrust Viktor Krum just because he's from Durmstrang? Did you guess in PoA what Fudge would turn out to be by GoF? This is what I mean by being chastened - you must admit you were wrong. You believed the worst, and the guy was trying to SAVE your life. How dumb do you feel now? You trusted some phantom boy rather than your first true friend - how dumb was that? You thought the powers-that-be were competent and would look after you and your world - alas, how wrong you were. Chastened. Now, Harry is not Lupin, he's not all introspective and hesitant. I like both characters, but I won't hold my breath for Harry to thank Snape or apologize about the Quidditch thing (unless Snape's kicking the bucket right then). I'll wager that not one in a million readers saw through all of these misjudgments - it is human nature to judge. And we were chastened right along with Harry. It takes wisdom to judge rightly. I'm not saying Dumbledore is infallible, not at all, and he's holding alot of information we don't have. But he sure is right more often than anyone else. I bet he's even right about Snape. I'm also not saying I fail to take Harry's side. Harry's not wise, but he's quick and he's damn lucky and I like the kid even when he's a moron. And I can't stand the Dursleys, Draco, Lucius, Bellatrix, etc. any more than Harry can (or than JKR can for that matter). Those judgments are easy and clear, and seeing sadism as evil doesn't require much wisdom. (Although, evidently, seeing it as a turn-off does? Sorry, but I stumbled into a bad area of fan art concerning Lucius Malfoy the other day and I still have the willies. If JKR succeeds in educating an entire generation of girls that mean does not equal sexy, I will consider putting her picture up on my metaphorical wall with MLK and the Dalai Lama. But I digress.) > > Caesian: > > Therefore, the never-to-be-modified rules of speculation about the > Potterverse (for what THAT is worth) are thus: > > > > Do not assume you can fully understand based on limited information > > Consider the source > > Do not be too hasty in your judgment of others > > Be willing to forgive or give a second chance > > Don't hold your breath for neat and tidy - people will not always > fit neatly into your stereotype > > Those who profess to like you, or take your side at one time, are > not necessarily your best friends > > Sometimes you need to disagree with those you care for > > Good people can make mistakes > > Those who don't like you are not necessarily bad people > > > > And that's as neat and tidy as I can make it, > > Kneasy: > I'd modify those a bit to suit a teenager who is hated so much by some > that they've been trying to kill him for years : > > Totally trust no-one. Unless they're dead. Even then, be suspicious; > they may be faking. > Be very, very careful when giving second chances - if a dog bites you > once, it's the dogs fault; if he bites you twice, it's your fault. > The road to? hell is paved with good intentions. > Friends will forgive you, enemies won't. > Turning the other cheek is fine for a kiss, but not when someone is > trying > to knock your teeth out. > People who don't like you are not your friends. > You? don't get a second chance if you're? dead. Caesian: This is brilliant! And I agree wholeheartedly. I'll restrain myself to one obsequious genuflection :: curtsy ::. Cheers. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 23:04:31 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid in Knockturn Alley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040902230431.61228.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111933 --- dungrollin wrote: > When Hagrid was acting suspiciously in Knockturn > alley he said Flesh- > eating slugs were ruining the school cabbages. bamf: I hadn't seen a reply to this, so forgive me if someone has replied. The 'flesh' part could also refer to part of a plant. 'Fleshy leaves' is a commonly used to describe leaves that hold a lot of water. (More so plants like Jade or Aloe.) But I can also see the term applied if the slugs just eat the 'fleshy' part of the plant - the part between the veination, not the flesh of humans. Ta! bamf ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From caesian at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 23:14:18 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:14:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111934 On Sep 2, 2004, at 3:25 PM, pippin_999 wrote: > > >? Pippin: > > >? ::blinks:: IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading a > > >? werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is holding > > >? someone against their will and threatening to strip them naked > > >? in public. Does evil have to be wearing a robe and a hood before > > >? we recognize it? > > > > > >? Pippin > > > > Caesian: > > Oh for heaven's sake. :: slaps forehead ::? I see the light!? I > mean,? even though (obviously) the author intended that when we look > back > on? that scene, we'll all realize that it was Lupin who was really, > really? evil.? Lupin who kept trying to read his book, and didn't > laugh > when? James insulted Snape. Pippin now: > Actually, I think that is exactly what JKR intends. We will see that > Lupin's choice to look the other way while what he considered to be > really bad things were being done foreshadowed similar behavior in > the future. > Most of us would not decide on our own to commit genocide or eat > little children, but history shows that a great > many of us are sadly capable of looking the other way while these > things are being done, or of being led to do them ourselves if no one > is brave enough to stop us. > > IMO, JKR is not addressing herself to potential Riddles, she's > addressing herself to the complacent and the apathetic. Harry > complacently made some assumptions about his father that turned out to > be wrong, and I suspect most readers were just as surprised as he was. > > Pippin Caesian: Pippin, you make an articulate case again. I am reminded of a quotation from Dr. M.L. King that goes something like this: "In the end, what we remember is not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends". You will likely conceed that it is hard for anyone to act as if all the world is their friend, especially when the world contains some pretty greasy gits. In this case, Severus was most certainly not behaving as if Lupin were his friend. Nor did Snape react particularly well when someone did summon the courage to defend him. However, Lupin would have been a better man if he had looked up from his book and objected. No one disagrees on this point. Especially not Lupin himself. What we disagree about here is whether being flawed is the same as being evil. Silence can be a horrible weapon. It depends on the situation. Peter was silent when he knew the Potters had been betrayed to Voldemort. That was evil silence (not to mention that he himself had betrayed them). Lupin was silent when Snape was getting dangled by his ankles, and I blame him AND every single student on that lawn, with the sole exception of Lily. Are they all evil? No, they're all flawed. And on a different day, she probably was too. I think we may have to agree to disagree on the definition of the word evil here - I can honestly say I understand your argument, even if I don't agree with using the word "evil" that way. Afterall, Dr. King (even in his "worst memory"?), continued to regard those who were silent as "friends". Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 23:26:23 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:26:23 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place - Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vcu20032003" wrote: > I apologize if someone has posted on this before, but I was just > thinking about what will happen to Kreacher and to Grimmauld Place > now that Sirius is dead. With Harry being his godson and no other > living relatives, does that mean that Kreacher will now be indebted > to work for Harry and that Harry will now own Grimmauld Place (the > secrte headquarters of OOTP)? It makes my head spin thinking about > all the implications... > > --one of many fan(atic)s > ("vcu20032003") Asian_lovr2: Well, the Black Family Inheritance has been discussed before, and that touched on Kreacher but I don't think we were ever able to come to an agreement. I'll give you some links later. My own personal opinion is that the next time we see Kreacher he will be hanging on the wall with his ancestors. When Dumbledore questioned him near the end of OotP, I think he saw that Kreacher had gone completely around the bend, and had become so trecherous that he could no longer be trusted. Given that he was extremely old and pretty much useless, as well as dangerous, I think Dumbledore 'put him to rest' as a casualty of war. Of course, I can't prove that. Below are links to this and related discussion. These are links to my posts, but you can move up and down the thread, and see what everyone else had to say. Jun 29 - OOP: the Inheritance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/65763 Jul 1 - OoP: Re: Question - inheritance thread...(& Winky) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66493 Jul 23 - Dead Men Tell No Lies (was: inheritance) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72691 Jul 22 - Inheritance - Kreacher - Dead or Alive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72476 Aug 1 - Kreacher & House-Elf Relocation http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74791 Aug 2 - Re: Silly Questions (that may never be answered) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74859 If you read these or at least some of them that will probably stimulate a hundred new ideas on the subject. Steve/asian_lovr2 (was bboy_mn) From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 2 23:37:55 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:37:55 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry > remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to > that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, > and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? > > Angie Asian_lovr2: As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort would have spared Lily. I think at that moment, he had his main objective in sight, and everything else was just a distraction. So, when Voldemort told Lily to stand aside, he was really say, stand aside I've got more important things to do than bother with you, rather than saying, stand aside because you don't /have/ to die. At that point in time, Lily was inconsequential, but she became so much of an annoyance and distraction from his real objective that Voldemort killed her just to simplify things. Had Lily stepped aside, Voldemort may or may not have killed her on his way out based on nothing more than his mood at the moment. I also have this theory that Voldemort and the DE's like to leave at least one person standing to bear witness and tell the chilling horrific tale of the mighty Voldemort and his clan of spineless but ruthless toadies. Just a thought. Steve/asian_lovr (was bboy_mn) From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 2 23:38:01 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:38:01 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111937 > Karen wrote: > > snip > > What if Sirius is the "that boy"? Did James > > drag his best friend along so that Petunia would be occupied while > > James and Lily spent time together? > > snip > > Bonny now: > > But then, I suppose her eventual reaction could be taken > two ways: > > "Aunt Petunia, who was bony and horse faced, whipped around and peered > intently out of the kitchen window." > - pg 19, PoA, softcover Canadian edition > > Is Petunia just nosy, or does she have a legitimate reason for peering > so intently out of the window? And, if she does have a legitimate > reason, how composed would she have to be to hide such an intense > reaction as would likely occur from her husband and nephew? > Karen again: What better way to hide a reaction - look out the window? I sit near the window at work and many times when people need to compose themselves they come over and stare at the parking lot. I have learned that if someone is standing in the middle of the aisle looking out the window not to disturb them because they are usually trying to calm down or compose themselves. - Karen From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 2 23:44:06 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:44:06 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Justine" wrote: > Pippin: > James's motivation isn't unclear at all. He hated Snape 'because he exists' and his friend was bored with celebrating. > > James was not a willing, conscious ally of Voldemort, nor do I > think he ever wanted to become one. But the world isn't divided > into evil people and non-Death Eaters either. > > Alla: > Sorry, Pippin, but "because he exists" could cover A LOT of things. Who knows what encounters James and Snape or Sirius and Snape had prior to that. > > Justine: > In James's mind, he's battling evil, Valky: THis is the singular crux of the entire matter and the thing that Harry is, and some of us are, yet to realise. James may have been Wrong; Stupid; Arrogant; Cruel; Vicious; etc etc Label it in a thousand ways but the the end result of what ever James was still leaves his own personal sense of nobility entirely in tact because he is fifteen and is making a mistake. It is *not* an unknown quantity that James thinks Snape is evil, its a given. We are standing a step before knowing that James was a Knight at heart and put himself to hazard willingly and fearlessly in canon. The space between here and there becomes a chasm the size of how much speculation we pour into Snapes Character, not James'. JKR on Snape: (Paraphrase) You shouldn't like him _too_ much..... From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 00:41:48 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:41:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments References: Message-ID: <036901c4914e$cc76f080$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 111939 From: "M.Clifford"> > Valky: snip. > > JKR on Snape: (Paraphrase) You shouldn't like him _too_ much..... > Charme: Oh, I am SO glad you posted what you did, Valky. :) Nope, you definitely shouldn't like him too much. It's rather like "poor Snape, look how hard his life was" as an excuse for how he later turned out to be a DE, and now supposedly is reformed? While I love the complexity of Snape's character, I am not fooled by him: he's in it all for himself, unless he does something noble to convince me otherwise. As is Peter Pettigrew. The whole argument about James being entranced by the "dark arts" and or being a putz because of a single Pensieve memory, is "reaching," IMO. Everybody does things when they are young which they regret, and that doesn't make them evil. I might remind people who might think otherwise that there are specific items in that memory that you have to wonder how Snape knew, like the L.E. James drew, the Marauder's conversation, and several other intriguing details which should make you go, "HUH? How did SNAPE know THAT?" Let's face it, Snapey Poo sure looks like the nosey cur Sirius said he was if you look at it from that perspective. Charme From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 3 00:47:48 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:47:48 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111940 --- Steve wrote: > For starters, Snape has a theme going in his little > speech; Brew, Bottle, and Stopper; brew it up, put it > in a bottle, and put a cork in it. I agree. That's why he couldn't possibly mean "stopper" as in "a person who stops something," because that meaning has nothing to do with the kind of stopper that goes in a bottle. > To some extent, carrying the figure of speech or theme > through puts a limit on the absolute accuracy of the > statement. I guess you could call it poetic license. Of course Snape is speaking figuratively -- there is no way to literally "stopper" an abstract concept such as death, any more than there is a way to literally "bottle fame." His use of a metaphor does not, however, mean that Snape is departing from the meaning of "stopper" that makes sense in a Potions class. On the contrary, as you pointed out above, the extended metaphor *confirms* that he means a stopper such as a cork, rather than weakening that connection. > As to the meaning of 'stopper', it means, put a cork > in it, as in put a cork or a stopper in a bottle. That > could be view in different ways. It could mean to > contain death, not contain it as in 'what's in this > bottle will kill you', but to contain it the way an > plague or epidemic is contained. So, the interpretation > would be, what's in this bottle will stave off death, > keep it at bay, or to cause death to stop. It *could* mean that, but not without departing from the extended metaphor and stretching the meaning of "stopper" beyond recognition. In "bottle fame," the potion that is being bottled represents fame (or will bring fame to the brewer). In "brew glory," the potion that is being brewed represents glory (or will bring glory to the brewer). Under your interpretation, "stopper death," means something totally different: instead of the referring to a potion that stands in for, or is connected with, death, it refers to a potion that has the effect of stopping death. Moreover, to reprise Dungrollin's point, stoppering something is not the same as stopping it. To pursue your example, no one would ever refer to the containment of an epidemic as "stoppering" it. And the usage you suggest would be even more strange when applied to a concept like death that does not naturally spread, so that "containing" it must itself be a metaphor. "Stopper" = "Stave off"??? No, they both relate to the word "contain," but that's about it. > Formal definitions - (Am. Heritage 3rd Ed/CD-ROM) > stopper - n. 1. A device, such as a cork or plug, that > is inserted to close an opening. 2. ***One that causes > something to stop: a conversation stopper. Snape is not talking about a conversation stopper for goodness sake. He is, as you said above, referring to a stopper that goes in a bottle, like a cork. > Other's, as noted, are reading stopper death, as being > the same as 'bottle death'. This bottle is filled with > a substance that will cause death. The alternate is that > this bottle contains a substance that will prevent death > (presumably within reasonable limits). Snape could only mean that if "stopper x" means "contain a substance that will prevent x." With all due respect to Wittgenstein, I think not! I can see an argument for the reading that DuffyPoo (I think) was adopting, where stoppering death means to put your own death in a bottle (for some purpose unknown), but an invulnerability potion just doesn't fit. -- Matt From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 3 01:42:46 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 01:42:46 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111941 >>> Pippin: >>> IMO, grayness was studying illegal magic and leading >>> a werewolf through a populated area for kicks. Evil is >>> holding someone against their will and threatening to >>> strip them naked in public. Does evil have to be wearing >>> a robe and a hood before we recognize it? Others: >> [Bullying and failing to stop bullies are morally suspect, >> but not "evil."] Pippin: > For most of us, not being Tom Riddle wouldn't be a choice > between what's right and what's easy. Very few of us are > capable of following in Riddle's footsteps. Most of us > would not decide on our own to commit genocide or eat > little children, but history shows that a great many of us > are sadly capable of looking the other way while these > things are being done, or of being led to do them ourselves > if no one is brave enough to stop us. > > IMO, JKR is not addressing herself to potential Riddles, > she's addressing herself to the complacent and the > apathetic. This is a very interesting discussion, and an important one. I agree with Pippin that, in Rowling's morality (if I can use that term for a code that is distilled, rather than explicitly set forth in the books), those who stand idly by while bad things are done share some of the blame. The converse of Dumbledore's optimistic statement at the end of SS is the adage -- frequently, though incorrectly, attributed to Edmund Burke (for that story, see http://tinyurl.com/6xde3) -- that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That does not, however, mean that the bystander is as bad as the perpetrator, nor that the schoolyard bully is as bad as the bullying teacher, nor that Snape is as bad as Umbridge, nor that Umbridge is as bad as the Death Eaters, nor that the Death Eaters are as bad as Voldemort. Are all of them "evil"? What does it mean when Sirius says "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters"? Does it just mean there are lots of kinds of evil? That's probably close to what Sirius means (he's talking about Umbridge). But the same words also serve to warn us that just because something (someone) is not evil, doesn't mean it's good. I am not ready to call James' and Sirius' bullying evil, although I can see why Pippin would. It doesn't sink to my standard for depravity, though it's close to the edge. But I don't think it would matter very much to Rowling where a reader draws that particular line. What concerns her more is the recognition -- which Harry arrives at immediately and without regard to the individuals involved -- that there is a line between what James and Sirius did and what Lupin did, and another big line between Lupin's behavior and Lily's. It is the moral distinctions, not the names we attach, that are important. -- Matt From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 3 02:04:18 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:04:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Well, look at this differently. Someone in your child's school > commits a crime. Your neighbor, instead of turning the criminal in, > blackmails the criminal. The crime is no longer beining commited, > but the criminal is not only not arrested, no one knows about it. Well, if you don't trust the authorities to actually do the right thing and if you have a larger aim in mind that supercedes the supposed justice system, then a private system of justice may be the right thing to do. At the point where Hermione decides to keep the issue secret she had witnessed the Minister of Magic himself break the law in the most horrendous fashion (administer the dementor kiss on Crouch Jr. without a trial) in an effort to hush up the evidence and have the WW continue to live in a lie. So who exactly is Hermione to turn Rita to? Umbridge maybe? :-) Salit From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 03:11:55 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:11:55 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111943 ---> > Asian_lovr2: > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort would > have spared Lily. Angie replies: In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he put up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died . . . she was trying to protect you." This sounds like LV had no intention of killing her, until she interfered which, of course, sounds very un-Voldemortish to me. If he planned to kill her, why tell her to stand aside -- why not just zap her, the way he instructed Wormtail to kill Cedric? I mean, this was IT for LV. I don't see why he would hesitate at all. Killing Harry was much more important than killing Cedric. Why even waste time to say, "Stand aside."? By the time he said that, she would have been dead if he had zapped her. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Sep 3 03:27:24 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:27:24 -0000 Subject: OoTP, Percy's letter, chptr 14, Cryptic message? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111944 Karen wondered: > In the "New clues to HP: Book 5" by Galadriel Waters, they have > "found" clues in the letter that suggest that : > 1. The escape of 10 Azkaban prisoners > 2. The whereabouts of Peter Pettigrew > 3. Info about the War. > They say that you have to read the letter like Sirius would have > read Harry's previous letter, as if it were written in code. > "Think about Harry's letter to Sirius", they say. I have read and > re-read that passage, and I can see that you could get some other > things out of the letter, but not what they are suggesting. Does > anyone else have ideas about this? It is starting to keep me up > nights. Yb's turn: Well, I hope I can help you get some sleep tonight. I don't think they were really "clues", but GW refers to them as "coincidental references," which according to rule #3, means the radar should be picking up something... 1. Percy mentions Ron is "following in his footsteps" becoming a prefect and such. In Chapter 25, When Fudge is commenting on the breakout from Azkaban, he uses the _exact same phrase_. Simple, subtle, almost completely ignored, but hmmm... 2. OK, I found 2 things, but I need to say something first: I think Peter Pettigrew was the "tail" (bad pun, I know) that was following Hagrid and Olympe in France. That being said: First, the words "regime" and "ardently" stuck out a little. "Regime" not so much, but "ardently" did, and both are Old French words... Plus, in the letter, Percy writes "_petty_ criminals with whom they are currently rubbing shoulders" (emphasis mine). "Petty" jumped out a little (Petty=petti=small=pettigrew) as did the "rubbing shoulders" bit. In the old order picture Moody showed Harry, Peter is between Lily and James, rubbing shoulders with the rest of the Order. Also, Hagrid says in Chapter 20 that "we [he and Olympe] knew we was bein' tailed by someone from the ministry." Hagrid goes on to say that they gave "the berk tailin' us" the slip. (A berk is a stupid person easy to take advantage of. A little like Pettigrew...) Hagrid thinks it's a ministry person, but maybe it was Pettigrew, and he tipped off the DEs when Hagrid and Olympe shook him off. 3. This was blatantly obvious: The Prisoner of War is Sturgis Podmore, and he's been sentenced to six months in Azkaban, as Percy reiterates. (We knew that from a DP article a while back.) OK, so there are those. About the "code": I read this over and over, trying to redeem Percy. It is not easy. But some of the things he writes: "I am afraid I can no longer..." "I must tell you..." "I feel bound to tell you..." Like he's telling Ron these things not because he wants to, but because he _has_ to, maybe to keep face with Fudge. He mentions that he is sorry more than once, and his comment near the end, "I hope they will realize how mistaken they were," points me towards the idea that we may have Perce all wrong. Maybe he's a spy, and the whole prat-act is a charade. I'd like to think so. ~Yb, desperately trying to redeem Perce, all the while thinking Lucifer would be easier, and hoping that Jo will do it for her in the next book. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Sep 3 03:41:04 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:41:04 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111945 Salit wrote: > Well, if you don't trust the authorities to actually do the right > thing and if you have a larger aim in mind that supercedes the > supposed justice system, then a private system of justice may be the > right thing to do. At the point where Hermione decides to keep the > issue secret she had witnessed the Minister of Magic himself break the > law in the most horrendous fashion (administer the dementor kiss on > Crouch Jr. without a trial) in an effort to hush up the evidence and > have the WW continue to live in a lie. Yb thinks: Salit has an EXCELLENT point. Hermione caught Rita after they saw Fudge blame everything that Harry and Barty Crouch had said about Voldemort's rebirth on scars and lunacy. Fudge is obviously someone who cannot be trusted, and Hermione recognized that immediately. When she caught Rita, why would she hand the woman (who wrote every kind of slander possible in the DP) to the Ministry, when they had completely ignored the return of the most evil creature of the past century? Rita would probably get a slap on the wrist, then be encouraged to write more stories discrediting Harry and Dumbledore, making matters worse. I am not completely forgiving Hermione. She is rather manipulative in this situation, and she's being a bit Machiavellian (ends justify the means), and her behavior at the end of GoF (she keeps the poor woman in a far until London, and she's pleased with herself), but she has a good idea: stop Rita from writing lies, get the whole story out correctly. She just uses the wrong methodology in putting these ideas through. ~Yb From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 04:08:12 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 04:08:12 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > ---> > > Asian_lovr2: > > > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort > would > > have spared Lily. > > Angie replies: > > In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he put > up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died . . . > she was trying to protect you." > > This sounds like LV had no intention of killing her, until she > interfered which, of course, sounds very un-Voldemortish to me. If > he planned to kill her, why tell her to stand aside -- why not just > zap her, the way he instructed Wormtail to kill Cedric? > > I mean, this was IT for LV. I don't see why he would hesitate at > all. Killing Harry was much more important than killing Cedric. Why > even waste time to say, "Stand aside."? By the time he said that, > she would have been dead if he had zapped her Antosha: I'm pretty sure I've said this here before, but what if heavy duty spells such as AK drain the caster? What if LV is worried that, having already used the killing curse on James, he might not have the, uh, mojo, or whatever, to finish off his ultimate objective, Harry, if he has to expend himself killing Lily? Although just what LV might want with a living Lily does give me the hebegeebees. From McGregorMax at ec.rr.com Fri Sep 3 06:39:34 2004 From: McGregorMax at ec.rr.com (mcmaxslb) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:39:34 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote:> Angie replies: > > In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he put > up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died . . . > she was trying to protect you." Voldemort was lying to mess with Harry's head. He had no intention of letting Lily live. From annegirl11 at juno.com Fri Sep 3 02:27:55 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 22:27:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Son of Insecure!Snape Message-ID: <20040902.225855.2176.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111948 Nora said: > But my general experience is that those who *insist* on the titles > and honors, with a continual reference to them, are those who really > aren't quite comfortable or assured in their position. > There's a point when it's an insistence upon common courtesy, but there's also > a point where it's an attempt to solidify one's power and control > over the students. Aura: Yes. This is what I was saying. Not that there's anything inherently insecure about asking students to speak to you respectfully, but -- c'mon. This is Snape. We've seen him act pretty immaturely time and again, and insecurity is definately part of the Snape-Emotional-Issues package. The map was disobeying him, make Snape aware of his internal insecurities (which MWPP had kind of intended to do - "program" the map to torment Snape, and the best way to do that it is undercut him), embarrasing him in front of Lupin, so Snape responded by invoking all his titles and trappings of importance. Nora again: > No, I think dear Severus is somewhat insecure in addition to being > arrogant, as the two are definitely not mutually exclusive. Completely agree. You can know that you're intelligent and talented, but still not feel confident with how other people see you. For example, take how Snape treats Neville: Snape's worst memories involve him being weakened and lacking control over himself and/or his surroundings (James hanging him upsidedown, Snape's abusive father). It's a common phenomenon for people to hate most about other people what they hate in themselves, and, imo, Snape hates Neville for being weak. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 03:29:05 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 03:29:05 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111949 > Angie replies: > > In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he put > up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died . . . > she was trying to protect you." > > This sounds like LV had no intention of killing her, until she > interfered which, of course, sounds very un-Voldemortish to me. If > he planned to kill her, why tell her to stand aside -- why not just > zap her, the way he instructed Wormtail to kill Cedric? > > I mean, this was IT for LV. I don't see why he would hesitate at > all. Killing Harry was much more important than killing Cedric. Why > even waste time to say, "Stand aside."? By the time he said that, > she would have been dead if he had zapped her. Zendemort: Actually, I thought that Voldemort killed Cedric right away because he had no use of him, and Cedric could potentially ruine his plan if kept alive. It's a lot harder to maintain control over two individuals than one. Voldemort wanted to show the DEs that he could win over Harry, as well as have his blood. Lily is different. Voldemort believed that she posed no real threat and thus, would not waste energy on killing her. It is rather odd, but maybe Voldemort still has some humanity in his heart? From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 3 06:54:06 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 06:54:06 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > On Sep 2, 2004, at 3:25 PM, pippin_999 wrote: Caesian: > Pippin, you make an articulate case again. I am reminded of a > quotation from Dr. M.L. King that goes something like this: > > "In the end, what we remember is not the words of our enemies, but the > silence of our friends". > > However, Lupin would > have been a better man if he had looked up from his book and objected. > No one disagrees on this point. Especially not Lupin himself. Geoff: I am also reminded very much of Edmund Burke's observation: "The only thing necessary of evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." There is also Quirrell's interesting twist on this: "There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to see it" (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.211 UK edition) There are times when we need to have some power - even the power of courage - to face up to evil. This was very obvious in the UK in the late 1930s when the rising evil of Hitler was faced by appeasement which only increased his megalomania. But this is perhaps more applicable to Voldemort than the situation with James and Snape.... Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From idcre at imap2.asu.edu Fri Sep 3 07:36:15 2004 From: idcre at imap2.asu.edu (backstagemystic) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 07:36:15 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <036901c4914e$cc76f080$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111951 >>> Valky: >>>[snip]JKR on Snape: (Paraphrase) You shouldn't like him _too_ much.....<<< Charme: >>Oh, I am SO glad you posted what you did, Valky. :)<< >>Nope, you definitely shouldn't like him too much. << BM: For what it's worth, JKR's actual quote is: "You shouldn't think he's TOO nice." Charme: >>It's rather like "poor Snape, look how hard his life was" as an excuse for how he later turned out to be a DE, and now supposedly is reformed? While I love the complexity of Snape's character, I am not fooled by him: he's in it all for himself, unless he does something noble to convince me otherwise. As is Peter Pettigrew.<< BM: I don't think we have enough information to say either way at this point. Snape may very well be in it all for himself (and JKR is certainly hinting that we're going to find-out more things of an unsavory nature about him). Yet, I also have to question why he has taken such great personal risks to whatever end? Spying for Dumbledore in the past, and whatever he is doing now to find-out what Voldemort is telling his DE's doesn't strike me as the best way for him to go about ensuring his own personal safety and well-being, is it? Then there's still the unanswered issue of just WHY Dumbledore so strongly trusts Snape. Charme: >>The whole argument about James being entranced by the "dark arts" and or being a putz because of a single Pensieve memory, is "reaching," IMO. << BM: I don't believe James was entranced by the Dark Arts, but it seems his less-than-flattering reputation was well-deserved at that point. Charme: >>Everybody does things when they are young which they regret, and that doesn't make them evil. << BM: Do you think Snape has any such regrets? How young was he when he became a Death Eater? How young was he when he left? What were his motives in both cases? Does he have any mindset for repentance, or is it all just an act? Or is it more grey as opposed to black and white? Charme: >>I might remind people who might think otherwise that there are specific items in that memory that you have to wonder how Snape knew, like the L.E. James drew, the Marauder's conversation, and several other intriguing details which should make you go, "HUH? How did SNAPE know THAT?" Let's face it, Snapey Poo sure looks like the nosey cur Sirius said he was if you look at it from that perspective.<< BM: I'm not saying Snape wasn't nosey, but I'm not sure that this isn't a case of the nature of the Pensieve itself. When we saw Dumbledore's memory of Karkaroff's trial in thePensieve, I believe there were facial expressions of Moody (who was sitting behind DD) that I doubt DD could have seen...yet Harry sees them just fine in the Pensieve. Maybe it's a case of our senses picking up more than our conscious mind is aware, and it's stored in the subconscious and that's why the Pensieve can give a more omniscient (or at least a more panoramic) view of events. We can also look at other evidence, such as the way Lily confronts James and what she has to say about James in general. Obviously, by her tongue-lashing of James, this particular incident involving Snape isn't an isolated incident of James acting out of line without provocation. He's infamous for it at school. This in turn is confirmed by Remus and Sirius when Harry later asks them about what he saw in Snape's memory...there was no denial of the events on their part (though Sirius gave his rationalization for James' behaviour, Remus was quiet on that aspect.). BM From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 3 08:26:46 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:26:46 -0400 Subject: Hagrid in Knockturn Alley Message-ID: <002c01c4918f$c0acafb0$39c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 111952 > When Hagrid was acting suspiciously in Knockturn > alley he said Flesh- > eating slugs were ruining the school cabbages. bamf: "I hadn't seen a reply to this, so forgive me if someone has replied. The 'flesh' part could also refer to part of a plant. 'Fleshy leaves' is a commonly used to describe leaves that hold a lot of water. (More so plants like Jade or Aloe.) But I can also see the term applied if the slugs just eat the 'fleshy' part of the plant - the part between the veination, not the flesh of humans." DuffyPoo: See, now I thought the Flesh-Eating was part of the purpose of the 'repellant'. Eats the flesh off the slugs! I never put it together as Flesh-Eating Slugs. I just thought, this is in the book and in the movie. In fact, Hagrid mentions Flesh Eating Slug Repellant twice in the movie. Wonder if that's a clue? ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 3 10:05:36 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:05:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > 1. In GoF, Hermione discovers Rita Skeeter's secret about being > an unregistered animagus. To ensure Rita never lies about anyone in > her articles, Hermione tells her she can't do any writing for a > year or Hermione will turn her in. But in Chapter 25 of OoP we see > Hermione has added terms to their agreement. Rather than just keep > silent, Rita Skeeter must now do what Hermione asks of her. It > seems Hermione might have crossed a line or at least entered a gray > area. At first, Hermione was teaching Rita a lesson-not to write > nasty lies. But now she's * using* her knowledge to blackmail > Rita into doing her bidding. Granted, it's for a good cause but > do > Hermione's means justify the end? > > At the Edinburgh Book Festival, JKR said we would be seeing more of > Rita Skeeter. Will Hermione continue to blackmail her? Does Rita > Skeeter deserve everything she gets? I am torn. On the one hand, I agree that Hermione is taking it too far sometimes. If we take the law in our own hands, even thinking it is for the greater good, there is a great danger we will end up like Barty Crouch, who thought himself above the law. However, in this special case I think Hermione's behaviour is justified. It's not simply about making people believe Harry. The more people believe the truth, the more can prepare themselves for what's to come. Meaning Hermione's plan also might help to save a lot of lives. Therefore seeing in what circumstanes they were, I think blackmailing Rita was justified, because in the end it was really for the good of everybody (even Rita). Nonetheless, I agree that Hermione has to take some fall. But maybe she already learned something at the end of OotP, when she tried to use the centaurs. > > 5. How is Umbridge able to attend every Divination and Care of > Magical Creatures lesson and still teach her own Defense Against the > Dark Arts lessons? Simple: She goes to her class and says: "Read Chapter X. There is no need to talk." Than she leaves the classroom to inspect Hagrid and Trelawney. I don't think she cares if the students really read the chapter, als long as they don't learn any magic. :-) > > 6. It's clear to Harry the dementors are out of the > Ministry's > control. Do you think the dementors left the Ministry entirely with > the Death Eater breakout? Or just that the MoM had lost > `control' of them and they stuck around for a while after > allowing > the DE s to escape? Fudge does not report their defection until he > finally admits LV returned but we know how reliable he and the > Prophet are. ;-) I think the Dementors left later. At the end of the book it is reported in the newspaper that the Dementors have left Azkaban. Maybe it's possible, that the ministry tried to keep it a secret, but I think it's more likely that the Dementors stayed there longer, to free even more Death Eaters. > > 7. Harry, Cho, and the disastrous date. Actually I have no > question. Just thought they might be interesting should any of you > like to discuss it. > Actually, I have a question. *g* After OotP, Cho seems to be one of the most hated or at least disliked characters. Do you think this is fair? Isn't Harry as much to blame as she, that the relationship didn't work? Isn't it understandable, that Cho tries to talk about her problems? Hickengruendler From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 08:23:32 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:23:32 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111954 Karen: > > 1. No - According to JKR's web site, Lily's grandparents were > Muggles. This means both her parents are muggles. JKR also stated > during the Edinburgh Book Festival that Petunia was not a Squib that > she is a Muggle but she laughed so there is more to Petunia than > Vernon and we know. > > 2. No - See the reason for number 1 plus Dean Thomas has this > background (JKR's website) and he is a half-blood. > > 3. No - this would make them half-bloods not Muggles. It is from the > biological parents that a witch or wizard gets their blood line. I > again reference Dean Thomas' history on JKR's web site. OK, here are my further thoughts. I think that maybe Lily and Petunia are only half-sisters. Lily's mum had an affair with a wizard, and Lily was the result. Lily's mum did not tell anyone about this (or maybe she didn't even realise herself!). The letter from Hogwarts does not state your ancestry, so this would not raise any suspicions. So in answer to the points you raised, Lily's grandparents could still be Muggles. In this case, Lily would be a half-blood and not a mud-blood (apologies for any offence caused!!). However, absolutely noone would be aware of this! This would all sound far fetched, if it wasn't for Dean Thomas' background. I do believe that Dean's background is a clue to Lily's true origin. Brother Fry From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 08:35:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:35:33 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111955 Asian_lovr2: > > > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort > would > > have spared Lily. > I think he would have spared her if he could. When Harry hears the last moments of his parents lives in PoA he hears LV say 'stand aside, you silly girl.' If he was going to kill her anyway, why not do it then and save the trouble of having her still trying to stop him getting at Harry? I think LV's reluctance to kill Lily is related to some significant future plot point. We know from interviews with JKR that something significant is revealed about Lily in later books, and even without that, there are a lot of mysteries surrounding her. How could someone so young (by some timeline calculations, only 21 at the time of her death, which I don't personally agree with, but she certainly was very young nonetheless) have defied Voldemort all those times? And why do people never tell Harry anything about her? We hear a lot about James, but all they ever say about Lily is that she was nice. We can assume that Hagrid, Dumbledore, Sirius and Lupin all knew her pretty well, even if James was their 'main' friend. And doesn't she have any friends of her own? There's something about Lily that we don't know and may not even be able to guess, but that's why LV didn't want to kill her. (No, I don't think she was his daughter/ grandaughter/ lover.) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 09:34:26 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 09:34:26 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111956 > Charme: > >>It's rather like "poor Snape, look how hard his life was" as an > excuse for how he later turned out to be a DE, and now supposedly is > reformed? While I love the complexity of Snape's character, I am not > fooled by him: he's in it all for himself, unless he does something > noble to convince me otherwise. As is Peter Pettigrew.<< > > BM: > I don't think we have enough information to say either way at this > point. Snape may very well be in it all for himself (and JKR is > certainly hinting that we're going to find-out more things of an > unsavory nature about him). > > Yet, I also have to question why he has taken such great personal > risks to whatever end? Spying for Dumbledore in the past, and > whatever he is doing now to find-out what Voldemort is telling his > DE's doesn't strike me as the best way for him to go about ensuring > his own personal safety and well-being, is it? > > Then there's still the unanswered issue of just WHY Dumbledore so > strongly trusts Snape. > Not just that, but why does Voldemort trust Snape? I think that's key to the whole mystery of Snape and why he changed sides. Voldemort must know that Dumbledore vouched for Snape and claimed he was a spy. He also witnessed via Quirrel Snape's attempts to thwart the plot to steal the stone, and to save Harry. AND Pettigrew presumably told him about Severus bursting into the shrieking shack to rescue Harry and company from the 'evil death eater' Black. Yet, despite all this damning evidence against him, Voldemort still seems to have accepted Snape back into the death-eating fold. WHY? He's hardly the forgiving type, is he? I've got three theories, I bet you can think up others; 1. Snape isn't a true spy, and still serves Voldemort. I think this is unlikely myself, but it would explain LV's attitude to him. 2. LV knows Snape is a spy, but pretends not to, in order to feed false information to the OotP. Not really any evidence of this yet. 3. LV believes that Dumbledore was lying to protect Snape. For this to be true, LV would need a good reason to think that Dumbledore knew Snape was a death eater, but didn't want him exposed. Could Dumbledore and Snape be related? I mean, I've heard theories that Dumbledore is related to just about everybody else in the books! We know wizard families are all related somewhere along the line. Note that I'm not saying I think that Dumbledore actually DID lie for Snape (I don't think he would), rather that LV has a reason to think that. What do you think? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 3 10:30:21 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:30:21 -0000 Subject: Lily's heritage (was: JKRs comments on Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > OK, here are my further thoughts. I think that maybe Lily and Petunia > are only half-sisters. Lily's mum had an affair with a wizard, and > Lily was the result. Lily's mum did not tell anyone about this (or > maybe she didn't even realise herself!). The letter from Hogwarts > does not state your ancestry, so this would not raise any suspicions. > So in answer to the points you raised, Lily's grandparents could > still be Muggles. In this case, Lily would be a half-blood and not a > mud-blood (apologies for any offence caused!!). > > Brother Fry Hickengruendler: Before I start, please don't take this personally. This is not aimed directly at you, but at the many, many HP-Fans, who want to make Lily (or Hermione, for that matter) wizard-born. I just have one question: Why? I have read so many theories, in which Lily's mother had an affair with Voldemort/ Arthur Weasley/ Dumbledore/ any wizard and in which Lily is half-blood. Or theories in which Lily's parents are either wizards or at least squibs, so that some magical blood runs through their veins. Or theories in which Lily is adopted and the daughter of a wizard and a witch (mostly either Voldemort's or Dumbledore's love child). And I really don't understand it. I mean, I guess it isn't totally impossible, but neither is, that the Giant Squid is yet another animagus. IMO, it wouldn't add anything to Lily or Hermione's character, to make them wizard-born. It would take away from their character. One of Lily and Hermione's functions in the books (of course not the only one) is to show, that the pureblood families are wrong, and that muggle-born can be as magically talented and any pureblood or can even have more talent. Also, it's not by accident, that the trio contains one pureblood character, one half-blood character and one muggle-born character. In making Lily a half-blood, Harry would hardly count as a half-blood anymore, since both parents and 3/4 of the grandparents were magical. That means, making Lily anything else but a muggle-born, would take something away from the trio's dynamics as well. Hickengruendler From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 10:47:10 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:47:10 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111958 The Agree to Disagree Post. Debate Topic One: Does HP suggest that magic exists in the real world on a spiritual level? Here are two options which have been raised in the course of discussion: A) Yes. Caspen wrote: (111400) >"I think the overall theme of the books will be that contrary to Vernon Dursley's pronouncement in Book 1 that "There's no such thing as magic," "magic" does, in fact, exist in JKR'S view - but (this is JKR'S raelly brilliant point) only on a spiritual, as opposed to physical, plane."< This means that magic is used as a cunning metaphor in the HP series. B) No. Because Dursley actually believes that there is such thing as magic in a very real and physical sense. He is not in denial about magic- he sees its physical effects of his family and house. Also, the actual line (which is the most direct and explicit support of this theme) `There's no such thing as magic' is movie contamination. Canon!Dursley never says it. He never says anything even similar to it. On the contrary, he is so convinced that there is magical explanation underfoot that he dares to mention his sister-in-law to his wife. This contradicts the theme, which suggest that if the theme can be seen in HP it must not have been intended by JKR. Conclusion? Both are just opinions, make up your own mind. You can believe in a theory without believing JKR intended for it to be there, which leads onto the next debate point... Debate Topic Two: Can we give writing credit to JKR for themes which can be read into her books but which she is not aware of? Here are two options which have been raised in the course of discussion: A) Yes, of course. If it can be seen in her books, then JKR, as author, is the one who deserves the credit for it. Even if she isn't consciously aware of it, she may be subconsciously aware of it. Therefore, she is an intuitive and observant person and deserves credit for everything which can be read into her work. Disadvantage: Every theory or theme (both good and bad) must be included. Even ones like HP is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic. If you can choose which themes to include and which ones not to, then you aren't fully giving JKR credit for things she didn't consciously intend. B) No. The reader deserves the credit for bringing their own experiences to the work and responding to it. If there are themes which the reader's see, but JKR isn't aware of, the reader gets the credit for reading them in. Disadvantage: This invariably makes JKR seem less important. Conclusion? It's just an opinion again as to which you believe. Of course, the question of how do we know which things JKR intended and can give her full credit for leads onto the next point... Debate Topic Three: What are JKR's intentions and what themes is she aware of? Here are two options which have been raised in the course of discussion: A) We can never know, so we should give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she is as well-read, experienced and knowledgeable as we need. Assumes that she is aware of everything. Disadvantage: Means that no themes can be disproved or eliminated even if canon appears to contradict them. JKR is sole creator and anything she does must be intentional- it suggests that JKR is infallible and that there can be no mistakes (which is probably a little unrealistic). B) We can never know, but if canon or background information contradicts an alleged intention, it proves she mustn't be aware of it. Disadvantage: It means that themes can only be proved wrong, never proved right. Conclusion? Make up your own mind. I think we all accept that intentions change the meanings of actions. This raises the question- how can be make sure we are getting the right meaning across every issue? Should we know as much as possible about the author, or ignore them entirely so that nothing is tainted? This leads onto the next point... Debate Topic Four: What is the best way to understand texts? Here are two options which have been raised in the course of discussion: A) Using the principles of literary criticism. You can never separate author from work, so you can study the author to understand better the creation. In other words- the work and the author are the same thing. Good works can only be illustrative of good authors. Disadvantage: You get a better understanding of context, but it also limits view to the author's sole voice. Whilst they are the work's creator, they are certainly not omniscient in the real world. B) By using the tradition of the Anonymous Artist. By treating the work as though by an anonymous author (ignoring any context) there is nothing to prop up the work except its content. Fame, marketing, publicity, scandal, controversy, social context, etc. are all taken out of the equation and the work is examined for universal and timeless truths, rather than simply the author's truth or narrow themes pertinent to one social situation. Disadvantage: The author's intentions are degraded to being the same value as any reader's. Conclusion? Both opinions. Neither is right. We all have different opinions. As a note: I am not trying to say that any of these theories are right (though I will accept that I can not be impartial). Neither am I trying to say that every single person who replied to me disagrees with me on every point or that I accurately portrayed their opinion. If you feel you have another opinion, please reply so that this debate can be more resolved. Neither am I trying to say that you cannot believe in both or parts of both options at the same time. That would be being much wiser than me. I am trying to reach a conclusion where we can all accept that this all, ultimately, comes down to opinion and that in all probability, none of us will ever be convinced to change their opinions. Every alternative offers has some advantages and some disadvantages to it. Alla wrote: (111860) >Yes, the work of art at some point acquires the life of its own. Surely, many of us are reading in Harry Potter many significantly different things from what JKR wanted us to read. Why should it counts against JKR, if we dissect a richer meanings from the books, something that she may not be consciously aware of, when she just started?< Laurasia: And why shouldn't *we* get the credit for the richer meanings we uncover? I am pro-reader and anti-JKR as god. I give credit to readers for wild and wacky theories and am harsh (probably too harsh) on JKR. I think the widespread nature of Fanfic and the ubiquity of The Mary-Sue show that people like to read their own versions of HP, rather than limit themselves exclusively to JKR's point of view. I think that the more we are allowed to see ourselves in a work, the more we enjoy it. That's the reason why I don't think JKR deserves the credit- because I think *we* deserve the credit. (Maybe my own self-importance is coming into this... *grins*) I think that JKR deserves full credit for her part in the work- like you said, the starting point. I think from then on we should start crediting each individual reader for bringing their own life-experience and unique point-of-view to the work and dissecting their own meanings. Zendemort wrote: (111859) >Oh, and we don't need "archetypes," that is another ridiculous concept by an archaic psychologist. < Laurasia: IMO, we do need them. Carl Jung is the source, if you want to know the facts rather than my badly filtered version of them. Joseph Campbell also talks about archetypes in his book `Hero With A Thousand Faces' which is well worth the read. I don't think Freud was an archaic psychologist. Zendmort: (111832) >What does this have anything to do with creation and creating????< Laurasia: It was just an analogy designed to illustrate the way that intent greatly changes the meaning of actions. Zendemort: (11859) >"Surface details" are what make art.< Laurasia: Details certainly make all the difference. But, to me, the underlying story is what is the most important because it is what I can respond to on an emotional level. Caspen wrote: (111790) >I'd hoped this whole issue had been put to rest on the strength of all of the other responses, all of which agree, in substance, with mine, but alas!< Laurasia: *Smiles* Yes, never underestimate the power on An Opinion Other Than One's Own. Especially when wielded by an argumentative person like me. To quote Oscar Wilde: When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong. Caspen: (111790) >Finally, and FYI, Shakespeare did "replicate the success of Hamlet," not just in "another play," but in play after play, after play, and many sonnets - the fact that he didn't feel the need to re- write Hamlet, notwithstanding!< Laurasia: Yes. I was rasing a point about the specific relationship between Hamlet and his mother. Caspen: (111790) >I'll leave it to other respondents to explain to you why applying legal reasoning to literary analysis is completely inapposite, and to remind you that you, yourself, in a previous post stated that "the work stands alone." < Laurasia: Yes, the `legal reasoning' was just an analogy used to illustrate that intent greatly changes the meaning of actions, not a practical example of literary analysis. And for the most important point- I do believe the work should stand alone, even though I've been rabbiting on about JKR's intentions which, it might seem, if I was consistent I should have ignored entirely. It's because we've really been discussing two things at the same time. How to evaluate a book, and how to evaluate an author. I think they're separate things. I would assume that you think they are the same thing and that if a book is good the author is good. I hold the opinion that we should judge JKR completely on her intentions and ignore her work *tongue only very slightly in cheek*. That would be the way to go about it- evaluate JKR solely on what she meant to do, disregarding what anyone else likes to read in. But we have debated long enough. And they exact same points would most likely be raised. And this post was meant to be the `agree to disagree' post. So I guess you might have to be patient and accept that my opinion is just my opinion. Caspen wrote: (111790) >You clearly have little understanding of literary critcism as a subject, and I clearly have no more patience for explaining it to you.< Laurasia: I wasn't trying to be a literary critic. I was trying to be an `everything in the world' critic. I didn't make up any of the Anonymous Artist reasoning myself. It's all ancient philosophy which can be applied to any creation- artwork, book, architecture, even chairs or pencils. It can be used to evaluate whether anything in the entire world which has been designed is worthy of being called `great.' The Anonymous Artist is as old as human-kind. It was highly revered as an ideal by all traditional societies because of the nature of these societies. All were concerned primarily with preparing for life beyond this one. All traditions teach the importance of seeking freedom from self as an ideal. The artwork (book, architecture, whatever) stands by itself and the artist is known only by the traces of his/her hand which are inside of it. It follows that evaluating other artworks should follow the same principles as creation. That is, ignore the individual creator for the sake of the work. I thought you might know a bit about this already because it is very related to the Spiritual Plane. It's a belief common in cultures who accept the existence of the spiritual plane of existence which Western Society ignores (amazing that that was what we originally started talking about, and this is where we ended up!). If you want to know more about it, a good summary of it would be in A.K.Coomaraswamy's "The Philosophy of Mediaeval and Oriental Art", an essay included in Vol. 1, "Selected Papers: Traditional Art and Symbolism" (pp.43-70) of the three volume set called "Coomaraswamy" edited by Roger Lipsey (Bollingen Series, Princeton Uni Press, New Jersey, 1977). ~<(Laurasia)>~ From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 3 11:22:15 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:22:15 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111959 Brother Fry writes: > > OK, here are my further thoughts. I think that maybe Lily and Petunia > are only half-sisters. Lily's mum had an affair with a wizard, and > Lily was the result. Lily's mum did not tell anyone about this (or > maybe she didn't even realise herself!). The letter from Hogwarts > does not state your ancestry, so this would not raise any suspicions. > So in answer to the points you raised, Lily's grandparents could > still be Muggles. In this case, Lily would be a half-blood and not a > mud-blood (apologies for any offence caused!!). However, absolutely > noone would be aware of this! This would all sound far fetched, if it > wasn't for Dean Thomas' background. I do believe that Dean's > background is a clue to Lily's true origin. > > Brother Fry I think we will need to agree to disagree. I apology here if I cause offense but a word of warning. JKR knows Lily's and Petunia's blood lines even knows if there was an affair. JKR has repeatedly stated that Lily and Petunia are Muggles (no magic blood). It's fun to speculate where JKR will take us in book 6 & 7 but we need to keep ourselves grounded in the world JKR has created. When JKR gives us tidbits in interviews and on her web site we need to adjust our theories or we will suffer big disappointments when we read books 6 & 7. - Karen From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 11:33:40 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:33:40 -0000 Subject: Godric and Slytherin (Blood Brothers??) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > There seems to be a lot discussion lately as to whether Harry and > Slytherin are related. But what if GG and SS are linked in some way. > The sorting hat states that GG and SS were the best of friends. There > is also a continuing theme of 'blood' in the HP books. Is there such > a thing as blood brothers in the WW? If so, what would this mean for > the participants? Finwitch: I think that if there is, then Sirius & James were such. They were as close as twin brothers, after all - always together. What I imagine this blood-bother-hood to mean, is that a) it requires a ritual of sorts, which involves a mixing/changing of blood. b) you can tell what your blood-brother is feeling, because you *share* that feeling. (like Harry sharing Voldemort's - due to Voldemort having used Harry's blood to restore himself). c)difference is, of course, that blood-brothers both choose to do it, and they also BOTH know how the other is feeling. I *don't* think Voldemort senses Harry's emotions - (as Harry has no blood of Voldemort inside him) Finwitch From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 3 11:37:00 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:37:00 -0000 Subject: Snape Smiles! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111961 In POA, there is cannon for the ability of Snape to smile. It is a grim smile. US paperback version page 382: The Griffindor Quidditch team has just taken the field to cheers from 3/4 crowd.... "Behind the Slytherin goalposts, however, two hundred people were wearing green; the silver serpent of Slytherin glittered on their flags, and Professor Snape sat in the very front row, wearing green like everyone else, and a very grim smile." ----- Not only did he have a smile but he was not wearing black. - Karen From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 3 11:46:30 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:46:30 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111962 Yb wrote: > I am not completely forgiving Hermione. She is rather manipulative > in this situation, and she's being a bit Machiavellian (ends justify > the means), and her behavior at the end of GoF (she keeps the poor > woman in a far until London, and she's pleased with herself), but > she has a good idea: stop Rita from writing lies, get the whole > story out correctly. She just uses the wrong methodology in putting > these ideas through. > >From Karen: Maybe she used the wrong methodology because she is 14 in GoF and 15 in OotP,. OotP Chapter 29: "Then Lupin said quietly, 'I wouldn't like you to judge your father on what you saw there, Harry. He was only fifteen ---.'" Let's not be too harsh on Herminone she is only 14/15. - Karen From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 13:09:45 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:09:45 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry > remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to > that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, > and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? GEO: Right now nobody has come up with a decent explaination imo. So far the best ones I've heard are that his initial hesitation came from Voldemort having a small inkling in the back of his head of a possible protection kicking in when he killed Lily or Lily had something or some sort of connection with the Dark Lord that may have possibly made him want to spare her for one reason or another for his very own benefit, which may have been a reason why Lily Potter was also able to survive three encounters with Voldemort previously as an OOTP member. From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 13:20:55 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:20:55 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111964 Karen wrote: > Maybe she used the wrong methodology because she is 14 in GoF and 15 > in OotP,. > > OotP Chapter 29: > "Then Lupin said quietly, 'I wouldn't like you to judge your father > on what you saw there, Harry. He was only fifteen ---.'" > > Let's not be too harsh on Herminone she is only 14/15. This is true enough, but the thing is that Hermione is the trio's social conscience. In a lot of ways, she is a better person than Ron and Harry in terms of being more level headed, more fair, etc. I agree with you that we should not be too tough on her for this; I mean I still love her character...but it does bring her down a peg or so in the "perfect little angel" department, doesn't it? --Cory From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 13:26:19 2004 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:26:19 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mcmaxslb" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" > wrote:> Angie replies: > > > > In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he put > > up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died . . . > > she was trying to protect you." > McGregorMax: (who didn't sign his/her post, so I don't know what to call him/her) > > Voldemort was lying to mess with Harry's head. He had no intention > of letting Lily live. Asian_lovr2: I agree with McGregorMax, we can't trust Voldemort's statement. Even though we can't trust it, we could accept it, but must be careful of the context we apply to it. It is perhaps true that Lily didn't have to die, BUT was that do to /indifference/ or /benevolence/? I say /indifference/. Certainly, Voldemort is trying to imply benevolence because he is trying to sway Harry, but his implication in this context can't be trusted. And, let's be realistic, how many mother's would actually stand aside. To do that goes counter to millions of years of developed motherly instinct. Regardless of his true motivations, this, once again, shows what a terribly poor understanding Voldemort has of love, loyalty, and friendship. Just a thought. Steve/asian_lovr2 (was bboy_mn) From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 13:28:52 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:28:52 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Asian_lovr2: > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort would > have spared Lily. I think at that moment, he had his main objective in > sight, and everything else was just a distraction. So, when Voldemort > told Lily to stand aside, he was really say, stand aside I've got more > important things to do than bother with you, rather than saying, stand > aside because you don't /have/ to die. > > At that point in time, Lily was inconsequential, but she became so > much of an annoyance and distraction from his real objective that > Voldemort killed her just to simplify things. > GEO: Then why did he tell her to stand aside? So far the Voldemort we've seen also tries and takes care of the messy details such as those standing in front or alongside his target such as in the instance of Cedric and probably Lily and James imo. Yet in this instance he told her to stand aside instead of just using the killing curse on her. Second if he was going to kill her anyways, why exactly would it be a sacrifice on Lily's part if she was going to die anyways? Most sacrifices usually entail you relinquish something of value and I hardly see her few more minutes of life after Voldemort kills Harry as something to be sacrificed. And why hasn't this sort of love sacrifice happened more often. The WW is again a violent world and putting children and parents to the wand it seems is a common enought practice even during Voldemort's reign and seeing how parents being parents wouldn't there have been a more regular occurance of such a thing if all it entailed was the parents standing in front of their children and protecting them by dying first? And lets not forget if he was going to kill her anyways why was this detail repeatedly put in three of the HP books(PS, POA, GOF) and why has Rowling herself said that we were going to learn something important about Lily in the finale unless. > Had Lily stepped aside, Voldemort may or may not have killed her on > his way out based on nothing more than his mood at the moment. GEO: Why? Aside from being a potential victim, she was one of his major enemies in the Order who survived three encounters against him and aside from that she was a muggle born which Voldemort seem to have a special place in his heart for. > I also have this theory that Voldemort and the DE's like to leave at > least one person standing to bear witness and tell the chilling > horrific tale of the mighty Voldemort and his clan of spineless but > ruthless toadies. GEO: So far the evidence seems to point out that the DEs guts the entire household or at least in the instances of OOTP members. He seems to have killed Edgar Bone's family and also the McKinnons it seems without leaving survivors. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 13:49:39 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:49:39 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Asian_lovr2: > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort would > have spared Lily. I think at that moment, he had his main objective in > sight, and everything else was just a distraction. So, when Voldemort > told Lily to stand aside, he was really say, stand aside I've got more > important things to do than bother with you, rather than saying, stand > aside because you don't /have/ to die. GEO: First this is the same Voldemort that clears away such messy details such as people standing alongside or in front of his targets by killing them. Remember in GoF, he killed Cedric for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. - Why would it have been a sacrifice on Lily's part if Voldemort was going to kill her anyways. Sacrifices usually entail that something of value is relinquished yet I very much doubt Lily's few remaining minutes of life would have worked. Second if it did then why hasn't something like this been more common. The WW is a violent place and even during Voldemort's reign, they put parents and children to the wand. Yet parents being the parents they're and seeing how the protection is activated just by sacrificing ones life or offering ones life in forfeit why hasn't it occured more often unless this isn't the proper mechanism for sacrificial charm. > Had Lily stepped aside, Voldemort may or may not have killed her on > his way out based on nothing more than his mood at the moment. GEO: And he wouldn't have spared her. Mercy and pity seems to be things that he has little use for plus the fact that Lily was one of the OOTP and one of the four that had managed to defy him 3times. Plus lets not forget that she was a muggle born which the DEs and Voldemort held a special place in their heart for. > I also have this theory that Voldemort and the DE's like to leave at > least one person standing to bear witness and tell the chilling > horrific tale of the mighty Voldemort and his clan of spineless but > ruthless toadies. GEO: Yet in previous instances with OOTP families, he seemed to have had the whole family put to the wand. Afterall we don't hear about members of Edgar Bone's family or any of the McKinnons surviving that night. All we hear are the whole family being killed. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 14:36:50 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:36:50 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111969 Pippin, I apologize on behalf of myself and my computer. I had sent a reply which my computer apparently thought delicious and ate. Or Yahoo!Mort ate it, in which case it can take its own lumps. > Pippin: > Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which > should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' > normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody > 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line > and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. Lily > doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? Ginger: It's hard to tell where the Hogwarts standards lie, but you have an excellent point in using their mores rather than our own when viewing the situation. It is one of my pet peeves in others. Thanks for pointing out that I am doing it myself. On one hand, no one showed concern when F&G turned Neville into a canary. He just molted and laughed. On the other hand, Harry stepped in to defend Neville and his rememberall. No one was too concerned with Neville's Leg Locker Curse. It was fixed in a trice. Malfoy and Co. dressing as dementors caused an outcry among the staff. Those last two seem almost contradictory in our world, but in the WW, it seems to me that if it can be fixed, it's not a big deal. If it can cause great physical harm (which differs from our world in how easily it can be fixed) or property damage, it is. There's not much canon to go on with this. Maybe Hogwarts is as diverse on social mores as we are here. As to whether it is common, again, not enough canon, but I would imagine that with all that newfound hexing skill in a population of teens that there would be quite a few whose maturity hadn't reached a point where they would use it wisely. Like the DA, I mean. Maybe not specificly "pantsing" (robing?), but certainly quite a bit of mischief, in varying degrees, including those that cross the line into bad behaviour. Pippin: > My dictionary says that 'evil' adds to 'bad' "connotations of > depravity and corruptive influence." I think that adult Sirius and > Lupin were cognizant of those elements. Sirius says that they > were berks, a word with an obscene derivation, which concedes > depravity even as it masks it. > > Lupin says he knew at the time they were out of line, so that's > corruptive influence, especially since James tries to get the > community to approve his actions, "Who wants to see me take > off Snivelly's pants?" Ginger: Interesting. My dictionary is more vague. "Sinful and wicked" and "disagreeable" are 2 of the definitions it gives. I must say I think more like yours. Again we run into the problem of shades. Adult S&L saw that what they did was wrong. You have backed up your dictionary definition well. But then we have to ask, how far down is "depraved" and "corrupt". According to my dictionary, S&J would fit the definition for corrupt. So would I. Come to think of it, so would Hermione. It simply defines it as doing wrong. Heck, there goes the whole planet! Depraved is defined as evil and perverted. I don't think S&J fit that bill. The problem, of course, is that we are back to square one in defining evil. I think of evil as like that thing that killed Tasha Yar (if you're into Star Trek: TNG). A total disregard for *everyone* with focus only on onesself. I see very few people I know as evil. On the flip side of the coin, I see very few as good. We are all in the grey area, hopefully leaning more towards good. Oh, and I wouldn't be too hard on Sirius for using "berk". In my social circle (offline) f***ing is the adverb of choice. Not that all my friends are depraved, it is simply common usage. Not something I use in all aspects of my life, but if it is/was common usage for Sirius' social circle, it doesn't make him depraved for using it. Or, possibly, he chose the word as the harshest he could think of to drive it home to Harry that they really weren't proud of what they did. In my circle of friends we would have used a phrase that is not printable here. It involves the adverb of choice and anatomical parts. 'Nuff said. At least Sirius' was printable ;o) Pippin: > But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are > you saying that in the Potterverse,a person who does evil and > repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the > first place? Ginger: If we are interpreting canon correctly, I think this would be more of a question for Snape. Assuming that as a DE he commited atrocities and had no qualms about doing it, but is now truly on DD's side, then he would qualify as "evil at one time, but now changed". Redeemed, if you will. I would not go as far as to say that he had never been evil. Bellatrix seems to fit the bill as evil. She enjoys what she does. To apply your question to S&J: Again, we're back to square one. Your question assumes that they were evil, but changed. I don't think they were evil, but did bad things and showed bad judgement. By that definition, we'd all be evil. I think of evil as a state of being. Actions are a state of doing. What I came away with from reading the Penseive section was that good people can do bad things. It doesn't make the actions right, but it doesn't wholly condemn the doers. It just shows that we are all fallible. And we all have skeletons in our closets. James fell from sainthood in Harry's eyes. That's a long fall whether you are falling to "just human" or "evil". Or somewhere in between. I would need a lot more canon to believe that S&J were evil. As it is, I see them as using bad judgement, on more than one occasion, with the focus on self-amusement rather than causing harm. In other words, they didn't consider other people's feelings. They didn't think things through. I have seen a lot of this behaviour from good people at that age and, for some, even later. I have seen it far too often in myself. Act on the spur of the moment, and later realize that it hurt someone, and feel bad about it. The realization may take a while, as it seems to have for S&L. I think James had that same realization, but we have no canon for that, unless you see his saving Snape from Werewolf!Lupin as wholly altruistic. To the original question: were S&J evil? You say yes, I say no. (You say why, I say I don't know.) I would love to ask JKR. Maybe they were, and I am just reluctant to paint myself with the same brush. I would hope not. Thanks for this interesting discussion. It is hard to put an abstract idea like evil into words. I really had to work at it. Ginger, who can't believe that she has spent 3 hours total between the 2 posts coming up with this! From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 14:48:11 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:48:11 -0000 Subject: Where is our Prince? (And Where Did Those Wizards Get Their Titles?) In-Reply-To: <20040831224529.66996.qmail@web11303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111970 Sorry to jump in so late, but I was away for a few days > Debbie wrote: > > I think that at least some wizarding aristocrats liked > > muggle titles just fine, since they didn't hesitate to > > use them notwithstanding their muggle origin. (And the > > old-fashioned ones, like Nearly Headless Nick, still do > > like to use their titles. NHN had his title on his > > Deathday cake.) Certainly referring to one's family as > > the "Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" implies that > > some wizards left their titles -- at least insofar as > > they represented notions of superiority -- behind with > > some regret. > >elaine adamski wrote: > Forgive me, but you have contradicted the string in > the last sentence. If your belief is that the wizards > were titled via a muggle interbreeding, then how could > the House of Black - a pureblood house - be noble? > Now Romulus Lupin Maybe it's my Italian background peeking out, but there are some noble European families who can track their ancestors back to the Roman empire. One such nobles reportedly answered Napoleon (who was inquiring if they really descended from Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman consul who stalled Hannibal until they could bring the war back to Carthago) "It's been rumored for 2000 years". Don't know if the anecdot is true or if there are any scions of the family still alive (they were princes, BTW), but I guess they'd have kept their title in the WW, had any of them possessed magival powers. Their title is so ancient it dates back way before King Arthur's time. And we all know he had a wizard counsellor. BTW, in Mary Stewart's saga, Merlin was a prince himself, as he was the illegitimate some of King Ambrosius and nephew to Uther Pendragon, Arthur's father. Actually, his mother had some powers herself, so Merlin could be the HBP, after all (in this version, she preferred to tell her lover was the devil, rather than betray her true love). So, just to get back to my original point, I think it would be perfectly possible for some wizarding families to be part of the Muggle nobility and yet be pureblooded. They just need to be old enough. I surmise when the prosecutions began (at the latest after the schism between MW and WW) these families dropped the titles and kept the "Ancient and Noble House of ... " definition for themselves. Romulus Lupin, who learned the Massimi's legend by a school friend who was a noble himself From garybec101 at comcast.net Fri Sep 3 15:08:19 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:08:19 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111971 gelite67 wrote: Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? Becki's Opinion; To me, as a mother, (a parent for those fathers), a fate worth than death would be to see me baby killed before my very own eyes, and to have to live with that vision for the rest of my life. Perhaps LV's plan was just plain torture. He probably felt James was a threat to him and had to kill him to get to Harry, a means to an end, but perhaps thought Lily was not as much as a threat and in retaliation for "defying him 3 times", thought this would be a good punishment? I don't think he was going to spare her out of the goodness of his heart. (what heart?) Becki From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 10:37:18 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:37:18 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <20040901200633.32463.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > LadyKat now: > > Any ideas? I just cannot accept the idea that DD NEVER looked > > into the GH/Sirius betrayal/PP murder more thouroughly. The idea > > that he just blindly accepted the party line is almost sacriligious > > (in my mind) :)) Hannah now: Could our friend Severus Snape have anything to do with it? I find it hard to understand why Snape didn't know that Pettigrew was the traitor, since the other death eaters seemed to know, judging by their lack of surprise at finding him by LV's side at his return. Maybe he didn't know until after the betrayal occurred (because that raises the question of why he didn't tell DD if he did know who the traitor was), and perhaps he decided it would be rather fitting to see his old enemy Black in Azkaban. He could have lied to DD about having found some sort of damning evidence that Black was indeed the traitor. Maybe he felt that the safest place for Sirius to > > be was in Azkaban? We know that he (DD) was willing to have Harry > > grow up in a place that was quite unpleasant, just to ensure his > > survival. So why not extend the same logic to Sirius? DD may have > > felt that in order to keep Sirius alive (maybe to protect him from > > himself - he is well-known for acting first and thinking second), > > he needed to be locked up. Yes - it stinks - but Sirius will > > survive. Hannah now: Maybe it's not for Sirius' protection, but for Harry's. If Sirius was on the scene, I'm not sure how the law works here, but wouldn't he have the right, as Harry's godfather, to care for him? Perhaps DD felt that it was necessary to have Sirius out of the way, so that he had control over Harry's fate himself. It was best for Harry to go to the Dursleys, however nasty, but I doubt Sirius would have agreed to that, he'd have wanted to protect Harry himself, even if it was a less effective protection. And maybe it was felt he wasn't the best person to bring up a vulnerable young child? He wasn't a very good influence on even a teenaged Harry. Hannah From pineappleheart at hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 11:46:43 2004 From: pineappleheart at hotmail.com (mirodunum) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:46:43 -0000 Subject: life and the prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111973 I looked for this in the archives since I'm sure it must have been done before, but I couldn't find it, so sorry if I'm repeating things. The prophecy (in OotP) has been bothering me: (a) if "neither can live while the other survives", what does that imply? As far as we know, Harry is alive and will be until at least Book 7. Voldemort got his body back at the end of book 4; so they'll both be alive for two or three years, no? We gather from Voldemort that he's done something towards making himself immortal: how far has he gone down this line? Presumably his aim is to make it so he can't be killed and is fully immortal, but if he can't die, is he really alive? Can his body die, as it did before, leaving his mind or soul alive? (b) "either must die at the hand of the other" - does this mean they can't be killed except by each other? If Dumbledore knows or suspects this, is that why he didn't attack Voldemort in the ministry of magic? Following on, what would happen if any if the DEs tried to AK Harry? Would he survive it again because if he dies, he must die at Voldemort's hand, or is on Voldemort's orders enough? Unravel the mystery for me! Mirodunum From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 11:58:07 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:58:07 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in Knockturn Alley In-Reply-To: <002c01c4918f$c0acafb0$39c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111974 Dungrollin: > When Hagrid was acting suspiciously in Knockturn > alley he said Flesh- > eating slugs were ruining the school cabbages. bamf: The 'flesh' part could also refer to part of a plant. 'Fleshy leaves' is a commonly used to describe leaves that hold a lot of water. (More so plants like Jade or Aloe.) But I can also see the term applied if the slugs just eat the 'fleshy' part of the plant - the part between the veination, not the flesh of humans." DuffyPoo: See, now I thought the Flesh-Eating was part of the purpose of the 'repellant'. Eats the flesh off the slugs! I never put it together as Flesh-Eating Slugs. I just thought, this is in the book and in the movie. In fact, Hagrid mentions Flesh Eating Slug Repellant twice in the movie. Wonder if that's a clue? ;-) Now Dungrollin again: Flesh-eating slugs are also mentioned in PoA; in The Boggart in the Wardrobe, Lupin says: "It's always best to have company when you're dealing with a Boggart. He becomes confused. Which should he become, a headless corpse or a flesh-eating slug?" Why would a flesh-eating slug inspire fear, if it is vegetarian? Not only was Hagrid mentioning the slug-repellent in the film, but later on, when Harry's seen Riddle's diary, someone says (something along the lines of) `Didn't you see Hagrid in Knockturn alley?' and Harry replies quickly that he was buying Flesh-Eating Slug Repellent. I suspect that it was in both the book and the film so that there was the potential for doubt about Hagrid when Riddle tells Harry that it was him opening the chamber of secrets, so that we don't immediately dismiss Heir-of-Slytherin!Hagrid as impossible. However, having said that, what was he _really_ doing in Knockturn Alley? I remain convinced that flesh-eating slugs would have no interest at all in the school cabbages. Dungrollin (who watched a program about Jung's personality types last night, was surprised (but not shocked) to discover herself to be an `idealist', and is now wondering what on earth she is doing in science ) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 12:00:05 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:00:05 -0000 Subject: Lily's heritage (was: JKRs comments on Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111975 > > Before I start, please don't take this personally. This is not aimed > directly at you, but at the many, many HP-Fans, who want to make Lily > (or Hermione, for that matter) wizard-born. > > I just have one question: Why? > > Hickengruendler Don't worry, I wouldn't take it personally. I think that nearly everyone involved with this site is attempting to unlock the secret to HP. The fact that JKR so frequently comments on the importance of Lily will always make people suspect there is more to her than meets the eye. From my point of view, I have always suspected that HP was the heir of Gryffindor, and that with JKRs past history for misdirection, why shouldn't this be via Lily! I do concede, that this may be absolute twaddle, but the final outcome of the HP series depends on something to with Lily. I just haven't heard a better theory than one which entertains the idea that Lily is a half-blood! Brother fry From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 3 13:38:32 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040903133832.66688.qmail@web80807.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111976 potioncat wrote: snipping other posts > Theotokos wrote: > I have been following this thread some and I cannot stand it anymore. > Hermione doesn't owe that woman anything! Rita made Harry and Hermione's > lives miserable in GofF and never had a seconds pause about it. Potioncat: Well, look at this differently. Someone in your child's school commits a crime. Your neighbor, instead of turning the criminal in, blackmails the criminal. The crime is no longer beining commited, but the criminal is not only not arrested, no one knows about it. How would you feel about that? Because this is fiction, we can cheer when the good guy pulls one over on the bad guy, and not think too much about it. Theotokos replies: I thought I sent this message already then I see it in Drafts. oops. Okay, I understand (sort of) your position. However, as has been pointed out, these are KIDS (not shouting, just emphasizing). To compound that, these KIDS do not have a great track record for being listened to. Who would believe them? Rita would say they were just trying for revenge because they got their feelings hurt or were embarrassed by her "outing" their romantic lives. If there was a way to check Hermione's 'story' for truth, (is there due process in the WW) would the WW powers that be care to be bothered? Would the authorities need something more than a unsubstantiated accusation to do a "search" of Rita for animagus residue? ;-) I also think it is empowering for Hermione to be able to take care of this herself. She and Harry have been victims of Rita all year without any recourse. So what if she tells the authorities about Rita? Rita has to register. Does that keep her from writing more horribly damaging stories? Does that keep her from writing more sordid lies about Harry and Hermione? What is to protect them from her in the future? No adult will lift a finger, not even DD. Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hughes_keli at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 14:17:22 2004 From: hughes_keli at yahoo.com (hughes_keli) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:17:22 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111977 This is my first post, and admittedly is quite a useless post, but some of my thoughts over reading other people are here. After reading many of the replies about JK's comments on Pertunia, it got me thinking. Although Lily's grandparents were both muggles, as, apparently were her parents, doesn't mean than any great- grandparents or even great-great-grandparents were. I know it may seem far fetched, but, whether she's being truthful (unlikely), or using it as some form of reasoning(much more likely), Trelawney mentions that Seer blood often skips 3 generations, could it be so with magical blood? Maybe a squib, and then just plain muggles for a couple of generations, then a witch. Yeah, I know, grasping at straws. The whole last remaining decendent thing also got me thinking, if the above was true then lily could be a decendent of SS, until i realised that that would also make Harry one, and as he's remaining, this could not be so. But GG, that could work. We know from COS that Harry is a true Griffindor(pulling the sword from the hat), so maybe, through his mother's side he is a decendent. Sword from a hat? kind of like King Arthur, Sword from a stone thing. It's a shame we already know from JKR herself that the half blood prince is not Harry. Keli From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 16:28:51 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:28:51 -0000 Subject: Why Lord Voldemort would have spared Lily Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111978 gelite67 wrote: Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? Becki's Opinion; To me, as a mother, (a parent for those fathers), a fate worth than death would be to see me baby killed before my very own eyes, and to have to live with that vision for the rest of my life. Perhaps LV's plan was just plain torture. He probably felt James was a threat to him and had to kill him to get to Harry, a means to an end, but perhaps thought Lily was not as much as a threat and in retaliation for "defying him 3 times", thought this would be a good punishment? I don't think he was going to spare her out of the goodness of his heart. (what heart?) Becki Leah replies: That makes sense. But apparently Voldemort doesn't do much personal dispatching. Sirius says that Regulus probably wasn't important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person and when Moody is going through the rollcall of the fallen from the photo, he says it took 5 DEs to dispatch the Prewetts (no LV it seems), and Dorcas Meadowes gets a special mention- 'Voldemort killed her personally'. And it's not LV who dispatches Cedric, he only gives the order to Wormtail. This suggests that LV doesn't really get a kick out of killing. Bellatrix says that you really have to mean an Unforgiveable Curse. Perhaps, just as there's not enough human left in LV to die or to love, there's not enough to hate. He'll crucio, because that's one of the ways he maintains power- he wants people to fear him and they do that better alive. Other than that, he is totally self absorbed, so the deaths of others are quite meaningless for him. James had to go because he was in the way, but he felt nothing about Lily until she refused to sit by quietly. Afterthought: There's a possibility, I suppose, that killing literally takes something out of LV, something to do with his immortality seeking, and therefore he has to ration himself. Leah, who wants to know who Dorcas Meadowes is. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 17:24:57 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040903172457.76194.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111979 I think another reason Snape is called Potions Master is that potions is a very old and well respected branch of magic, one of the more traditional subjects taught at any wizarding school, requiring great skill and therefore it has a history behind it that something like Care of Magical Creatures or Broomstick Riding doesn't. I mean one of the most common images of witchcraft we have in our society is that of witches bending over a cauldron and muttering incantations while preparing something. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From cruthw at earthlink.net Fri Sep 3 17:50:06 2004 From: cruthw at earthlink.net (caspenzoe) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:50:06 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Author's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote: > The Agree to Disagree Post. > > Debate Topic One: > Does HP suggest that magic exists in the real world on a spiritual > level? > > Here are two options which have been raised in the course of > discussion: > > A) Yes. Caspen wrote: (111400) >"I think the overall theme of the > books will be that contrary to Vernon Dursley's pronouncement > in Book 1 that "There's no such thing as magic," "magic" does, > in fact, exist in JKR'S view - but (this is JKR'S raelly brilliant > point) only on a spiritual, as opposed to physical, plane."< > This means that magic is used as a cunning metaphor in the HP > series. > > B) No. Because Dursley actually believes that there is such thing > as magic in a very real and physical sense. He is not in denial > about magic- he sees its physical effects of his family and house. > Also, the actual line (which is the most direct and explicit support > of this theme) `There's no such thing as magic' is movie > contamination. Canon!Dursley never says it. He never says > anything even similar to it. On the contrary, he is so convinced > that there is magical explanation underfoot that he dares to > mention his sister-in-law to his wife. This contradicts the theme, > which suggest that if the theme can be seen in HP it must not have > been intended by JKR. > > Conclusion? Both are just opinions, make up your own mind. You > can believe in a theory without believing JKR intended for it to be > there, which leads onto the next debate point... > > Debate Topic Two: > Can we give writing credit to JKR for themes which can be read into > her books but which she is not aware of? > > Here are two options which have been raised in the course of > discussion: > > A) Yes, of course. If it can be seen in her books, then JKR, as > author, is the one who deserves the credit for it. Even if she > isn't consciously aware of it, she may be subconsciously aware of > it. > Therefore, she is an intuitive and observant person and deserves > credit for everything which can be read into her work. > Disadvantage: Every theory or theme (both good and bad) must > be included. Even ones like HP is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic. > If you can choose which themes to include and which ones not to, > then you aren't fully giving JKR credit for things she didn't > consciously intend. > > B) No. The reader deserves the credit for bringing their own > experiences to the work and responding to it. If there are themes > which the reader's see, but JKR isn't aware of, the reader > gets the credit for reading them in. > Disadvantage: This invariably makes JKR seem less important. > > Conclusion? It's just an opinion again as to which you believe. > Of course, the question of how do we know which things JKR > intended and can give her full credit for leads onto the next > point... > > Debate Topic Three: > What are JKR's intentions and what themes is she aware of? > > Here are two options which have been raised in the course of > discussion: > > A) We can never know, so we should give her the benefit of the > doubt and say that she is as well-read, experienced and > knowledgeable as we need. Assumes that she is aware of > everything. > Disadvantage: Means that no themes can be disproved or > eliminated even if canon appears to contradict them. JKR is > sole creator and anything she does must be intentional- it > suggests that JKR is infallible and that there can be no mistakes > (which is probably a little unrealistic). > > B) We can never know, but if canon or background information > contradicts an alleged intention, it proves she mustn't be aware > of it. > Disadvantage: It means that themes can only be proved wrong, > never proved right. Snip! > Caspen: (111790) > > >Finally, and FYI, Shakespeare did "replicate the success of > Hamlet," not just in "another play," but in play after play, after > play, and many sonnets - the fact that he didn't feel the need to re- > write Hamlet, notwithstanding!< > > Laurasia: > > Yes. I was rasing a point about the specific relationship between > Hamlet and his mother. > > Caspen: (111790) > >I'll leave it to other respondents to explain to you why applying > legal reasoning to literary analysis is completely inapposite, and > to remind you that you, yourself, in a previous post stated > that "the work stands alone." < > > Laurasia: > > Yes, the `legal reasoning' was just an analogy used to > illustrate that intent greatly changes the meaning of actions, not a > practical example of literary analysis. And for the most important > point- I do believe the work should stand alone, even though I've > been rabbiting on about JKR's intentions which, it might seem, if > I was consistent I should have ignored entirely. > > It's because we've really been discussing two things at the > same time. How to evaluate a book, and how to evaluate an > author. I think they're separate things. I would assume that > you think they are the same thing and that if a book is good the > author is good. I hold the opinion that we should judge JKR > completely on her intentions and ignore her work *tongue > only very slightly in cheek*. That would be the way to go about it- > evaluate JKR solely on what she meant to do, disregarding what > anyone else likes to read in. > > But we have debated long enough. And they exact same points > would most likely be raised. And this post was meant to be the > `agree to disagree' post. So I guess you might have to be > patient and accept that my opinion is just my opinion. > > Caspen wrote: (111790) > >You clearly have little understanding of literary critcism as a > subject, and I clearly have no more patience for explaining it to > you.< > > Laurasia: > > I wasn't trying to be a literary critic. I was trying to be an > `everything in the world' critic. I didn't make up any of > the Anonymous Artist reasoning myself. It's all ancient > philosophy which can be applied to any creation- artwork, > book, architecture, even chairs or pencils. It can be used to > evaluate whether anything in the entire world which has been > designed is worthy of being called `great.' > > The Anonymous Artist is as old as human-kind. It was highly > revered as an ideal by all traditional societies because of the > nature of these societies. All were concerned primarily with > preparing for life beyond this one. All traditions teach the > importance of seeking freedom from self as an ideal. The > artwork (book, architecture, whatever) stands by itself and > the artist is known only by the traces of his/her hand which > are inside of it. It follows that evaluating other artworks > should follow the same principles as creation. That is, ignore > the individual creator for the sake of the work. > > I thought you might know a bit about this already because > it is very related to the Spiritual Plane. It's a belief common > in cultures who accept the existence of the spiritual plane > of existence which Western Society ignores (amazing that > that was what we originally started talking about, and this > is where we ended up!). > > If you want to know more about it, a good summary of it > would be in A.K.Coomaraswamy's "The Philosophy of > Mediaeval and Oriental Art", an essay included in Vol. 1, > "Selected Papers: Traditional Art and Symbolism" (pp.43-70) > of the three volume set called "Coomaraswamy" edited by > Roger Lipsey (Bollingen Series, Princeton Uni Press, New > Jersey, 1977). > > ~<(Laurasia)>~ Ah Laurasia! Thank you, once again, for the interesting discussion, and also for the reading rec., but no, I won't "agree to disagree." Because your reasoning, and therefore, your "opinion" are clearly wrong. Let me just say at the out-set, that I'm at a disadvantage re: checking whether the quote I attributed to Vernon is actually "movie contamination," having just packed and all of my HP books, except the last two, together with the rest of my library, because I am in the process of moving. Nevertheless, and having recently re-read the first four books of the series) I stand by my interpretation of this particular nuance of JKR's HP works, regarding anti-fundamentalism. JKR, herself, underlined the Dursley's dedication to their literal universe in the opening chapters of SS/PS in many different ways, regardless whether that "quote" is explicit in cannon or simply a movie summarization of VD's attitude. And, regardless what he actually believes, or what Petunia believes, they clearly chose and attempt to actively ignore any reality other than their own mudane, prosaic existence. One is eminently safe in assuming that VD share's Petunia's disdain for those who don't so chose as "freaks." That coupled with the fact that JKR, herself, then goes on to underline her disdain for the fortune-telling, astrology, etc. that comprise "popular magic" today, despite, or more acurately, in the face of the charms, transfigurations, potions, etc. of her own creation, the magical world of Hogwarts, support my "opinion." therefore, mine is just "an opinion;" it's a reasonable opinion. Your "opinion" on the other hand, is unsupported and unreasonable. NB I have not claimed to have proved this theme "right." The notion that themes can be ... wrong, ... [or] right" is but the latest in your string of absurdities. IMO (and the experience of the rest of the educated fiction-reading world, for that matter, but why drag them into it?) most good literature has many themes, supported within the work, and not on the basis of the author's assumed, guessed, and/or divined "intentions." Your whole "case" rests on your notion of JKR's "intentions. Yet, you have not, despite the fact that this weakness in your "opinion" has been repeatedly pointed out to you, explained to us, how it is that you can claim to have such a definitive grasp of JKR'S intentions. Please, before this continues any further, do tell! In addition, on the subject of "intentions" in general, you are still missing the point, somehow, despite the fact that you admit that your legal analogy is flawed. While I do "accept that intentions change the meanings of actions," to a limited extent, in a court of law, I do not accept that they change the meanings of a finnished work of art at all. The situations simply are not comparable: one's potentially a crime, having already effected negative consequences to others and carrying the potential of severe penalty; the other, at most, is a creation, of better or worse quality, effecting no one who doesn't chose to concern him/her-self with it. Therefore, it is not necessary, relevant, or even any of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine the artist's/author's "intentions," let alone his/her flossing habits. If the author produces good creations, repeatedly, as in the case of Shakespeare, he/she is studied not primarily out of a concern for scouring his/her intentions to determine the exact amount of credit due him/her, but firstly out of genuine interest, by those of common sense, who assume, reasonably, that his/her capacty to produce such quality work is not mere coincidence. And on the subject of Shakespeare, your whole argument is based upon the presumption that Shakespeare is a lesser playwright because we have no proof that he could have continuously repeated the Oedipus theme in his works to demonstrate his "control" over the concept, because he did not chose to do so. This "argument" for lack of a better word, completely disregards of the fact that for him to chosen to do so would have been an absurd waste of time! Why need he invent the same wheel repeatedly? Contrary to your ridiculous hypothesis, hammering that single theme to death woud have detracted from his reputation, not enhanced it, precisely because it would have been the apogee of silliness to have done so! I studied my share of mediaeval art and aesthetics in college. I didn't study as much oriental art, though you haven't specified any period or style within that tradition here (and there are many). While I certainly enjoy some oriental art - particularly the Japanese - later periods, I'll freely admit that when it comes to Western art, I much prefer the Renaissance or any later (or earlier, for that matter) period to the mediaeval. If the endless predictable repetition of the mediaeval and "oriental" (presuming you mean oriental comparable to the Western mediaeval period) styles gives you comfort, then enjoy yourself with mindless, low-grade fantasy fiction, or whatever it is you usually read, but leave JKR and your unreasonable and irrational scrutiny and judgments, and yes, "opinions" out of it! All opinions are not equal. JKR doesn't belong to those traditions, and neither they, nor you have any claim on her. Caspen From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 3 18:38:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:38:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: <20040903133832.66688.qmail@web80807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111981 --- > Potioncat: > Well, look at this differently. Someone in your child's school > commits a crime. Your neighbor, instead of turning the criminal in, > blackmails the criminal. The crime is no longer beining commited, > but the criminal is not only not arrested, no one knows about it. > > How would you feel about that? Because this is fiction, we can > cheer when the good guy pulls one over on the bad guy, and not think > too much about it. > > Theotokos replies: > > I thought I sent this message already then I see it in Drafts. oops. > Okay, I understand (sort of) your position. However, as has been pointed out, these are KIDS (not shouting, just emphasizing). To compound that, these KIDS do not have a great track record for being listened to. Who would believe them? > Potioncat: I don't really have any objection to what Hermione has done, myself. It's just that it is a Slytherin thing to do and we react to it a certain way because it is Hermione and not Pansy Parkinson. DD is very Slytherin in his approach to things. Sometimes I think the overall opinion is: If the good guy does it, it's OK. But if the bad guy does it, it isn't OK. I keep changing my own reaction as I go between "within this story" and "in the real world." Potioncat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 19:32:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:32:37 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111982 Bren wrote: > > I just had an amusing thought right now. How did Tom Riddle know that > his mother carried the blood of Salazar Slytherin? Did he discover > his Heir-of-Slytherin status and deduce that it must be from his > mother's side? Or did she tell him somehow (in a letter or > something)? If his mother knew about snaky blood running in her > veins... could this mean that Tom Riddle Sr found out about this, and > that is why he left her? He found out she wasn't just an ordinary, > harmless witch, but a potentially dark, evil witch? Carol responds: Regardless of whether she was good or evil, she couldn't have written to Tom or had any influence (other than genetic inheritance) on him: she died in childbirth, living just long enough to give him his name. Interestingly, she named him after his Muggle father, with her father's (given?) name as his middle name. Evidently, she didn't hold a grudge against the husband who deserted her, which suggests that she was a decent person. She may have given him both names as a clue to his identity--these names are who you are: the son of Tom Riddle, the grandson of the wizard Marvolo. I'm pretty sure that the middle name was a clue he followed up on, possibly consulting the library or his head of house to find out about Marvolo. He could easily have discovered that Marvolo--and therefore he himself--was a descendant of Salazar Slytherin. I hope we find out more about Marvolo in the next book. As for Tom Sr., I doubt that his wife's Slytherin ancestry would have meant anything to him. The mere fact that she was a witch was enough. (The Riddles, if the glimpse we have of them in GoF chapter 1 is any indication, appear to be wealthy snobs who don't want to be involved in any kind of scandal or to be associated with "inferior" or "weird" people. Just divorce her quietly and conceal the existence of the child. . . .) It's (IMO) the reverse side of the Slytherin anti-Muggle prejudice. Vernon Dursley is another version of that flip side. Carol From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Sep 3 19:43:38 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:43:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > snipping other posts > > > Theotokos wrote: > > I have been following this thread some and I cannot stand it > anymore. > > Hermione doesn't owe that woman anything! Rita made Harry and > Hermione's > > lives miserable in GofF and never had a seconds pause about it. > > Potioncat: > Well, look at this differently. Someone in your child's school > commits a crime. Your neighbor, instead of turning the criminal in, > blackmails the criminal. The crime is no longer beining commited, > but the criminal is not only not arrested, no one knows about it. > > How would you feel about that? Because this is fiction, we can > cheer when the good guy pulls one over on the bad guy, and not think > too much about it. Marianne: This makes me think about how a lot of people take Sirius to task when he escapes from Azkaban because of his single-minded focus on getting to Peter. Sirius does not attempt to enlist anyone else's support, like Dumbledore, to intercede in capturing Peter or to tell them about what really happened. (I'm with Alla on this in that it seems reasonable to me that Sirius wouldn't necessarily trust DD or anyone else to actually listen to his side of the story, but that's another thread.) What Sirius does is act on his own, seeking to handle the guilty party according to his own judgment. And that's exactly what Hermione is doing with Rita. Both Sirius and Hermione were the injured parties in each of their cases, and they both rely on themselves in deciding what to do about it when an opportunity presents itself. Marianne From ejblack at rogers.com Fri Sep 3 20:23:56 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:23:56 -0000 Subject: Snape Smiles! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > "Behind the Slytherin goalposts, however, two hundred people were > wearing green; the silver serpent of Slytherin glittered on their > flags, and Professor Snape sat in the very front row, wearing green > like everyone else, and a very grim smile." > > ----- > Not only did he have a smile but he was not wearing black. > > - Karen Great catch Karen! Although I am having trouble imagining Snape in green, I just hope it is a deep forest green and not a bright lime. Do you think he has a set of Slyterin green robes in his closet, just for important games? As head of Slyterin he would have to set an example of supporting the team. But why was he smiling? Did he think his team was going to win or was he grimly getting ready for Harry Potter to pull a "Harry Potter" and win against all odds. Jeanette Jeanette Jeanette From mauranen at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 20:31:38 2004 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:31:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111985 Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one thing that hs been bothering me is why does Snape bully Neville? There are reasons to why he hates Harry and favours Malfoy. But why does he bully Neville so much? It could just be his dreadful potion making skills, of course, but there could also be more to it than we know. After all, Neville apparently made a much better potion in his OWL when Snape wasn't there, than usually, so he can't be as bad as that. Would Snape's DE past be connected to the Longbottoms? Could they even be (part of) the reason he hasn't got the DADA job? I seem ti recall JKR saying we will hear more about Neville. And was it Snape, too? Any thoughts? Jekatiska From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 12:10:00 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:10:00 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111986 JKR has repeatedly stated that Lily and Petunia are Muggles > (no magic blood). > > - Karen No offence taken, Karen. People do seem to be worrying about my feelings today!! I must admit, that I have NEVER seen JKR refer to Lily as Muggle-Born. I would dearly appreciate any quotes you could give me, so that I can move onto the next theory. In the meantime, I will continue to hold my belief's about Lily. Brother Fry - Convinced the Dean Thomas backstory is a clue! From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 12:16:58 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:16:58 -0000 Subject: Godric and Slytherin (Blood Brothers??) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111987 > Finwitch: > > I think that if there is, then Sirius & James were such. They were as > close as twin brothers, after all - always together. What I imagine > this blood-bother-hood to mean, is that > > a) it requires a ritual of sorts, which involves a mixing/changing of > blood. > > b) you can tell what your blood-brother is feeling, because you > *share* that feeling. (like Harry sharing Voldemort's - due to > Voldemort having used Harry's blood to restore himself). > > c)difference is, of course, that blood-brothers both choose to do it, > and they also BOTH know how the other is feeling. I *don't* think > Voldemort senses Harry's emotions - (as Harry has no blood of > Voldemort inside him) I must admit, I hadn't quite thought of it like that. I just theorized that the link was made between GG and SS and that this affected subsequent generations. But if HP and Voldemort are direct blood brothers then I suppose the GG/SS theme is redundant. I do like the thought that HP has benefited from the blood transfer, whilst Voldemort has not. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the end of the series will involve HP willingly possessing Voldemort (although that may be a bit too like the end of the Matrix!!) Brother Fry From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 12:58:19 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:58:19 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111988 I have thought that the stopper was to stopper a poison. But after reading some of the post here, I have another, rather far out, idea. Here it is: Brew.. Bottle... Stopper. Now Snape is a Potions Masters. And Potions is in the same school as Alchemy. And Dumbledore is an Alchemist.. remember Flamel. So do you think that Flamel is not the only one who knows how to make a Sorcerers Stone? Maybe that is why Dumbledore has Snape there. Maybe the intellegent young Professor knows more than he is saying. LV does not know this, of course. And somehow Snape will be very important to the outcome of the series because of this. Tonks_op From pineappleheart at hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 16:04:53 2004 From: pineappleheart at hotmail.com (mirodunum) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:04:53 -0000 Subject: Lily's heritage (was: JKRs comments on Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111989 Brother fry said: (snip) > From my point of view, I have always suspected that HP was > the heir of Gryffindor, and that with JKRs past history for > misdirection, why shouldn't this be via Lily! I do concede, that this > may be absolute twaddle, but the final outcome of the HP series > depends on something to with Lily. I just haven't heard a better > theory than one which entertains the idea that Lily is a half-blood! Mirodunum says: I'm not taking a position on the Heir of Gryffindor thing, but on the genetics. We know that sometimes magical people are born of totally muggle lines. We know that sometimes magical lines have non-magical children, Squibs. We don't know how it happens. What if at some point Gryffindor's line became squibs and gradually forgot their ancestry, because after a few non-magic generations they'd be indistinguishable from a normal muggle family? Lily could then be born to these muggles. She'd be a pure muggle-born, wouldn't she? Mirodunum From eeyore5497 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 18:40:15 2004 From: eeyore5497 at yahoo.com (Michelle Horcher) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's heritage (was: JKRs comments on Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040903184015.88224.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111990 Hickengruendler: I have read so many theories, in which Lily's mother had an affair with Voldemort/ Arthur Weasley/ Dumbledore/ any wizard and in which Lily is half-blood. Or theories in which Lily's parents are either wizards or at least squibs, so that some magical blood runs through their veins. Or theories in which Lily is adopted and the daughter of a wizard and a witch (mostly either Voldemort's or Dumbledore's love child). And I really don't understand it. I mean, I guess it isn't totally impossible, but neither is, that the Giant Squid is yet another animagus. As much as I like the idea of Lily being Dumbeldore's "love child", JKR has stated in interviews before that Harry is not related to either LVM or DD. However, the Giant Squid could be DD animagnus form in which he spies on the students during their breaks. (hee hee)!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From robkristjansson at hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 19:19:51 2004 From: robkristjansson at hotmail.com (Rob) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:19:51 -0000 Subject: Story arc in three acts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111991 Has anyone thought of these books as episodes within a three act dramatic structure? The first act is comprised of PS and CoS, wherein all the major players are introduced and the fundamental conflicts are set up; the second act includes all three subsequent books where the tension of the larger conflict (the prelude to the "second war" - OoTP) is built and contrasted against HP's internal struggle with his own temper, etc. as he grows up and comes to accept his role in this "war." If I'm correct the third act, usually pretty quick in the movies, should also be a pretty straight forward affair where a lot of the mysteries (Nkafkafi referred to them as plot lines in her post yesterday, if I remember correctly) are wrapped up as HP and LV duke it out in a classic G vs. E climax. Or am I begging the question here? From neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 3 19:51:11 2004 From: neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com (zoe0coll) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:51:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111992 > Potioncat: > I don't really have any objection to what Hermione has done, > myself. It's just that it is a Slytherin thing to do and we react > to it a certain way because it is Hermione and not Pansy Parkinson. > DD is very Slytherin in his approach to things. Sometimes I think > the overall opinion is: If the good guy does it, it's OK. But if > the bad guy does it, it isn't OK. > > I keep changing my own reaction as I go between "within this story" > and "in the real world." I don't actually think Hermione has done the same as an 'evil' person would, She is not blackmailing Rita for her personal gain or any dark intension, she is giving her a chance to reform, "I've told her she's to keep her evil quill to herself for a whole year. See if she can't break the habit of writing horrible lies about people" (GOF ch 37 -The Begining) In OOTP she IS expecting Rita to do the article for free (because the Quibbler doesnt pay fees) and threatens her with "inform(ing) the authorities that you are an unregistered animagus", Ootp- ch 25 - The beetle at bay) but if Hermione was doing the proper and right thing she would have informed the authorities already, getting Rita into a huge amount of trouble. Hermione's way means that Rita gets the chance to reform, doesn't get into trouble, and gives her the opportunity to get back into journalism without resorting to lies and rumour. That is not, in my opinion, the same as what the 'bad guys' would do! Just my little thoughts Zoe C P.S. Maybe I've missed this somewhere in all the posts, but in what way is DD 'Slytherin' in his approach to things? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 21:15:38 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (bboyminn) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:15:38 -0000 Subject: Story arc in three acts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > Has anyone thought of these books as episodes within a three act > dramatic structure? ...edited... If I'm correct the third act, > usually pretty quick in the movies, should also be a pretty straight > forward affair where a lot of the mysteries ... are wrapped up as HP > and LV duke it out in a classic G vs. E climax. > > Or am I begging the question here? bboyminn: I think you are pointing to a very important fact (or possibility, if you prefer). We are in the Third Act, it's time for resolution, not expansion. It's time for the story to end. True it's going to take 2 more books for that story to end, but none the less, the end has begun. As many of us (myself included on occassion) imagine new great and complex theories, conspiracies, and exotic potential plot lines, we must remember that although there is still room and time for the story to grow, the overal effect must be contraction not expansion. I think we are running out of time, in only two more books with so many existing mysteries to be resolved, there simply isn't room for new interesting but pointless story lines. There simply isn't enough story left to support more Lockhart and Umbridge like characters. There is still plenty of room for fun and simple subplots, but overal, from here on in, what happens must count for something toward the resolution of the greater story. Conclusion, yes indeed, we are entering Act Three in two parts. Steve/Asian_lovr2/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From lysandrabellargus at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 3 22:09:32 2004 From: lysandrabellargus at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:09:32 -0000 Subject: life and the prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111994 Mirodunum wrote > The prophecy (in OotP) has been bothering me: > > (a) if "neither can live while the other survives", what does that > imply? As far as we know, Harry is alive and will be until at least > Book 7. Voldemort got his body back at the end of book 4; so > they'll both be alive for two or three years, no? > > We gather from Voldemort that he's done something towards making > himself immortal: how far has he gone down this line? I think this is a very interesting question and although I was not able to follow all the threads here lately, I think it has not been discussed fully. Even more astounding after JKR directly pointing us to this, as a crucial mystery to solve... ...neither can live while the other survives... assuming Harry lives then it follows that Voldemort has NOT survived or Harry does NOT live or has NOT survived, while LV lives or both are in an intermediate state very intriguing I could have believed LV not being alive until the end of GoF but now? To me it seems they both are alive... So far death has not been covered extensively in the books, yes we have the ghosts, the veil, the priory incantatem echoes and the statement that no magic can bring someone death back to life. Do we really now what the wizarding world thinks about death? It seems pretty much as taboo as in RL. Snape's stopper to death is something else (and another thread). But what did LV do to prevent is death? As it seemed not as powerful, as the elixir of life, yet powerful enough to prevent his ultimate death. And what is Harry's connection to death? He is entranced by the veil, both his parents are dead, he has seen Cedric's death and now Sirius'. Maybe the AK on baby Harry not just simply rebounded, but gave him a near death experience and he is actually now not fully alive. And LV, is he truly alive with "flesh, blood and bone" or, as someone else has mentioned here, is he missing the `soul 'bit and hence not `alive'? More questions than answers I know, but there are so many clever people around here, who for sure will enlighten me! Sandra From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Fri Sep 3 23:03:02 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:03:02 -0000 Subject: Trelawney as a teacher (was: Trelawney isn't a fraud) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" > wrote: > > > > > Mike, replying to a bunch of the previous posts: > > > > > Trelawney didn't actually make a prediction with the Sight for > > Umbridge. She was loathing her, so she said Umbridge was in grave > > peril in hopes to scare her. > > But Trelawney did more. She said, something dark was coming to get > Umbridge. And that's exactly what happened. Bane is literally dark. > The black centaur. > [snip] > > But I also think while she isn't a seer, JKR uses her (and Harry a > Ron's) fake prediction, to foreshadow what will happen later in the > books. That's why I am really interested in the Divination lessons. > Because they include some hints to the future. But of course, I > normally only realize them while rereading the scenes, already > knowing, what will happen. > > Hickengruendler Pat here: You all make some interesting points about Trelawney. Since it does seem that she actually made two prophecies that seem to have come true and that she's made some other comments about students and other teachers that have some truth to them, I think she probably is a seer. But I think that McGonagall's and Hermione's assessments of divination are fairly accurate as well. When I read things that Trelawney says, it's true that some of it is vague enough to fit someone in the class. The students then make the connection. But with Harry, she does seem to get it right quite a few times, even though he's thoroughly annoyed and dismisses it. Divination does seem to be very wooley. And when things can't be documented and rationally analyzed, it makes it hard to know whether she is really a seer or just a lucky guesser. I, too, think that JKR uses Trelawney to foreshadow coming events. I also think she may be using even "THE" prophecy as a bit of a red herring. Dumbledore believes it and tells Harry so. The Dept. of Mysteries believed it and the Order of the Phoenix believes in prophecies enough to set a guard to keep Voldemort from getting it (which lets us know that he also believes in prophecies). But throughout the books, Dumbledore is also always telling Harry that our choices count for more than blood, or anything else. That, to me, says that regardless of the prophecy, Harry will still have a choice in how he acts and reacts where Volemort is concerned. So even though Trelawney may "see" something happening to someone, that person still has the choice when it comes right down to it. It's like one of my favorite Robert Frost poems, The Road Not Taken... on a walk, when you come to a fork in the road, you have a choice to take either one. The one that you choose makes all the difference--not that there were two road to choose from. Pat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 23:10:11 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <036901c4914e$cc76f080$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <20040903231011.90584.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 111996 --- charme wrote: > I might remind people who might think > otherwise that > there are specific items in that memory that you have to wonder how > Snape > knew, like the L.E. James drew, the Marauder's conversation, and > several > other intriguing details which should make you go, "HUH? How did > SNAPE know > THAT?" Let's face it, Snapey Poo sure looks like the nosey cur > Sirius said > he was if you look at it from that perspective. Actually there is no indication in the book that Snape "knew" those things. Harry knows them because he's wandering at will throughout the landscape of the memory. But that is different from Snape knowing them. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From susanadacunha at gmx.net Fri Sep 3 23:04:51 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:04:51 +0100 Subject: Snape and Neville References: Message-ID: <006901c4920c$aeeae8f0$702f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 111997 Jekatiska wrote: "Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one thing that hs been bothering me is why does Snape bully Neville? There are reasons to why he hates Harry and favours Malfoy. But why does he bully Neville so much? It could just be his dreadful potion making skills, of course, but there could also be more to it than we know. After all, Neville apparently made a much better potion in his OWL when Snape wasn't there, than usually, so he can't be as bad as that. Would Snape's DE past be connected to the Longbottoms? Could they even be (part of) the reason he hasn't got the DADA job? I seem ti recall JKR saying we will hear more about Neville. And was it Snape, too? Any thoughts?" ------------------- Oh, no! Jekatiska, what have you done? We'll be hearing of the Snape/Alice SHIP next! JKR said Snape is *NOT* a nice guy. IMO, he bullys Neville simply because Snape's not a nice guy. Why should he need another reason? Susana From susanadacunha at gmx.net Fri Sep 3 23:33:30 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:33:30 +0100 Subject: life and the prophecy References: Message-ID: <007701c4920e$789cb5b0$702f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 111998 Mirodunum wrote: "The prophecy (in OotP) has been bothering me: (a) if "neither can live while the other survives", what does that imply? As far as we know, Harry is alive and will be until at least Book 7. Voldemort got his body back at the end of book 4; so they'll both be alive for two or three years, no?" --------------- I gave my humble opinion in post 110561: "If surviving is a completely different thing than living, then maybe we can do the following interpretation: For (because) neither (not any) can live (stay in the state of exercising life) while (whereas) the other (who's hand is mentioned) survives (doesn't die). That is: because both can't stay in the state of life, but one will survive." I stick by it. Susana From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 00:08:44 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:08:44 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 111999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohneill_2001" wrote: > > Let's not be too harsh on Herminone she is only 14/15. > > This is true enough, but the thing is that Hermione is the trio's > social conscience. In a lot of ways, she is a better person than Ron > and Harry in terms of being more level headed, more fair, etc. She is more mature and level headed but I disagree that she is the social/moral conscience in the trio - that one is Harry. Hermione is my favorite person in the HP saga, but she is not too good at making moral judgements and lacks understanding of people's emotional motivations. She is good at problem solving when that could be reduced into a logical puzzle. Therefore she could figure out things like the basilisk, animmagus Rita, how to handle Harry in book 5, etc. but totally fails in things where the logical explanation just does not cut it (house elves, relationship with Ron, etc.). Least of all she can understand her own emotions. The real motivation for Hermione's vandetta against Rita (IMO) was that she wrote about her that "she is really ugly" and the letter that contained that puss that caused her hands to swell and ache for days. She then says "I am going to get her" (or something like that) - and that's what she did. So Hermione locking Rita up in a jar and forbidding her to write was primarily a revenge act which turned out to be really usefull in book 5... I think Hermione downfall will eventually come from her deficiency in the spiritual/emotional sense compared to her intellectual brilliance. I am sure she'll use it as a learning opportunity though. Salit From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 00:09:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:09:59 -0000 Subject: Son of Insecure!Snape (Was: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112000 Nora wrote: > > There's a point when it's an insistence upon common courtesy, > > but there's also a point where it's an attempt to solidify one's > > power and control over the students. Everyone I've talked to in > > academia knows at least one of those--their tendency to snap > > back comes out of an intense defensiveness. Attacking their > > ideas is like attacking the person themself. > > > > Snape strikes me as one of those, and after OotP revelations, > > I'm not surprised. ---------------------------- Tonks: > I also think that Snape does not like teaching, and probably has > that position because after his DE days it was all that he could > get. It takes something of a Saint IMO to enjoy teaching... > especially teenagers!!! Of course Snape wants some control over > the little demons!!! He is the teacher, THE MASTER, and he SHOULD > have control of his classroom. Not like that wimp of a professor > Bimms, who is even surprised if a student is actually listening! > And in the old school a student would never dream of "attacking > their (professor's) ideas". The student is there to learn. Mouth > shut, ears open!!! I have great empathy for Snape. (And no I have > never been a teacher.) SSSusan: I taught teenagers, and I *loved* it!! You can REASON with them, you know? I have always viewed Snape as one who loves the *subject matter* he's teaching and probably, therefore, any *advanced* students he has, as they likely understand and appreciate that subtle science & exact art of potion-making. But the "freshmen" and the "dunderheads"? He cannot bear them. I understand what Nora is saying about insecurity being correlated w/ the DEMAND for respect, the constant reminder that I am a *professor.* [I hope not to offend anyone with this (and remember that my majors were psych & counseling), but the folks I've encountered who make a POINT of putting "Dr." in the phone book and insisting upon the "PROFESSOR" were the psychology profs! My thought about this? Because there's such a debate about psych not being a "true" or "hard" science.] But I don't think insecurity is the issue with Snape. I just think he has no patience for those who aren't also, like he is, good at & appreciative of potions. To tell you the truth, what worked better for me was to both demand/expect respect AND to offer it. You treat teenagers with respect, like you think what they have to say is worthwhile? You listen to them? You make sure their peers listen to them, too? Bang--instant respect for you as a teacher, too. But don't get me started on Snape's take on this method. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Sat Sep 4 00:53:46 2004 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:53:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112001 Interesting conversation. Let me look at the words another way. To brew something is to *create* it using various ingredients and processes. Aside from potions and certain other imbibables, what is brewed most often is, methinks, trouble. Moreover brew, it seems to me, has a certain connotation to it. One doesn't brew a model T; it's not rote mechanization. It's more subtle. It's an art, and a devious one at that. To bottle and to stopper are both to hem something in, to control it, to put it at your mercy. See Hermione and Rita Skeeter for example. I think these fit Snape's character. He's clearly very intelligent even in a non magical way. He uses logic remember, to help protect the Stone. I think that we think of Snape as an intelligent but otherwise fairly dorky, non popular, and insecure as a kid. All we have to go on is the pensieve scene and the memories from the occlumency lesson so we could be completely deceived on this matter but I suspect not. I think it is entirely within character for an intelligent, dorky, insecure kid to make himself feel better by reminding himself that he is smarter than his tormentors and proving it to himself by delving into things others either can't--because they don't have the talents--or won't--because they're too wrapped up in their mainstream lives. Given a certain proclivity for the dark arts, and assuming that he came to know that James and co became animagi, I can see him delving into the dark arts to prevent, to control, to hold death at bay. And we know that holding death at bay is one of Voldemort's chief goals in life. If Voldemort were smart, and he was, he would have brought in as many intelligent wizards to work on the project as possible from all angles and Snape strikes me as an excellent potion brewer. What if Snape succeeded in developing a potion for immortality based not in the christian alchemy a la the stone, but in a more subtle, devious way? Maybe I'm bringing too much outside stuff into this but I cannot get away from the thought that the only way to buy yourself out of death is to pay for it with your life. That, I think, would be a bit of a stark realization for someone chasing that particular dream. I picture Snape toiling away in his basement laboratory and finally discovering the secret to the potion that will keep you alive, but coming to understand that it will cost you your life to do it. I can see him taking this to Voldie and Voldie going ahead with it and Snape being so shocked and revolted at the process that he forswears his allegiance and dedicates himself to ridding the world of the horror he helped create. How can immortality cost you your life? My only explanation is that it would be like a unicorn blood thing, you live but you live a half life, a cursed life, to such an extent that it would be a non life. Or perhaps an un life such as a vampire type thing. -- Gregory Lynn From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 01:12:33 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:12:33 -0000 Subject: Son of Insecure!Snape (Was: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112002 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: Let me poke the hornet's nest... > SSSusan: > I understand what Nora is saying about insecurity being correlated > w/ the DEMAND for respect, the constant reminder that I am a > *professor.* [I hope not to offend anyone with this (and remember > that my majors were psych & counseling), but the folks I've > encountered who make a POINT of putting "Dr." in the phone book and > insisting upon the "PROFESSOR" were the psychology profs! My > thought about this? Because there's such a debate about psych not > being a "true" or "hard" science.] But I don't think insecurity is > the issue with Snape. I just think he has no patience for those > who aren't also, like he is, good at & appreciative of potions. Actually, I was thinking less of the potions classes and more of such things as the Shrieking Shack blowup, but above all, that mishandled DADA class taking over for Lupin. You can't apply the love of potions to that one--and there's also the way that JKR-as-author retrospectively takes Snape down a peg there, with the kappas thing. There's also the suggestive but un-canonical Rickman comments posted onlist not long ago, about Snape being insecure and envying the successful. But no, I was thinking more about those other large instances where debate is shut down, particularly the Hospital Wing scene in PoA. Of course, there *may* be something else at work there, or it may simply be that Snape really is that angry. The readings generally suggest that he doesn't do terribly well when people disagree with him, unless it's a superior or equal, where he has to deal with it to some degree. Make it someone he has an exercise of power over, and, well... -Nora wants some nice canonical evidence of intentions before she gets into another full-scale Snape discussion From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 4 01:25:58 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 02:25:58 +0100 Subject: Grimmauld Place References: Message-ID: <012d01c4921e$28ed6fe0$702f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112003 vcu20032003 wrote: "I apologize if someone has posted on this before, but I was just thinking about what will happen to Kreacher and to Grimmauld Place now that Sirius is dead. With Harry being his godson and no other living relatives, does that mean that Kreacher will now be indebted to work for Harry and that Harry will now own Grimmauld Place (the secrte headquarters of OOTP)? It makes my head spin thinking about all the implications..." ------------------------ It's true that Harry could claim GP. But so can Sirius' blood relatives: Bellatrix Lestrage (who would end up in Azkaban if she did) and Narcisa Malfoy. Didn't JKR say we'd be hearing more about Narcisa now that Lucius is in Azkaban? Hum... Harry and Narcisa in a heritance dispute... Sirius doesn't strike me as someone who would leave a 'last will'. Wouldn't the whole episode leave Draco in a huff? How delightful. I wish Kreacher (the poor thing) could go to Narcisa and be happy in his own way. But will he than be allowed to disobey his former master's orders? If so, DD will surely prevent that from ever happening (giving up GP in exchange for Kreacher, perhaps). But Sirius has other blood relatives: Tonks and her family, of course. Maybe Harry doesn't need to be involved in the family dispute (Oooohhhh! I was so looking forward to see Draco's aggravated expression). I do hope Harry gets the flying motorbike... and, *pleeeese*, let him be allowed to take it back to the Dursley's the next summer! Susana, Who enjoys seeing people outraged From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 02:12:49 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:12:49 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112004 Angie: > > In the SS, LV tells Harry: "I killed your father first, and he > > put up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have > > died . . . she was trying to protect you." mcmaxslb: > Voldemort was lying to mess with Harry's head. He had no > intention of letting Lily live. SSSusan: I agree that this *is* a distinct possibility, but I've always had a suspicion that this is one of those parts of the GH story that we DON'T fully understand yet. I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy just being cruel & messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really was a reason that Voldythingy would have been willing to spare Lily. I can't for the life of me fathom what it would be, but I'm hoping it's a doozy of a reason. Siriusly Snapey Susan From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 02:13:25 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:13:25 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Opinions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112005 Caspen's opinion is: >your reasoning, and therefore, your "opinion" are clearly wrong.< Caspen also has the opinion: >leave JKR and your unreasonable and irrational scrutiny and judgments, and yes, "opinions" out of it! < Caspen's opinion is that: >All opinions are not equal.< Caspen also has the opinion: >therefore, mine is just "an opinion;" it's a reasonable opinion. Your "opinion" on the other hand, is unsupported and unreasonable.< Laurasia's opinion is: We are all entitled to our own opinions. I think all opinions *are* equal. The reason why I am continuing this debate is simply because I value your opinion even thought it is different to my own. My opinion is that we are all entitled to an opinion, and my opinion is that it's unfair to exclude anyone of the right to have one. Hopefully, you joined HPfGU because you value other people's opinions. Caspen's opinion: >>>the fact that JKR, herself, then goes on to underline her disdain for the fortune-telling, astrology, etc. that comprise "popular magic" today, despite, or more acurately, in the face of the charms, transfigurations, potions, etc. of her own creation, the magical world of Hogwarts, support my "opinion."<<< Laurasia's opinion: If you had never heard a JKR interview, how would you know this? How would you know she wasn't a white witch who divined her crystal ball every afternoon? The books *by themselves* celebrate the occult. After all, the whole aim of Harry's existence at the boring Dursleys is to escape. He finds out he is a wizard, and that means he is suddenly a more powerful and interesting person. Knowing that JKR is *not* a witch, but yet has written a book about it Well, it suggests her intent was to be ironic. But, wait, we've just hit a dirty word there, haven't we? Listen to you own opinion: >Yet, you have not, explained to us, how it is that you can claim to have such a definitive grasp of JKR'S intentions. < Laurasia's opinion: How have *you* got such a definite grasp on JKR's intentions? I know what you've done- you've got legitimate reasons to grasp JKR's intention- you've used facts from canon and background information. This is *exactly the same* as my reasoning. My opinion that JKR makes magic exist only in the physical plane is supported by her choice to make the Dursleys fearful of magic in a real and physical sense. It is supported by the canon fact that Vernon is so convinced there are magic explanations about that he dares to bring up the Potters with Petunia after pretending they haven't existed for years. It is supported by the fact that Vernon doesn't say `There's no such thing as magic' but shoves Harry into his cupboard with `Go - cupboard -stay - no meals.' When Hagrid tells Harry he is a wizard, Vernon doesn't say `No he's not! Magic doesn't exist!' he says `swore we'd stamp it out of him!' This suggests that Vernon considers magic real, unpleasant and dangerous. Caspen's opinion is that: >Therefore, it is not necessary, relevant, or even any of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine the artist's/author's "intentions," let alone his/her flossing habits.< Laurasia's opinion is that: This means your irony/metaphor theory has just gone right out the window. It relies on knowing that JKR holds disdain for the real world-occult, yet has written a book about it. Which means she must have done so with the *intent* to be ironic. By your own reasoning- it is not necessary relevant or any of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine whether JKR has an intent to be ironic or literal. I don't agree with this. I think it's perfectly legitimate to attempt to uncover pieces of JKR's intent to understand what she wanted to achieve as an author and whether she has. After all, as I have said right from the offset- I *like* the theory that magic exists in a spiritual plane, I like the theory that *love* exists in a spiritual plane, and because love is an ancient and powerful form of magic in HP, these two themes are really connected. Caspen wrote: >In addition, on the subject of "intentions" in general, you are still missing the point, somehow, despite the fact that you admit that your legal analogy is flawed. < Laurasia: It was just an analogy designed to illustrate how intentions changes the meaning of actions. It was just an analogy designed to illustrate that different intentions change the meaning of the same action. That was all it was. Caspen wrote: >While I do "accept that intentions change the meanings of actions," to a limited extent, in a court of law, I do not accept that they change the meanings of a finnished work of art at all.< Laurasia: What is your opinion of Jackson Pollock's work? Without any intentions his painting are just paint spilled on canvas and nothing more- a 6 month old child could spill paint on a canvas. Yet, if they have his name (and hence, were created with his prolific intent) on them they sell for millions of dollars. Whilst many people might consider Jackson Pollock just a man who spilt paint on canvases, the art world and many others don't. Many people consider that Jackson Pollock enthusiasts are just being `unreasonable,' but that doesn't stop them from having a valid opinion which is shared by countless others. My own opinion is that Jackson Pollock, whilst a prolific and amazing man, only produced mediocre work. My distinction between artist and artwork is again coming into this. If we do not separate artist from work then either Pollock's work is just as prolific as he was (maybe I should spill some paint on a canvas and sell it for millions of dollars), or Pollock himself was only worth as much as a few tins of paint. BTW, this wasn't a rhetorical question- I would like to know what your opinion of artists like Pollock is. I'm sure this debate is not over, and I am counting on you to reply because I am interested in your opinion. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 02:30:43 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:30:43 -0000 Subject: Son of Insecure!Snape (Was: prof-student etiquitte + Potions master stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112006 SSSusan: > > > I understand what Nora is saying about insecurity being > > correlated w/ the DEMAND for respect, the constant reminder that > > I am a *professor.* But I don't think insecurity is > > the issue with Snape. I just think he has no patience for those > > who aren't also, like he is, good at & appreciative of potions. Nora replied: > Actually, I was thinking less of the potions classes and more of > such things as the Shrieking Shack blowup, but above all, that > mishandled DADA class taking over for Lupin. You can't apply the > love of potions to that one--and there's also the way that JKR-as- > author retrospectively takes Snape down a peg there, with the > kappas thing. > > There's also the suggestive but un-canonical Rickman comments > posted onlist not long ago, about Snape being insecure and envying > the successful. > > But no, I was thinking more about those other large instances > where debate is shut down, particularly the Hospital Wing scene in > PoA. Of course, there *may* be something else at work there, or > it may simply be that Snape really is that angry. The readings > generally suggest that he doesn't do terribly well when people > disagree with him, unless it's a superior or equal, where he has > to deal with it to some degree. Make it someone he has an > exercise of power over, and, well... SSSusan: Yes, Nora, I agree with you. I saw two posts shortly after I responded to you which really did give me pause. First, there was the interview you mentioned, which Eloise provided in #111928: >>>I find myself going back to an interview with Alan Rickman around the release of the first film. At the time I wondered whether this was his interpretation, or whether it was from what JKR had told him. Now I think it must have been the latter. ................................................................... "A: Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry."<<< SSSusan again: This was new to me, and quite fascinating. Yes, it's just Alan Rickman talking, but we all know that JKR did share things w/ him before filming began on SS. And then there was this bit from Aura in #111948: >>>You can know that you're intelligent and talented, but still not feel confident with how other people see you. For example, take how Snape treats Neville: Snape's worst memories involve him being weakened and lacking control over himself and/or his surroundings (James hanging him upsidedown, Snape's abusive father). It's a common phenomenon for people to hate most about other people what they hate in themselves, and, imo, Snape hates Neville for being weak.<<< The three of you have convinced me that insecurity may be a part of what's happening with Snape. And I don't think that it necessarily precludes what I was saying in my previous post, either. Snape may be SECURE about his intelligence and skill, *particularly* when it comes to his potions classes, which could account for his behavior there, with the dunderheads. But, as you mention, Nora, there are also all those instances *outside* of class where Snape goes off, and in these situations it could well be a bit of that demanding respect out of insecurity/craving respect thing going on. Siriusly Snapey Susan From karen at dacafe.com Sat Sep 4 02:51:00 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:51:00 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112007 Gregory Lynn wrote: > > What if Snape succeeded in developing a potion for immortality based > not in the christian alchemy a la the stone, but in a more subtle, > devious way? Maybe I'm bringing too much outside stuff into this but > I cannot get away from the thought that the only way to buy yourself > out of death is to pay for it with your life. That, I think, would be > a bit of a stark realization for someone chasing that particular > dream. > > I picture Snape toiling away in his basement laboratory and finally > discovering the secret to the potion that will keep you alive, but > coming to understand that it will cost you your life to do it. I can > see him taking this to Voldie and Voldie going ahead with it and Snape > being so shocked and revolted at the process that he forswears his > allegiance and dedicates himself to ridding the world of the horror he > helped create. > > How can immortality cost you your life? My only explanation is that > it would be like a unicorn blood thing, you live but you live a half > life, a cursed life, to such an extent that it would be a non life. > Or perhaps an un life such as a vampire type thing. > > -- >From Karen: Interesting theory. It would explain while Snape treats Harry with contempt but still goes out of his way to protect Harry. I'll have to add this one to my plausable theory notebook. Thanks - Karen From maritajan at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 03:24:19 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904032419.9054.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112008 --- cubfanbudwoman wrote: > SSSusan: > I agree that this *is* a distinct possibility, but I've always had a > suspicion that this is one of those parts of the GH story that we > DON'T fully understand yet. I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy > just being cruel & messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really > was a reason that Voldythingy would have been willing to spare > Lily. I can't for the life of me fathom what it would be, but I'm > hoping it's a doozy of a reason. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > I've been wanting to suggest this for a while, but have hesitated because I really don't have any specific canon to back it up, just a lot of what to me are suspicious hints, but..... I think that Lily has Slytherin blood in her...somewhere....and Harry is a descendent of both GG and SS (GG through the Potters). I believe that all the references to Lily and Harry's 'green' eyes is suggestive of Slytherin and that one of the reasons that Voldy's spell rebounded when he tried to kill Harry was because he and Harry share a blood tie. Sort of like his and Harry's wands couldn't be used against each other. This blood history, being a descendent of both GG and SS, could explain what makes Harry as special as he is, why his magic is so strong. Go ahead....tear it up, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :) MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From weirdsister06 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 3 20:51:46 2004 From: weirdsister06 at yahoo.com (weirdsister06) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:51:46 -0000 Subject: Lovegoods in Ottery St Catchpole Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112009 In reading GoF again, I noticed something I hadn't caught before. When the Weasley party meets the Diggorys on the hill to take the portkey to the QWC and Mr. Weasley and Mr. Diggory talk about whether any other witches/wizards will be joining them, one of them mentions that the Lovegoods live in the area. Could this be Luna and her father? From ballerinalaura at mac.com Fri Sep 3 23:07:18 2004 From: ballerinalaura at mac.com (theredshoes86) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:07:18 -0000 Subject: life and the prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112010 Mirodunum wrote > > The prophecy (in OotP) has been bothering me: > > > > (a) if "neither can live while the other survives", what does that > > imply? As far as we know, Harry is alive and will be until at least > > Book 7. Voldemort got his body back at the end of book 4; so > > they'll both be alive for two or three years, no? Sandra wrote > assuming Harry lives then it follows that Voldemort has NOT survived > or > Harry does NOT live or has NOT survived, while LV lives > > or both are in an intermediate state > very intriguing > > I could have believed LV not being alive until the end of GoF but > now? To me it seems they both are alive... > > And LV, is he truly alive with "flesh, blood and bone" or, as > someone else has mentioned here, is he missing the `soul 'bit > and hence not `alive'? theredshoes86: in my opinion, neither neither of them are truly 'alive' because they are connected. In my opinion, they share one life, and neither one can have their own life until the other dies. I feel it is so because Voldemort sort of lives through Harry and can feel what Harry feels, as well as show Harry images (the fake one where Sirius is being tortured) and vice versa with Harry (via the pain in his scar). I think the scar, or the curse that failed, is what binds the two (actually i think Dumbledore might have said that in the books) and the fact that they are bound indicates that neither one is truly 'free' or alive. So, I guess what I'm saying is that alive means being free, and neither can be free until they are separated. Does that make sense? theredshoes86 From gftc at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 3 23:21:09 2004 From: gftc at sbcglobal.net (henwen53207) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:21:09 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112011 Snip from Keli > After reading many of the replies about JK's comments on Pertunia, > it got me thinking. Although Lily's grandparents were both muggles, > as, apparently were her parents, doesn't mean than any great- > grandparents or even great-great-grandparents were. Please correct me if I am wrong -- I thought that Lily's grandparents were wizards. I got that impression from the FAQ About the Books section of JKR's website. Under the question of Half-Blood/Pure-Blood she write "Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half wizard' because of his mother's grandparents." I take that to imply that Lily's grandparents were wizards. Their child (one of Lily's parents) must have been a squib. Hen Wen From ballerinalaura at mac.com Fri Sep 3 23:21:29 2004 From: ballerinalaura at mac.com (theredshoes86) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:21:29 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112012 i've always wondered this... in GoF, Draco Malfoy says to Harry on the train ride back: "'You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this!' He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. 'Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, no the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! ..." (p 729, hardcover) why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? It is obvious that he wants Harry on his side, but to me, that does not make sense. why would he want Harry Potter, the guy, the Dark Lord's downfall, as his friend? when his own father despises Harry Potter? now, in my opinion, Draco wants Harry as a friend, although that might seem like a stretch to some of you. BUT, you cannot deny that Draco ADVISED Harry not to go making friends with "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers" So, this is EVIDENCE that Draco wanted Harry at least on his side. Draco WANTED Harry to be a prejudiced pureblood kinda guy. WHY? ~theredshoes86 From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Sep 4 00:17:40 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:17:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: life and the prophecy Message-ID: <46.578043a2.2e6a63a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112013 lysandrabellargus at yahoo.co.uk writes: > (a) if "neither can live while the other survives", what does that > imply? As far as we know, Harry is alive and will be until at least > Book 7. Voldemort got his body back at the end of book 4; so > they'll both be alive for two or three years, no? > Chancie: Has anyone ever thought that this might not nessarily be a litteral meaning of "lives"? For example, when someone tells you to get a life, it doesn't mean that your dead and need to "get" another life. Perhaps this means that while both Harry and Voldemort live both of their lives will be spent obsessing about the other. Granted, Harry didn't even know about Voldemort until he was 11, but he did know that his parents were dead (eventhough he was told it was because of a car crash). He must have been wishing that he could be with them instead of the Dursley's. So if you take it that way Harry has been obsessed with the death of his parents caused by Voldemort. Maybe I'm just stretching, but who know's. Let me know what you think. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 03:44:47 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:44:47 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112014 ---> Antosha: > > I'm pretty sure I've said this here before, but what if heavy duty spells such as AK drain the > caster? What if LV is worried that, having already used the killing curse on James, he might > not have the, uh, mojo, or whatever, to finish off his ultimate objective, Harry, if he has to > expend himself killing Lily? > Angie replies: I've actually thought about that (spells draining the caster), too, but didn't think about it as a reason not to kill Lily. Interesting. It would make sense. However, it would also make sense that LV brought reinforcements and would have had some Deather Eaters with him, although I haven't read anything to support this. The point being, he shouldn't have had to worry about draining his powers. Part of me wants to say that LV would have been strong enought to perform three AK curses because he was just so dang evil. Probably would have barely winded him if whatever happened had not happened. Which makes me wonder how it is we know at the beginning of SS that Voldemort's powers were deflected -- LV and Harry have been the only living witnesses, and Harry couldn't have told anyone. Someone else must have been there. My theory is that it was Snape and that he had something to do with the AK curse being deflected, but I digress. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 03:48:41 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:48:41 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112015 --- > > Asian_lovr2: > >I say > /indifference/. Certainly, Voldemort is trying to imply benevolence > because he is trying to sway Harry, but his implication in this > context can't be trusted. > > Angie replies: Hmm. Maybe it's just me, but if somebody told me they killed someone who was trying to protect me, that would just make me all the madder. It wouldn't make me think they were benevolent at all. Just the opposite, in fact. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 03:49:02 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:49:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00dd01c49232$1efca370$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 112016 theredshoes86 [mailto:ballerinalaura at mac.com] why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? It is obvious that he wants Harry on his side, but to me, that does not make sense. why would he want Harry Potter, the guy, the Dark Lord's downfall, as his friend? when his own father despises Harry Potter? now, in my opinion, Draco wants Harry as a friend, although that might seem like a stretch to some of you. BUT, you cannot deny that Draco ADVISED Harry not to go making friends with "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers" So, this is EVIDENCE that Draco wanted Harry at least on his side. Draco WANTED Harry to be a prejudiced pureblood kinda guy. WHY? Sherry now I think it's because Malfoy knows Harry will be popular, important and famous. He doesn't want Harry as a friend, someone to tell his secrets, to share his life. Malfoy wants to be in with Harry to bask in the glory of who he thinks Harry Potter is. It's very common in life, people wanting to be buddies with the famous and important, so they themselves can be bigger and more important. I don't think it has a thing to do with a genuine desire to be a friend to anyone. It's only for the good of Draco Malfoy and his family. Sherry G From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 03:53:50 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:53:50 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112017 > > > SSSusan: > I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy just being cruel & messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really was a reason that Voldythingy would have been willing to spare Lily. Angie replies: I agree. I can't imagine what it is. I have no doubt that LV enjoyed toying with Harry, and was maybe even trying to make Harry feel guilty for being the person Lily sacrified herself for, just because he's so cruel. But I believe there was a legitimate reason for his willingness to spare her; he was obviously multi-tasking! From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 03:56:56 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:56:56 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112018 --- > Zendemort: > > Voldemort believed that she [Lily]posed no real threat and thus, would not waste energy on killing her. Angie is deeply puzzled: How could she not pose a threat? At that point she would have concluded that he had just killed her husband and he was clearly trying to kill her son. If the prophecy is correct (don't get me started on that), then she and James had defeated LV three times already -- how could she not be a threat???? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 04:00:46 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:00:46 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112019 "theredshoes86" wrote: > in GoF, Draco Malfoy says to Harry on the train ride back: > "'You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told > you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? > When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not > to hang around with riffraff like this!' He jerked his head at > Ron and Hermione. 'Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to > go, no the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers > first! ..." (p 729, hardcover) > > why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? It is > obvious that he wants Harry on his side, but to me, that does not > make sense. why would he want Harry Potter, the guy, the Dark > Lord's downfall, as his friend? when his own father despises > Harry Potter? SSSusan: For the same reason that, when picking sides for dodgeball, you choose the strongest kid first? Whether he wishes it were so or not, Draco *knows* that Harry managed to bring down Voldy in a way no one ever had before. Draco likely knows *nothing* about Lily's sacrifice--he just knows there's "something about Harry" that almost finished off the strongest wizard around. HARRY'S POWERFUL, in Draco's eyes, and he would love to tempt the powerful kid onto his team. Siriusly Snapey Susan From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Sep 4 04:06:47 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:06:47 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112020 Yb wrote: > > I am not completely forgiving Hermione. She is rather manipulative > > in this situation, and she's being a bit Machiavellian (ends > justify > > the means), and her behavior at the end of GoF (she keeps the poor > > woman in a far until London, and she's pleased with herself), but > > she has a good idea: stop Rita from writing lies, get the whole > > story out correctly. > > > From Karen: > > Maybe she used the wrong methodology because she is 14 in GoF and 15 > in OotP,. > > OotP Chapter 29: > "Then Lupin said quietly, 'I wouldn't like you to judge your father > on what you saw there, Harry. He was only fifteen ---.'" > > Let's not be too harsh on Herminone she is only 14/15. But James' transgressions consisted of a bit of schoolboy arrogance and bullying of other students. Hermione's actions, on the other hand, precluded a professional reporter from pursuing her livelihood for a full year in revenge because she printed a bunch of tawdry gossip (and in true tabloid fashion, she had sources for all facts that she did not learn while in beetle form). It's not up to Hermione to take the law into her own hands and decide the punishment for an illegal animagus. As for the new deal Hermione struck, although *we* know that Harry told Rita the truth, Hermione's instructions to Rita required her to report "All the facts. Exactly as Harry reports them." She was not asking Rita to do an objective piece, or become a better journalist. I find this disturbing, and the fact that Harry *did* tell the truth, and that the article helped restore the good opinion of many people, does not justify Hermione's actions. Debbie who doesn't think what James did was justified, either From armadillof at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 04:09:10 2004 From: armadillof at yahoo.com (armadillof) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:09:10 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: <006901c4920c$aeeae8f0$702f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > Jekatiska wrote: > "Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one thing that hs been > bothering me is why does Snape bully Neville? ALRIGHT....It is my belief that Snape was the DE in the Hog's Head Inn the day that Trelawney made her prediction to DD. Since the prophecy wasn't heard in its entirety, Snape would only know that it was about a wizard child born towards the end of July....hmmmm some selection. This leaves you of course with Harry or Neville as being the one with the power to vanquish Voldemort. NOW... Since the lack of knowledge about the prophecy potentially led to Voldemort's downfall, I think it is in Snape's interest to treat both children equally horribly as he has no true evidence which child the prophecy is about. This way, if Voldemort or other DEs attempt legilimency/occlumency with Snape, Snape can back up his 'story' that he has not left Voldemort. Those who attempt those 'mind-cracking' skills on Snape will only read what Snape wants them to read...possibly even Voldemort. FUTHERMORE... both kids act as constant reminders of the bad information he passed on to Voldemort, putting the lives of many at risk. AF :) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 04:11:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:11:13 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: <20040904032419.9054.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112022 - MJ wrote: > I think that Lily has Slytherin blood in her...somewhere....and Harry is a > descendent of both GG and SS (GG through the Potters) > This blood history, being a descendent of both GG and SS, could explain > what makes Harry as special as he is, why his magic is so strong. > Angie replies: Interesting theory. It would explain why the Sorting Hat considered putting Harry in Slytherin. It's logical to assume that the blood lines could have been mixed as you suggest. However, I don't think having "good blood" necessarily makes one a powerful wizard. Look at Neville and Hermione -- polar opposites. There's no denying that Harry is powerful, because if DD is right, LV transferred some of his powers to Harry. However, part of the reason Harry seems to be so powerful is because he's had more chances to use his powers than his fellow students. And I think part of it is his tenacity and his desire to prove himself. BTW, I have an alternative theory about the Sorting Hat. It told Harry he would have done well in Slytherin. I believe this is true, because I believe Harry would have done well no matter which house he was in. And it was Harry who first mentioned Slytherin by asking the Sorting Hat not to place him there. We don't really know if the Sorting Hat would have even mentioned Slytherin otherwise. > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 04:15:43 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:15:43 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112023 ~theredshoes86: > why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? Angie replies: My theory is that Draco's father ordered him to try and make friends, or at least pretend to be friends, to make it easier for LV or the Death Eaters to get to him. But Draco failed. Also, in COS, Lucius reminds Draco that it is less than prudent for them to appear unfriendly to Harry because most of the wizarding world regards him as a hero. So, maybe initially, it was a matter of being politically correct. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 04:18:59 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:18:59 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Opinions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote... I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing here, honestly, but there's one thing that jumped out at me. > Laurasia's opinion is that: > > This means your irony/metaphor theory has just gone right out > the window. It relies on knowing that JKR holds disdain for > the real world-occult, yet has written a book about it. Which > means she must have done so with the *intent* to be ironic. > By your own reasoning- it is not necessary relevant or any > of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine > whether JKR has an intent to be ironic or literal. I suspect I may be misinterpreting what's being argued over at this point of the debate, but the relationship to 'real world occult' is a little interesting. I will admit upfront that I find the attempts to read HP in light/frame of mind of actual occult traditions slightly on the obnoxious side, largely because it depends upon interpreting symbols that JKR has used to her *own* ends AS symbols that are being used with the original meaning, in my experience. JKR doesn't believe in magic. This is interview certified. I suspect that most people who write fantasy novels with magic don't believe in magic. The fun of writing a fantasy novel is, in part, that you get to make up the ground rules for the world that you're creating. One cannot make terribly effective generalizations about 'magic' in fantasy literature because it varies so greatly from system to system. We have so much fun in the speculating about the ground rules, too--how do Portkeys work, what does the noise in Apparation mean, etc. Or maybe I'm just confused by the statement, whether it's being said as a pro or contra, that JKR is writing a book about the real world occult--because she's not. She's cribbing symbols and mythology all over the place, but is fairly original in her synthesis of everything, so things often don't line up with the source material. Alas for the Death Eater fans out there, I really don't see any support for reading Voldemort as an esoteric Gnostic... (and yes, I have seen that argued). -Nora is going to keep her nose out of the rest of this, but notes that Wimslett and Beardsley have taken a solid beating over the years From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 04:26:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:26:13 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112025 AF: > I think it is in Snape's interest to treat > both children equally horribly as he has no true evidence which > child the prophecy is about. This way, if Voldemort or other DEs > attempt legilimency/occlumency with Snape, Snape can back up > his 'story' that he has not left Voldemort. > > Angie replies: Good theory. That would also support that the reason Snape has been turned down for the DADA job was to keep up appearances -- that DD doesn't trust him enough to allow him to teach that class. However, Voldemort's power in legilimency/occlumency is not absolute. I believe Snape could prevent him from reading his thoughts -- otherwise, LV would know about all the work that Snape does for the Order. From oppen at mycns.net Sat Sep 4 04:28:55 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:28:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Rita Skeeter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112026 My own take on Hermione's treatment of Rita Skeeter is that, if anything, Hermione was quite merciful. Someone who was less nice...say, someone like me...might have taken more permanent measures. Like _Obliviating_ Rita in bug form, to prevent her from knowing how to change back to human. Or throwing the jar, with Rita in it, into an incinerator. Or *glyph of utterly evil smile as I contemplate the great ease of eliminating an unpleasant person who's stupid enough to let me catch them in Animagus form* Instead, Hermione makes the punishment fit the crime. Rita Skeeter abused her position as a reporter to write untrue and harmful things about Harry and Hermione, trusting in her status to keep her safe from reprisals? Very well. Let her keep her quill quiet, or write as Hermione dictates, for a year. She abused her Animagus powers to get "dirt" on people after having been banned from Hogwarts grounds? Very well. Let her live _as_ a beetle, since she seems to like it, until Hermione chooses to let her loose---and let her live in fear ever afterward that Hermione might decide to turn her in. Hermione and her friends have no reason to trust the adult authorities in their lives. When the authorities are untrustworthy or ineffectual, "self-help" justice becomes the order of the day...like it was back-in-the-day along the Anglo-Scottish border, where we get neat words like "blackmail," "feud," and "reiver," and a lot of gory stories. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 07:00:38 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 07:00:38 -0000 Subject: Theory of theme & Opinions & The Occult In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112027 Nora wrote: > I suspect I may be misinterpreting what's being argued over at this > point of the debate, but the relationship to 'real world occult' is a > little interesting. > JKR doesn't believe in magic. This is interview certified. > Or maybe I'm just confused by the statement, whether it's being said > as a pro or contra, that JKR is writing a book about the real world > occult--because she's not. Laurasia: Yes. I was being cheeky. Caspen and I are arguing over so many things it's hard to keep them straight. One of the things we are debating if whether you should take the author's intent into account. Caspen wrote that we cannot and that any time I am making an attempt to judge whether one theory or the other is intended by JKR (in order to give her credit for writing in it) I am really only using my own opinions, not proper reasoning. However, one of the themes which all this originally started from was whether the magic in HP was just fun or ironic. I made the last comment to try and trap Caspen, because the only way we can know if something is meant to be taken ironically or literally if is we understand that author's intent. So my comment was just a cheeky way of trying to make it look as though Caspen's reasoning was contradicting theories which Caspen had put forth. That is, if we are meant to stop guessing the author's intent, how can we then turn around and make the hypocritical statement that the author is being ironic, which relies so heavily on intent? I was suggesting that if we remove all the facts from interviews where JKR denies that she believes in real world magic (which display her intent), the only conclusion that we are left with is that JKR likes magic- either as fictional fun or real world power. Which, as we know, is incorrect- because JKR told us that was not her intent. Effectively, I was saying that Caspen and I believe the same thing: that you can take author's intent into account by using information from canon and interview etc, and that the theory that magic is cunningly ironic is a good indication that Caspen believes that. Of course, I'm probably wrong and I hate presuming things about other people's opinion. Can't wait for a reply from Caspen. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 00:37:11 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:37:11 -0000 Subject: OoTP, Percy's letter, chptr 14, Cryptic message? / "New Clues to HP: Book 5" by GW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112028 > Yb: > I don't think they were really "clues", but GW refers to them > as "coincidental references," which according to rule #3, > means the radar should be picking up something... > > > > Plus, in the letter, Percy writes "_petty_ criminals with whom > they are currently rubbing shoulders" (emphasis mine). "Petty" > jumped out a little (Petty=petti=small=pettigrew) as did the > "rubbing shoulders" bit. In the old order picture Moody showed > Harry, Peter is between Lily and James, rubbing shoulders with > the rest of the Order. > > Also, Hagrid says in Chapter 20 that "we [he and Olympe] knew we > was bein' tailed by someone from the ministry." Hagrid goes on to > say that they gave "the berk tailin' us" the slip. (A berk is a > stupid person easy to take advantage of. A little like Pettigrew...) > Hagrid thinks it's a ministry person, but maybe it was Pettigrew, > and he tipped off the DEs when Hagrid and Olympe shook him off. > > 3. This was blatantly obvious: The Prisoner of War is Sturgis > Podmore, and he's been sentenced to six months in Azkaban, as Percy > reiterates. (We knew that from a DP article a while back.) > > > > He mentions that he is sorry more than once, and his comment near > the end, "I hope they will realize how mistaken they were," points > me towards the idea that we may have Perce all wrong. Maybe he's a > spy, and the whole prat-act is a charade. I'd like to think so. Karen here: I agree with you on some of your points, but how is GW coming up with her info. if not through some sort of code? Percy uses Harry's name a total of 10 times, counting Harry and Potter separately, that would give us the Number 10, but how do we know that 10 and escape and Azkaban are related to each other and point to the fact that 10 prisoners escaped? That's what I am trying to get at. The word "Petty" jumped out at me also, but again, how did they come up with Pettigrew's location? I think your idea that Pettigrew was tailing Hagrid and Olympe was a good one, but how would Percy know that? There was a post recently that Brenda alerted me to that supposes that Percy should not know that his parents are associated with Sturgis Podmore, and therefore would not ask Ron to tell their Mother the info. regarding Podmore's arrest. I can't recall if Percy knows of the OoP, I believe he "separated" from his parents before the order was reformed, and should have no knowledge that they are "rubbing shoulders with" those petty criminals. It's all very interesting, and I love looking for the story clues. From cybilanne at msn.com Sat Sep 4 04:55:53 2004 From: cybilanne at msn.com (cybiloliver) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 04:55:53 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112029 > mcmaxslb: > > Voldemort was lying to mess with Harry's head. He had no > > intention of letting Lily live. > SSSusan: > I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy just being cruel & > messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really was a reason that > Voldythingy would have been willing to spare Lily. cybiloliver: I don't think LV would have let her live just on the fact that she was a mud-blood. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 05:14:31 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:14:31 -0000 Subject: life and the prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112030 theredshoes86 wrote: > In my opinion, neither neither of them are truly 'alive' because > they are connected. In my opinion, they share one life, and > neither one can have their own life until the other dies. Tonks here: I have said this before in a somewhat different form and I will restate it here: I think that it is a metaphor for the struggle for good or evil in both the soul of one person and in the world. Neither one is 100% alive if the other is there to challenge and oppose him. Only one can truly and fully live, if live means without opposition. If Harry dies, Voldemort and evil have won. If Voldemort dies, than Harry and good have won. But they are "in essence one". A ying/yang. How do you know good is good unless you know evil? How do you know evil is evil, unless you know good?? Voldemort says "there is no good or evil, only power and those to afraid to use it". I think that is a key to what JKR is trying to tell us in the prophecy. I know this is not clear, but I have an untidy mind. Sorry. Tonks_op From cybilanne at msn.com Sat Sep 4 05:32:57 2004 From: cybilanne at msn.com (cybiloliver) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:32:57 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Black relations / Flying motorbike In-Reply-To: <012d01c4921e$28ed6fe0$702f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112031 Susana wrote: > It's true that Harry could claim GP. But so can Sirius' blood > relatives: Bellatrix Lestrage (who would end up in Azkaban if > she did) and Narcisa Malfoy. But Sirius has other blood > relatives: Tonks and her family, of course. Maybe Harry doesn't > need to be involved in the family dispute. > > I do hope Harry gets the flying motorbike... and, *pleeeese*, let > him be allowed to take it back to the Dursley's the next summer! cybiloliver: Speaking of that motorbike, I think he does get it, but the question to ask is, who had it these past 14 years? Remember Black gave it to Hagrid in the first book/ movie. What did Hagrid do with it after he delivered Harry to Dumbledore on Privet Drive? Oh and aren't the Weasleys related to Black as well? Couldn't they inherit the house too? From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 08:20:55 2004 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:20:55 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112032 Gregory Lynn wrote: > > What if Snape succeeded in developing a potion for immortality > based not in the Christian alchemy a la the stone, but in a more > subtle, devious way? > I picture Snape toiling away in his basement laboratory and finally > discovering the secret to the potion that will keep you alive, but > coming to understand that it will cost you your life to do it. I > can see him taking this to Voldie and Voldie going ahead with it > and Snape being so shocked and revolted at the process that he > forswears his allegiance and dedicates himself to ridding the world > of the horror he helped create. mz_annethrope: This is exactly why I think DD trusts Snape. He would have taken a terrible risk in confessing he created/helped create a potion that conferred immortality on Voldemort; I bet it would be worth a life sentence in Azkaban. It makes better sense to me the notion that his owing something to James causes DD to trust him. It would keep him honest, at least to DD, though I'm not sure his commitment to DD's cause (aside from the anti-Voldemort part) would survive DD's death. > Gregory: > How can immortality cost you your life? My only explanation is > that it would be like a unicorn blood thing, you live but you live > a half life, a cursed life, to such an extent that it would be a > non life. Or perhaps an un-life such as a vampire type thing. mz_annethrope: In Eastern Christian anthropology immortality does cost you your life. According to this view, God gave death as a gift (not as a punishment) to humans after the Fall, for they otherwise would have gone on living forever in an unnatural state. Sin is thought of as having fragmented human nature. Because humans are soul and matter and related both to the material and spiritual realms, their own psychosomatic disintegration causes disintegration in the material world that they are part of and threatens the realm of the angels, which they are connected to, as well. So death puts a stop to it all, or at least an end to the damage a single human can suffer or inflict. At the Resurrection, all the elements of the body are reconstituted into the new, but original, unified state. I don't think JKR is a Christian so I doubt this would be her exact take in HP, but who knows.... I do think that Voldemort's immortality is something unnatural and parasitic, created not by virtue (The Philosopher's Stone), but by vice. There's nothing symbiotic about about him; he subsists solely off other's lives or beings. He sips unicorn blood, killing the creature, and feeds on Ginny's soul--or at least Diary!Tom does--nearly killing her as well. Wormtail had better watch that silver hand of his! It's probably cursed as well. Parasites aren't immortal. They kill their hosts and then they die. Sometimes they reproduce before they die. But Voldemort does not reproduce, and he goes on living in accursed state. Perhaps there is a bit of Christian anthropology woven into this story. He's just what you don't want to happen. mz_annethrope From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 4 10:10:00 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:10:00 -0400 Subject: Snape and Neville Message-ID: <002a01c49267$570ca5f0$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112033 Jekatiska wrote: "Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one thing that hs been bothering me is why does Snape bully Neville? There are reasons to why he hates Harry and favours Malfoy. But why does he bully Neville so much? It could just be his dreadful potion making skills, of course, but there could also be more to it than we know. After all, Neville apparently made a much better potion in his OWL when Snape wasn't there, than usually, so he can't be as bad as that." Susana said: "JKR said Snape is *NOT* a nice guy. IMO, he bullys Neville simply because Snape's not a nice guy. Why should he need another reason?" DuffyPoo: Snape sees timidity and insecurity in Neville, views it as weakness, and uses it to bully him. Most bully's go for the weakest point in their prey. Or, on the other hand, he could see timidity and insecurity in Neville and be bullying him to try to get him to achieve and have confidence in himself. Perhaps Snape has another view of who the Voldie-Vanquisher will be and wants Neville to be up to the task. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 4 10:10:58 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:10:58 -0400 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! Message-ID: <002e01c49267$7963b1c0$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112034 Carol responds: "Regardless of whether she was good or evil, she couldn't have written to Tom or had any influence (other than genetic inheritance) on him: she died in childbirth, living just long enough to give him his name." DuffyPoo: She could have written the letter sometime during her nine-month (I presume witches ....) pregnancy and left the letter with the facility she was in. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 4 10:12:13 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:12:13 -0400 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: <003201c49267$a63c1a20$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112035 Hannah now: "Could our friend Severus Snape have anything to do with it? I find it hard to understand why Snape didn't know that Pettigrew was the traitor, since the other death eaters seemed to know, judging by their lack of surprise at finding him by LV's side at his return. Maybe he didn't know until after the betrayal occurred (because that raises the question of why he didn't tell DD if he did know who the traitor was), and perhaps he decided it would be rather fitting to see his old enemy Black in Azkaban. He could have lied to DD about having found some sort of damning evidence that Black was indeed the traitor." DuffyPoo: But then why would DD still trust Snape as he so obviously does, and says, as late as OotP? He would have known of the deception by PoA. Hannah: "Perhaps DD felt that it was necessary to have Sirius out of the way, so that he had control over Harry's fate himself. It was best for Harry to go to the Dursleys, however nasty," DuffyPoo: There's a world of difference between growing up at the Dursley's and spending twelve years in Azkaban. IMO. If DD had left an innocent man - any innocent man, not just Sirius - in Azkaban for twelve years it would make him quite as evil as LV, in my mind. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cybilanne at msn.com Sat Sep 4 05:04:41 2004 From: cybilanne at msn.com (cybiloliver) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:04:41 -0000 Subject: Pre-Hogwarts education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112036 W vB wrote: > > I also have a question about the pre-Hogwarts education > > of wizards and witches. It seems that I've read elsewhere > > that usually wizarding kids go to Muggle primary schools, > > but in some cases, when this might be dangerous they might > > be brought to a special wizarding primary school. Miss Cora: > It seems to me that it's possible that some of the kids went > to Muggle schools, but I don't really think it's possible for > all of them. cybiloliver: Well, JKR has already answered that question... some students go to muggle schools and the rest are home schooled till the age of 11: http://www.worldbookdayfestival.com/2004/jkrowling_chat.html "kai: Where do wizarding children go to school before Hogwarts? JK Rowling replies -> They can either go to a Muggle primary school or they are educated at home. The Weasleys were taught by Mrs. Weasley." From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 11:42:57 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:42:57 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please. In-Reply-To: <012d01c4921e$28ed6fe0$702f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > > It's true that Harry could claim GP. But so can Sirius' blood relatives:> Bellatrix Lestrage (who would end up in Azkaban if she did) and Narcisa Malfoy. > snip > Didn't JKR Harry and Narcisa in a heritance dispute... Sirius doesn't strike me as someone who would leave a 'last will'. Wouldn't the whole episode leave Draco in a huff? How delightful. > snip> > But Sirius has other blood relatives: Tonks and her family, of course. Maybe Harry doesn't need to be involved in the family dispute . snip> I do hope Harry gets the flying motorbike... and, *pleeeese*, let him be > allowed to take it back to the Dursley's the next summer! mhbobbin writes: Will the WW actually learn of the death of Sirius and how? He fell behind the veil but there is no body. (I'm not disputing his death-- not at this moment.) Does the Veil spit out a receipt? There were witnesses but no independent ones. As far as I can tell the witnesses were DD, Lupin, Bellatrix, Harry and Neville. I think all other members of the Order and DEs are unconcious or not in the room. Of all the kids, only Harry and Neville are still in the fight. Sirius was in hiding so his sudden disappearance wouldn't be noticed by anyone who isn't supposed to know. If there might be complications regarding the inheritance, might DD withhold this particular information from the Ministry? If Sirius is thought to still be a criminal on the lam, the situation doesn't change and Narcissa or anyone else wouldn't have a claim. But Kreacher would still be a problem--And who is going to look after Buckbeak--up in Mrs. Black's bedroom, turning it into a stable??? Kreacher, after all, injured him. Along with this: Much has been made of the Death Eaters being captured at the Ministry. But what about the Phoenix members? Will it matter that Tonks and Shacklebolt are no longer undercover for the Order. Maybe not to everyone. Maybe not officially. But maybe. mhbobbin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 4 11:13:02 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:13:02 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <003201c49267$a63c1a20$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112038 > Hannah: > "Perhaps DD felt that it was necessary to have Sirius out of the > way, so that he had control over Harry's fate himself. It was > best for Harry to go to the Dursleys, however nasty," > > DuffyPoo: > There's a world of difference between growing up at the Dursleys' > and spending twelve years in Azkaban. IMO. If DD had left an > innocent man - any innocent man, not just Sirius - in Azkaban for > twelve years it would make him quite as evil as LV, in my mind. Hannah again: But maybe in some senses he is. It's a bit like the discussion recently on Hermione's behaviour towards Rita and Luna in OotP chapter 25. It's been pointed out that if Lucius Malfoy used blackmail like this everyone would be horrified, but it's OK if Hermione does it because her ends justify her means. I don't think Dumbledore is above using pretty unpleasant tactics if he feels the end is worth it. Perhaps he considered protecting Harry so important he felt that imprisoning Sirius was justified? I'm playing devil's advocate a bit because I don't really think DD is that ruthless. But if you are to accept the idea that he allowed Sirius to stay in Azkaban while knowing he was innocent, I think that protecting Harry is one of the few reasons he would do it. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 4 11:47:38 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:47:38 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112039 AF: > I think it is in Snape's interest to treat both children > equally horribly as he has no true evidence which child the > prophecy is about. This way, if Voldemort or other DEs > attempt legilimency/occlumency with Snape, Snape can back up > his 'story' that he has not left Voldemort. Hannah now: I agree with this, but there's another reason (IMO) as well. Who do Harry and Neville have potions classes with? The Slytherins. I bet Draco Malfoy would be pretty quick to report to his father if Snape was nice to Potter, Longbottom, or any of the other children whose parents have opposed LV. When Harry tries to get Snape to help him at the end of OoP, it's not just that Snape can't risk admitting to understand Harry in front of Umbridge, but also that Malfoy and the other Slytherins mustn't be able to tell their death-eating daddies that it was Snape who alerted the Order to what was happening in the the DoM. Oh, and I think that Snape's a nasty bit of work who enjoys bullying poor old Neville. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 12:33:23 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:33:23 -0000 Subject: Fidelius Charm / Secret Keeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112040 On the matter of the inheritance of Grimmauld Place, I think much depends on how the Fidelius Charm which hides it works. We've seen two localities that have been kept hidden by the Fidelius Charm: Godric Hollow and Grimauld Place. We know really very little about how the spell works and nothing on how it terminates. And any theory on how the Fidelius Charm terminates must work for the known outcome of GH as well as for whatever happens to GP. Some posters have theorized that once the Potters were killed, Godric Hollow became visible again and popped back into the minds of people who knew prior to the Charm that the Potters lived there. And that is how DD knew to send Hagrid there without knowing that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper. So I've been concerned that now that Sirius is dead, GP will pop back up and be visible and be a big inheritance issue, not to mention expose the Order. But DD is the Secret Keeper for the Order, and the Order is very much still alive so would its hiding place still be secret despite the death of its owner? My guess is that GP will stay hidden. Inheritance of Grimmauld Place may not be much of an issue as Narcissa Malfoy cannot prove that Sirius Black is dead--even though Bellatrix is likely to tell her---and she probably can't locate GP anyway. Kreacher, though, could still be a problem for the Order. And the Malfoys are looking for someone to replace Dobby. mhbobbin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 12:38:00 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 05:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904123800.34901.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112041 --- eloise_herisson wrote: > What is more intriguing from the plot development perspective is > just > how this is important to the next two books. Just what is it that > could be given away by JKR answering this question fully? what *is* > the worst that would be brought out in him? Why the laugh at that > point, the "somewhat"? It reads to me like the consequences would > be > pretty dire and I have a strong feeling that Dumbledore knows > something about it that he's not told Snape and which consequently > JKR can't tell us. > > ~Eloise The worst in Snape is his inability to understand people. He consistently assumes the worst of others (especially those he doesn't like - which seems to mean the entire world outside of Dumbledore and McGonagall). Especially he assumes the worst about Harry. I think the key to this mystery is his soliloquy to Harry about not wearing emotions on your sleeve or you'll be easy meat for the Dark Lord. Snape views almost all emotions as potential sources of weakness and therefore things to be clamped down on hard for safety's sake. Should he become DADA professor, he would view his task as training a miniature army of aurors, without regard for their youth, their innocence or their human tendency to make mistakes. The battle is too important to risk losing: victory means the survival of the entire wizarding world. Talk about emotions or feelings or settling for less-than-perfect results is so much self-indulgent nonsense in the face of the larger battle. This lack of perspective would actually work against Snape's efforts to teach DADA. I'm sure he sneers at the idea of learning about grindylows or other obscure creatures that most students would never run into unless they went on safari or around the world. This isn't DADA to him. What they should be learning, in his opinion, is all the dark stuff that swirls around the dregs of society and what Voldemort is capable of; how to defend yourself against sudden attacks from behind; how to protect yourself. "Constant Vigilance!" wouldn't begin to describe Snape's teaching methods of DADA. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 4 12:21:29 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:21:29 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112042 mhbobbin wrote: > Will the WW actually learn of the death of Sirius and how? He fell > behind the veil but there is no body. There were witnesses > but no independent ones. As far as I can tell the witnesses were > DD, Lupin, Bellatrix, Harry and Neville. I think all other members > of the Order and DEs are unconcious or not in the room. Of all the > kids, only Harry and Neville are still in the fight. Hannah now: Kingsley Shacklebolt was there and conscious. He carried on Sirius' duel with Bellatrix. Moody may also have regained conciousness by this point as he crawls over to Tonks shortly after. > mhbobbin: > Along with this: Much has been made of the Death Eaters being > captured at the Ministry. But what about the Phoenix members? Will > it matter that Tonks and Shacklebolt are no longer undercover for > the Order. Maybe not to everyone. Maybe not officially. But maybe. Hannah now: I agree this may make some difference, but I think it would have to be unofficially. After all, Tonks and Shacklebolt would be the least surprising people to have been found fighting death eaters in the ministry, since the MoM is paying them to do just that! Now that LV's return has been accepted, there isn't any need for them to be undercover order members, since the ministry is theoretically on the same side now. But it might be a bit harder to explain why the gallant aurors were accompanied by a headmaster on the run from the law, an unemployed werewolf, a retired auror and a group of schoolchildren! ;-) As for Sirius, his presence at the ministry would probably be believed given that he was the supposed ringleader of the death eaters. It may also be possible for Shacklebolt or even DD to convince Fudge that he had been killed, though it would probably be necessary to pretend he was fighting for the other side at the time. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 12:59:05 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:59:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <20040904123800.34901.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > The worst in Snape is his inability to understand people. He > consistently assumes the worst of others (especially those he > doesn't like - which seems to mean the entire world outside of > Dumbledore and McGonagall). Especially he assumes the worst about > Harry. Let me say first of all that I think the analysis here is really perceptive, and I like it quite a bit. This is, perhaps, something where JKR will hit us with something more subtle than the basic idea that you don't want someone who was deeply involved *in* the Dark Arts teaching about them, because the pull to become re-involved in them is too strong. > Should he become DADA professor, he would view his task as training > a miniature army of aurors, without regard for their youth, their > innocence or their human tendency to make mistakes. The battle is > too important to risk losing: victory means the survival of the > entire wizarding world. Talk about emotions or feelings or settling > for less-than-perfect results is so much self-indulgent nonsense in > the face of the larger battle. It also seems to me that this is akin to one of the tendencies of what we've seen so far as the Dark Arts--they are arts of domination and control over other people. Most of the people associated with the Dark Arts have a particular sense of entitlement, and see nothing asmiss about taking what they want from other people. A strict lecture format is probably what's needed in Potions with potential catastrophes looming around every turn. A teacher who takes strict control of a DADA class is, perhaps, stifling one of the areas where students need a little more room and flexibility and thought. This is not even to mention that in the long run, intensely strict and one- pointed education doesn't really make good soldiers. Potions benefits (to at least some degree) from an authoritarian imposition of knowledge. DADA would probably not be a good place for Dumbledore to let Snape exercise his powers of control over the students. > This lack of perspective would actually work against Snape's efforts > to teach DADA. I'm sure he sneers at the idea of learning about > grindylows or other obscure creatures that most students would never > run into unless they went on safari or around the world. This isn't > DADA to him. What they should be learning, in his opinion, is all > the dark stuff that swirls around the dregs of society and what > Voldemort is capable of; how to defend yourself against sudden > attacks from behind; how to protect yourself. "Constant > Vigilance!" wouldn't begin to describe Snape's teaching methods of > DADA. Yes--sometimes you learn more about a main topic by not actually taking it on in an explictly direct manner. Learning generally how to think is a good example. If I were Headmaster, all the kids would have to take literature courses, just to have to *think*. Alas... -Nora notes that she really should write an unambiguously pro-Snape piece some time--submissions of ideas are welcome :) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 4 12:44:35 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:44:35 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112044 SSSusan: > I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy just being cruel & > messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really was a reason > that Voldythingy would have been willing to spare Lily. Hannah: I agree, I've posted on this before, but I've just thought of 2 new reasons (apologies to anyone who has already thought of them and posted them). LV says to Lily; 'Stand aside, you silly girl.' Isn't this rather an odd choice of words? Here's Lily Potter, who has defied him three times and lived to tell the tale, and yet he's dimissing her as a silly girl. Why? 'Silly girl' is such a mild, almost affectionate, sort of insult. Also, why does Lily stand there and plead? She's a talented witch, as is mentioned several times in the books (can't think of specific example at the moment). Why doesn't she try using her wand? Even if she had little hope of it working, surely an 'expelliarmus' or 'stupefy' at least would have been worth a try. Instead she pleads with LV, whose reputation as someone who is merciful or swayed by the pleas of others isn't well known. What makes her think that pleading could possibly work, or even be a better option than magic? It all ties in with what we do know; there's more to Lily than meets the eye. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 13:18:38 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 13:18:38 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112045 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hannahmarder" wrote: > mhbobbin wrote: > > Will the WW actually learn of the death of Sirius and how? He fell > > behind the veil but there is no body. There were witnesses > > but no independent ones. > Hannah now: >snip> As for Sirius, his presence at the ministry would probably be believed given that he was the supposed ringleader of the death eaters. It may also be possible for Shacklebolt or even DD to convince Fudge that he had been killed, though it would probably be necessary to pretend he was fighting for the other side at the time. mhbobbin: Why tell the Ministry at all about Sirius--that he was there or that he fell through the veil? Especiallly if the Order members would have to pretend Sirius was fighting on the DE side? Why not just omit that information? Captive Death Eaters might tell the Ministry about seeing Sirius but only Bellatrix was a witness--I think--to his death. I base that on only Sirius and Bellatrix were fighting at the time of Sirius' death. DD is the one that is going to brief the Ministry. Does DD simply omit the parts about Sirius? I doubt the testimony of Death Eaters on seeing Sirius would be of much importance, officially. Before there can be some legal process on the Inheritance of GP, there would have to be some sort of inquiry on the Death of Sirius. That is not a foregone conclusion. Kreacher, though, is bound by different rules. mhbobbin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Sep 4 13:36:18 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 13:36:18 -0000 Subject: GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Angie is deeply puzzled: > > How could she not pose a threat? At that point she would have > concluded that he had just killed her husband and he was clearly > trying to kill her son. If the prophecy is correct (don't get me > started on that), then she and James had defeated LV three times > already -- how could she not be a threat???? Well, she's hasn't defeated him him 3 times - she, either alone or in conjunction with James, has *defied* him 3 times. A very different thing. Saying "No" is not the same as kicking the crap out of someone. Godric's Hollow is a problem. A key event that is outside the time- line of the books. All we have been given are memories/visions from Harry (invariably when under extreme mental/emotional stress), and a couple of sneering rants by Voldy. Frustrating. As such it provides an opportunity for posters to indulge in all kinds of assumptions, suppositions, guesses, wishful-thinking or devious hypotheses. No prizes for fingering which category is Kneasys not-so-happy hunting ground. Let's go over what we have been told, remembering that there are hints that all may not be as it seems. James and Lily are in hiding. They have a Secret Keeper and they are betrayed. Voldy turns up one dark night. James is killed. Voldy bursts into the house, tries to brush Lily aside, then kills her. Harry gets a scar, Voldy dis-corporates, the house is a ruin. Seems fairly straight-forward - but is it? James and Lily are young - early 20s is the best guess, and though they might be pretty competent with their wands, they're no match for Voldy. No-one is, except DD. This is a situation where discretion is probably the better part of valour, and this is apparently what a memory voice (James - or assumed to be so by Harry, but Lupin's reaction might indicate otherwise) has in mind:- "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -" The sounds of someone stumbling from a room - a door bursting open - a cackle of high-pitched laughter - (PoA chap. 12) For whatever reason (lack of time, choice, confusion) she doesn't. We've been told by JKR that Harry was in his cot, and again, for whatever reason (fear, not having her wand to hand) Lily does not try to fight Voldy. Instead we have:- "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" "Stand aside, you silly girl...stand aside now..." "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -" . . "Not Harry! Please...have mercy....have mercy..." (PoA chap. 9) Add the memory of a green flash and a high cold laugh that Harry recalls in PS/SS chap 4 and we can make a fair guess about the sequence of events that night without having to believe anything Voldy tells us. But for many of us there are still gaps that need to be filled - and since JKR has hasn't, we try doing it ourselves. Questions: Was there someone else there that night? Was it James' voice that called to Lily? Was it James that stumbled from the room? Well, it's quite possible that someone else was there - who raised the alarm and spread news of the event all over the WW by dawn? And a number of characters seem to be pretty sure how Harry got his scar - despite the fact that a) nobody had ever survived an AK before, so scars from one are no more than an educated guess based on what they believe occured, b) we have been told that there is *no* protection against an AK and c) DD says "we may never know what happened." Why didn't Lily run, why didn't Lily fight? All sorts of ideas here. There's the "ancient magic" protective spell which won't work *unless* Lily dies, of course. Still, that seems vaguely unattractive - if she ran she might escape, or even be killed as she runs. No, it could be that she's forcing Voldy's hand. As a final act of defiance she's tricking Voldy into triggering the protective spell. Harry will now be safe. James died because he fought. Lily could have done the same but didn't. It just might be that fighting is not enough; a totally unambiguous sacrifice is needed to trigger the spell - unarmed, unresisting, voluntary. And Voldy played his part. He didn't have to kill Lily, she wasn't his target, she wasn't fighting, she was merely an inconvenient obstruction. In Voldy's mind she brought it on herself - which was exactly her intention. I've never believed that Lily came up with the idea of this protection on her own. "Ancient magic" sounds more like DD's doing to me, not something a young witch not long out of school would be competent with. He more or less tells us so in the explication at the end of OoP: "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." He then goes on about 'blood protection', placing Harry with the Dursleys, but I think it's clear that the 'sacrifice gambit' was his idea. Incidentally, it also indicates that either he didn't trust the security arrangements or *knew* that they would fail - in advance. Her words - "Not Harry, take me.." in combination with Harry's recall of *one* green flash (with the intriguing possibility that he hears the "high, cold laughter" *after* the flash) is significant to some. Because that would mean he saw the flash that killed Lily, but not the one aimed at himself (Voldy wouldn't be laughing after it'd rebounded and hit him.) A small dedicated band of posters wonder if Voldy did come with the intention of AKing Harry. Maybe he had something else in mind...that "take me" - very interesting phrase, especially if you've already been promoting 'Possession' theories to explain how Tom became Voldy. Some posit that in offering herself Lily ensnares Voldy in a magical contract by offering her own life in exchange for Harry's, a contract which causes his AK against Harry to backfire when he tries to break the terms and conditions, but that doesn't explain why there only seems to be one flash. Or why there was a transfer of powers. And then JKR pops up with a question she says we should be considering- "Why didn't Voldy die?" Many suggested that it was because Voldy wasn't truly alive, but there is another possible answer: it wasn't an AK that bounced - it was something else. Voldy sees Harry as a future contender, a wizard as powerful as himself ("his equal") - why not take those powers, why not combine those powers with his own? There is, after all, no reason why Voldy's own powers should be transferred to Harry by an AK. It's a killing curse, not a mind transfer spell. Just what spell was involved is open to question. Would it have still killed Harry after emptying his mind of anything useful - or did Voldy intend to take over Harry's body and combine it with his own? Whatever - it didn't work properly - Voldy vanishes (and just what happened to his body, I'd like to know) and Harry gets a transplant. What happened to the house is also interesting. It's been pointed out that AKs can cause damage (the fountain in the MoM; headstones) but these are AKs that *missed*. If there was one that bounced off Harry and hit Voldy it didn't touch the house at all. The house should be undamaged. Maybe the force of Voldy dis-corporating did it. And maybe it wasn't an AK after all. Kneasy From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 14:00:54 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 07:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904140054.49719.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112047 --- theredshoes86 wrote: > why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? It is > obvious that he wants > Harry on his side, but to me, that does not make sense. why would > he want Harry Potter, > the guy, the Dark Lord's downfall, as his friend? when his own > father despises Harry Potter? > ~theredshoes86 Because Draco would be carrying on the family tradition of getting what he wants by being two-faced and making friends in the right places. As Lucius tells Draco in Mr. Borgin's shop, "It is not - prudent - to appear to be less than fond of Harry Potter..." since the WW regards him as a hero. Lucius wants him to befriend Harry Potter; impressing Lucius is Draco's goal in life; therefore he will befriend Harry Potter. That he was sincere in his efforts, I have no doubt. That he didn't understand that his sincere efforts would strike most people as obnoxious, insensitive, prejudiced and dumb would never occcur to him for a moment. So I think Draco is genuinely bewildered that Harry rejected his overtures and doesn't understand how on earth anyone can befriend a Weasley when he could chum around with a Malfoy. Also, having the famous Harry Potter as a friend (or part of his entourage, actually; I don't think Draco really understands the concept of friends) would be a huge trophy for him to show off all over the school. And I also think a lot of Draco's harrassing of Harry is his way of saying "you could have been my pal rather than my enemy!" (This is not true of his treatment of Ron and Hermione, BTW: he genuinely despises both of them.) Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From rayheuer3 at aol.com Sat Sep 4 14:39:31 2004 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:39:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] QUESTION!!!! Message-ID: <96.13f3af69.2e6b2da3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112048 theredshoes86 (_ballerinalaura at mac.com_ (mailto:ballerinalaura at mac.com) ) wrote: >in GoF, Draco Malfoy says to Harry on the train ride back: >"'You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your >company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I >told you not to hang around with riffraff like this!' He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. >'Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, no the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and >Muggle-lovers first! ..." (p 729, hardcover) Ray replies: While it is certainly true that Malfoy "warned" Harry on the Hogwarts Express, that is not the day they met. They met about a month earlier in "Madame Malkin's Robes for All Occasions". Draco had (or pretended to have) no idea who he was talking to, and once he determined that Harry's parents were "our kind" (ie Wizards) he seemed genuinely interested in making friends. I find it curious that Madame Malkin took care of Harry while Malfoy stood around. One possible explanation is that Draco was intentionally lurking there, since it would be the one place every student would have to go. (PS/SS US softcover pp 95-98) >why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? >[I]n my opinion, Draco wants Harry as a friend, although that might seem like a stretch to >some of you. >BUT, you cannot deny that Draco ADVISED Harry not to go making friends with "Mudbloods >and Muggle-lovers" So, this is EVIDENCE that Draco wanted Harry at least on his side. > Draco WANTED Harry to be a prejudiced pureblood kinda guy. On the train, Draco hears that the legendary Harry Potter is on the train, and asks HRH "Is it true? They're saying all down the train that Harry Potter's in this compartment. So it's you, is it?" (PS/SS US softcoverp.135). This is apparently the first time Draco connects the name "Harry Potter" to the boy he met at Madame Malkin's. Now, if we take it as written that Draco didn't know who Harry was in the Robe shop, we can assume that he was genuinely trying to make friends (read: recruit henchmen. Crabbe and Goyle can'r be *everywhere*). Bully-types never seem to forget the first schoolmate they talk to at school (not counting family friends they knew from infancy). That person, depending on gender and personality, usually becomes the person's lifelong best friend, lifelong bitter rival, or lifelong love interest. Thus, Draco just can't let Harry (at least the idea of Harry) go. He will probably continue with his "come over to my side, or I'll make life miserable for your and your friends" routine until they are both old and grey or one of them is in their grave. -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 14:18:15 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:18:15 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Rita Skeeter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112049 Eric Oppen wrote: > My own take on Hermione's treatment of Rita Skeeter is that, > if anything, Hermione was quite merciful. Someone who was > less nice...say, someone like me...might have taken more > permanent measures. > > Instead, Hermione makes the punishment fit the crime. Rita > Skeeter abused her position as a reporter to write untrue and > harmful things about Harry and Hermione, trusting in her status > to keep her safe from reprisals? Very well. Let her keep her > quill quiet, or write as Hermione dictates, for a year. She > abused her Animagus powers to get "dirt" on people after having > been banned from Hogwarts grounds? Very well. Let her live _as_ > a beetle, since she seems to like it, until Hermione chooses to > let her loose---and let her live in fear ever afterward that > Hermione might decide to turn her in. > > Hermione and her friends have no reason to trust the adult > authorities in their lives. When the authorities are untrustworthy > or ineffectual, "self-help" justice becomes the order of the day... > like it was back-in-the-day along the Anglo-Scottish border, where > we get neat words like "blackmail," "feud," and "reiver," and a lot > of gory stories. Marcela here: I agree with you 100%. After reading many posts in this thread with people complaining or not being 'satisfied' with Hermione's behaviour toward Rita, I feel confident to state that those posters have never lived in a society/country where the 'ruling powers' have complete disregard of the law (or there is no Law at all) and bribery and corruption are a daily occurrence. I have lived in many of those, actually come from one of those, and one thing that stands out in a person whose grown up in a 'politically correct' society is that they 'expect' the bigger problems to be solved by the authorities because they 'trust' them... well, you take that same person to one of 'those countries' and after a month of bumping his/her head against the wall he/she is going to 'see' the light not on the main road but on its 'feeder' ones, lol. It's, after all, a question of surviving or getting things done, the tricky part is to do all this within the set standards of morality and fairness. Hermione has shown a lot of maturity of character ever since PS, she becomes aware that the WW is very different from her muggle one, people get sent to Azkaban with no trial, Dark wizards kill/torture for pleasure, prejudice is all around, her big 'authority figure' - Dumbledore- lets Harry and herself brake rules (time-turner) in the name of 'a greater good', slavement is OK, etc... She spent the whole year helping Harry stay alive through the TWT, she's been drilled all year with the words 'Constant Vigilance' and yet, everybody was fooled and LV managed to snatch Harry and get his body back. What is she going to do with Rita, once she caught her? Give her up to the 'authorities' so that she either gets sent to Azkaban or goes back to writing lies for Fudge's purposes, or 'make' a deal with Rita herself and keep it under wraps? She understands that they are at War now, she is on Harry's and Dumbledore's side, Rita was writing damaging articles against both of them, plus Hagrid and herself... why not make a 'deal' with her and have the upper hand? If you are offended by the 'jar cell', keep in mind that to a beetle a jar has house proportions, and she was being fed 'beetle food', so our Hermione was being 'humanitarian' and I doubt that even PETA could raise complaints, LOL. The bottom line is, Rita was an illegal animagus, she was banned from Hogwarts yet she got there many times, she wrote lies about everybody, and she got caught in the act... I think that Rita got a fair deal, why else would she agree to keep her quill to herself for a whole year? Hermione didn't act harshly or immorally, she just weighed the pros/cons for both parties and reached a reasonable conclusion. I wouldn't even call that 'blackmail', I see what Hermione did to Rita is what parents do to their kids: she just 'grounded' Rita not to write for a year. Marcela From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 14:25:45 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:25:45 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112050 > AF: > > I think it is in Snape's interest to treat both children > > equally horribly as he has no true evidence which child the > > prophecy is about. This way, if Voldemort or other DEs > > attempt legilimency/occlumency with Snape, Snape can back > > up his 'story' that he has not left Voldemort. Hannah: > I bet Draco Malfoy would be pretty quick to report to his father > if Snape was nice to Potter, Longbottom, or any of the other > children whose parents have opposed LV. When Harry tries to get > Snape to help him at the end of OoP, it's not just that Snape > can't risk admitting to understand Harry in front of Umbridge, > but also that Malfoy and the other Slytherins mustn't be able to > tell their death-eating daddies that it was Snape who alerted the > Order to what was happening in the the DoM. -Karen L. here: Has anyone considered that LV was in possession of Prof. Q. when Snape tried to save Harry during the Quidditch match? How would Snape explain that to LV? With the theory that Snape is equally mean to both Harry and Neville because of what is known by LV of the prophecy, Snape would have a difficult time explaining his attempted counter curse to save Harry, especially since LV was there. IMO Snape is especially mean to Harry & Neville simply because Snape knew both sets of parents and knows what the children should be capable of, and expects them to perform much better than they are. His way of pushing them is mean. Plus he may just not like them, which makes him particulary mean to those children. But he also feels obliged to help when needed, even those children he doesn't like, which would explain his counter curse. I don't think Snape's attitude has anything to do with the prophecy. It's not an act, it's who he is. From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 14:32:02 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:32:02 -0000 Subject: speculations on the Boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112051 Hi, I was reading HP(OotP) for the fifth time, when this question came up in my mind. In PoA, Professor Lupin teaches his students that nobody knows what a Boggart looks like in it's true form? When, in the OotP Headquarters, Mrs. Weasley asks Mad-Eye Moody to look through the ceiling and confirm the presence of a Boggart in the drawer upstairs and Moody looks up, what exactly is it that he sees? Does he see what he fears most or does he see what a Boggart looks by itself? After all, he can see through walls, invisibility cloaks, etc. Also, if somebody is scared of seeing their own fear to such an extent as to fear it more than the (what they) fear itself, would they see the Boggart in it's true form? Neha S. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 14:32:09 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:32:09 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! (Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112052 ~theredshoes86: > Why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? Karen L replies: I don't think Draco does want to be friends with Harry? He did want to get aquainted with him at first, but Harry put a stop to that real quick. Harry dissed Draco and now Draco wants to make Harry's life as miserable as he can. There is probably a little jealously on Draco's part as well--look at what Harry's accommplished, on his own without family help! Little Mr. Malfoy, who thinks the world revolves around him, has had a rude awakening! From chinaskinotes at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 15:14:18 2004 From: chinaskinotes at sbcglobal.net (chinaskisnotes) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:14:18 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112053 > Jekatiska wrote: > > "Sorry if this has been discussed before, but one thing that hs > > been bothering me is why does Snape bully Neville? AF: > ALRIGHT....It is my belief that Snape was the DE in the Hog's Head > Inn the day that Trelawney made her prediction to DD. Since the > prophecy wasn't heard in its entirety, Snape would only know that > it was about a wizard child born towards the end of July.... I have been lurking here for quite some time and I feel compelled to post... >From the sporadic posts that I read, I've noticed a general consensus that Snape was the one who overheard the prophecy in the Hog's Head, but, since first reading of OOTP, I assumed it was Mundungus who was the eavesdropper, and I don't think I've ever seen him mentioned as a candidate. Sirius told the trio that Dung was banned twenty years before, that's why he was disguised when the trio was at the Hog's Head. This is probably not the first time in twenty years that Dung has disguised himself and lurked. DD says the eavesdropper was "detected and... thrown from the building" (Am. version OotP, 843)- I assumed he was thrown out because he wasn't supposed to be there, not because he was eavesdropping. We also know that DD helped Dung out of a tight spot and Dung is loyal to him. Dung's questionable activities could have tangled him up with LV and the DE's and he could have used the prophecy information to appease them, and DD, knowing him to be a prophecy witness could have intervened and protected him. We've seen other instances of DD intervening and protecting people and receiving loyality in return. DD does not say the eavesdropper was a DE, nor does he indicate that he expected people to spy on him that night. Just a thought... I shall now put on my own disguise and continue to eavesdrop.... chinaski From mcdee1980 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 16:25:11 2004 From: mcdee1980 at yahoo.com (mcdee1980) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:25:11 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112054 > > mcmaxslb: > > > Voldemort was lying to mess with Harry's head. He had no > > > intention of letting Lily live. > > > SSSusan: > > I'm inclined to think it *wasn't* Voldy just being cruel & > > messing w/ Harry's mind, but that there really was a reason that > > Voldythingy would have been willing to spare Lily. > > cybiloliver: > I don't think LV would have let her live just on the fact that she > was a mud-blood. (I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile, but I've been busy getting ready for school to start again, now it has and I have even less time) Ahhh. I can't believe I didn't see this before. I'm sorry if this is a repeated idea, but it seems to me that LV has a very good reason indeed for keeping Lily alive. The prophesy makes both Lily and James very special. He probably would have liked to keep both of them alive, but James was able to fight and is lost. Lily and James are the parents of a child who has the capability to kill LV. That fact alone makes them important and probably of interest to LV. They have proven themselves three times in facing LV. If you were LV wouldn't you want to know what was so special about those two people before you killed them? Moreover wouldn't you want them fighting for your side. We know that LV tricked, cursed, and generally used devious methods for recruiting methods. Why not recruit two of the most powerful people on the other side? Additionally, and a seperate track on this theory, we've seen the skills of the various people who have been recruited: politicians, potion masters, spys, duelists. There is no mention of someone particularly skilled at charms. Perhaps LV needed her or someone of her skill level to complete his quest for immortality. Lady McBeth From akhillin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 16:28:16 2004 From: akhillin at yahoo.com (Anita Hillin) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: LV's survival [HPforGrownups] (quote taken from GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904162816.61445.qmail@web41805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112055 arrowsmithbt wrote, using the quote on another topic: Why didn't Lily run, why didn't Lily fight? All sorts of ideas here. There's the "ancient magic" protective spell which won't work *unless* Lily dies, of course. [snip] No, it could be that she's forcing Voldy's hand. As a final act of defiance she's tricking Voldy into triggering the protective spell. Harry will now be safe. James died because he fought. Lily could have done the same but didn't. It just might be that fighting is not enough; a totally unambiguous sacrifice is needed to trigger the spell - unarmed, unresisting, voluntary. [more snips, then Kneasy goes on to quote canon from OOTP]: "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows, which he despises,* [akh emphasis]and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." akh: This triggered the synapses, connecting JKR's comment at the Edinburgh appearance, where she said we should be asking why Voldemort didn't die at GH. Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. Because of his experience in the orphanage and his more negative nature coupled with what must be an enormous ego (I believe in nature+nurture+choices, but we'll save that for another time), he doesn't see his mother's sacrifice as noble. I've just tossed this off, so arguments/disagreements are welcome for me to solidify this idea further. akh, who apologizes if this is not new; just came back from a funeral of a friend who died too young ;-( --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcdee1980 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 16:30:20 2004 From: mcdee1980 at yahoo.com (mcdee1980) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:30:20 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! (Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > ~theredshoes86: > > Why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? > > > Karen L replies: > I don't think Draco does want to be friends with Harry? He did > want to get aquainted with him at first, but Harry put a stop to that > real quick. Harry dissed Draco and now Draco wants to make Harry's > life as miserable as he can. There is probably a little jealously on > Draco's part as well--look at what Harry's accommplished, on his own > without family help! Little Mr. Malfoy, who thinks the world revolves > around him, has had a rude awakening! I think the motivation for making friends with Harry was probably completely motivated by his father's instructions. First, in the world of politics it is the acceptable thing to do. Lucius, however would have had a completely different second agenda. The ability to deliver to LV the boy he has sought to destroy on a silver platter would be a lot easier if hanging out at Malfoy Manor was something the Boy Who Lived did on a regular basis! Imagine the rise in stature among the DEs that would have brought good old Lucius. Lady McBeth From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 17:30:09 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:30:09 -0000 Subject: LV's survival In-Reply-To: <20040904162816.61445.qmail@web41805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Anita Hillin wrote: > [snip] > James died because he fought. Lily could have done the same but didn't. It just might be that fighting is not enough; a totally unambiguous sacrifice is needed to trigger the spell - unarmed, unresisting, voluntary. > > [more snips, then Kneasy goes on to quote canon from OOTP]: > > > "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows, which he despises,* [akh emphasis]and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." > > > akh: This triggered the synapses, connecting JKR's comment at the Edinburgh appearance, where she said we should be asking why Voldemort didn't die at GH. Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. Because of his experience in the orphanage and his more negative nature coupled with what must be an enormous ego (I believe in nature+nurture+choices, but we'll save that for another time), he doesn't see his mother's sacrifice as noble. dcgmck: Wow! So you're suggesting that TR's mother laid a similar protective charm on her young son's life before she died? But doesn't that mean that someone must have intentionally taken her life as well? At least, that's how C.S. Lewis sets it up in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and what DD seems to be saying to HP. Yet while LV blames his father for abandoning him before he was even born, there is no suggestion that any attempts were made to kill his mother. I note that you say " a version" of the same ancient magic, but it does seem that sacrifice is an integral ingredient. Please explain further. From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 17:40:59 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:40:59 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! (Draco and Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112058 > > ~theredshoes86: [snip] > I think the motivation for making friends with Harry was probably > completely motivated by his father's instructions. First, in the > world of politics it is the acceptable thing to do. Lucius, however would have had a completely different second agenda. The ability to deliver to LV the boy he has sought to destroy on a silver platter would be a lot easier if hanging out at Malfoy Manor was something the Boy Who Lived did on a regular basis! Imagine the rise in stature among the DEs that would have brought good old Lucius. > > Lady McBeth dcgmck: Hm... I wasn't under the impression that Draco knew Harry's identity when they were being measured for robes at Madame Malkin's. At that point he was just a young boy about to start school who may have been practicing some of the pollitical schmoozing he had seen his father doing with adults. Even on the Hogwarts Express, Draco may have simply been seeking to add the most prestigious name on the train to his personal circle. Lucius Malfoy had not made any attempts to find or assist Voldemort at this point. In fact, there is still a question of the senior Malfoy's loyalties and personal agenda even after LV returns, which the Dark Lord notes at that initial graveyard convocation. Draco is, in fact, much easier to read than his father. Draco has declared war on Harry for being instrumental in Lucius' imprisonment. Though Lucius has modeled subtlety for Draco, all the younger Malfoy has managed to acquire up till now is sneakiness to go with his open contempt. From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 18:01:47 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 11:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's survival In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904180147.4171.qmail@web90009.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Anita Hillin wrote: > [snip] > James died because he fought. Lily could have done the same but didn't. It just might be that fighting is not enough; a totally unambiguous sacrifice is needed to trigger the spell - unarmed, unresisting, voluntary. > > [more snips, then Kneasy goes on to quote canon from OOTP]: > > > "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows, which he despises,* [akh emphasis]and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." > > > akh: This triggered the synapses, connecting JKR's comment at the Edinburgh appearance, where she said we should be asking why Voldemort didn't die at GH. Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. Because of his experience in the orphanage and his more negative nature coupled with what must be an enormous ego (I believe in nature+nurture+choices, but we'll save that for another time), he doesn't see his mother's sacrifice as noble. dcgmck then said Wow! So you're suggesting that TR's mother laid a similar protective charm on her young son's life before she died? But doesn't that mean that someone must have intentionally taken her life as well? At least, that's how C.S. Lewis sets it up in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and what DD seems to be saying to HP. Yet while LV blames his father for abandoning him before he was even born, there is no suggestion that any attempts were made to kill his mother. I note that you say " a version" of the same ancient magic, but it does seem that sacrifice is an integral ingredient. Please explain further. Griffin782002 now: I posted recently a thought about L.V.'s mother that obviously didn't cared much about Slytherin's beliefs. I made now some further thoughts. First, L.V. as we now from J.K.R. never loved anyone and we all know that he blames all the time his Muggle father for his mother's death. But, if I am not wrong, he never says something nasty for his mother. Well, I don't want to say that he loves, probably he just respects her as a witch from Slytherin's bloodline. Now my thuoght. When Harry first looked in the mirror of Erised he saw his parents. I don't know if J.K.R. has said anything about this mirror reappearing in the next H.P. books, but what if in the end as H.P. and L.V. are fighting, they find out that the mirror happens to be there and accidentally L.V. has a look in it. I don't think he looked in the mirror by himself before, only Quirrell did, suddenly sees his mother playing with a young child, himself if he had grown up as a normal child and suddenly feels love. Well, he is affraid of this feeling, os I believe if this happen will certainly drive him mad. Well, what do you think? Griffin782002 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Sep 4 18:03:30 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 18:03:30 -0000 Subject: LV's survival (was GH again) In-Reply-To: <20040904162816.61445.qmail@web41805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Anita Hillin wrote: > > arrowsmithbt wrote, using the quote on another topic: > Why didn't Lily run, why didn't Lily fight? > [more snips, then Kneasy goes on to quote canon from OOTP]: > > "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows, which he despises,* [akh emphasis]and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." > > > akh: This triggered the synapses, connecting JKR's comment at the Edinburgh appearance, where she said we should be asking why Voldemort didn't die at GH. Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. Carolyn: This is an interesting idea, another version of priori incantatem in other words - whenever Harry and Voldemort meet, they cannot kill each other for some reason. In the graveyard scene it was because their wands had the same core, back at Godric's Hollow you are now suggesting that its because they are both protected by the same spell. Maybe gives further meaning to that cryptic 'But in essence divided?' remark of DD's. I have posted before now that I think Tom Riddle was a failed protege of DD's, someone destined to inherit DD's mantle as most powerful wizard in the WW, but who, for some reason took the Dark Arts path, and has unfortunately become a loose cannon that DD must destroy before Voldie destroys everything he has worked for. With his deep knowledge of ancient magic, DD probably understands why LV did not manage to kill Harry at Godric's Hollow, and it suggested to him that the second wand should be made in readiness for Harry's entry into the WW, in the hope that LV would again miscalculate (which indeed he did). [I hope no one still imagines that it is a coincidence that that wand was waiting at Ollivanders, and that Harry chose it]. Carolyn From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 4 18:04:27 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:04:27 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban References: <1094243580.10701.53314.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000c01c492a9$9ee5b8c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 112061 Hannah speculated: >Could our friend Severus Snape have anything to do with >it? I find it hard to understand why Snape didn't know that >Pettigrew was the traitor, since the other death eaters seemed to >know, judging by their lack of surprise at finding him by LV's side >at his return. Maybe he didn't know until after the betrayal >occurred (because that raises the question of why he didn't tell DD >if he did know who the traitor was), and perhaps he decided it would >be rather fitting to see his old enemy Black in Azkaban. He could >have lied to DD about having found some sort of damning evidence >that Black was indeed the traitor. I'm sure he allowed himself a wry smile at seeing Sirius hauled off to prison. But only a private one. Maybe Dumbledore just didn't ask the right question. If Snape just told him that the Potters' Secret Keeper was the traitor, then (he might well think) it's Dumbledore's fault for not confirming that they're both talking about the same bloke. And who was going to find out? James and Lily were both dead, Peter was (so it was thought) equally safely dead (serves him right, thinks Snape, miserable little rat), and Sirius could be safely assumed to be on the road to insanity and death at the hands of the Dementors. Three of his worst enemies cleared away at a stroke. Make that a smirk rather than a wry smile. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From tim at marvinhold.com Sat Sep 4 19:28:47 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:28:47 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112062 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > - MJ wrote: > > I think that Lily has Slytherin blood in her...somewhere....and > Harry is a > > descendent of both GG and SS (GG through the Potters) > > This blood history, being a descendent of both GG and SS, could > explain > > what makes Harry as special as he is, why his magic is so strong. > > > Angie replies: > > Interesting theory. It would explain why the Sorting Hat considered > putting Harry in Slytherin. It's logical to assume that the blood > lines could have been mixed as you suggest.> Tim now: No. JKR has said in both the books and elsewhere (her website I thought but I can't find it so it may have been a chat) that Harry and LV are NOT related. In the books it is clearly stated that LV is Salazar Slytherin's LAST desendant. Therefore Harry is not a desendant of Slytherin. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Sep 4 20:00:33 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:00:33 -0000 Subject: LV's survival [HPforGrownups] (quote taken from GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily)) In-Reply-To: <20040904162816.61445.qmail@web41805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Anita Hillin wrote: > > "And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows, which he despises,* [akh emphasis]and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." > > > akh: This triggered the synapses, connecting JKR's comment at the Edinburgh appearance, where she said we should be asking why Voldemort didn't die at GH. Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. Because of his experience in the orphanage and his more negative nature coupled with what must be an enormous ego (I believe in nature+nurture+choices, but we'll save that for another time), he doesn't see his mother's sacrifice as noble. > Small snag - "which he knows, which he despises and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost." Sounds as if his underestimation has led him to have problems before with this sort of magic. But when? He hated his father, but he talks of his mother somewhat differently. So why would he 'despise' the magic that presumably saved him if your idea is correct? What was it that he underestimated and what was the cost he had to pay? IIRC his mother died almost as soon as he was born, he'd know nothing of what happened and being brought up in an orphanage as a Muggle wouldn't appreciate the significance of whatever she did anyway. I'm a bit dubious about this one. I suspect that DD is referring to events as yet unknown. Kneasy From akhillin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 20:06:54 2004 From: akhillin at yahoo.com (Anita Hillin) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:06:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's survival In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904200654.72147.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112064 dcgmck wrote: akh: Perhaps DD is saying LV knows about this specific magic; in other words, his mother deliberately did not save her own life, thereby saving her son's. LV may have a version of the same "ancient magic," and his mother's sacrifice is what has kept him alive. dcgmck: Wow! So you're suggesting that TR's mother laid a similar protective charm on her young son's life before she died? But doesn't that mean that someone must have intentionally taken her life as well? [snip] I note that you say " a version" of the same ancient magic, but it does seem that sacrifice is an integral ingredient. Please explain further. akh in response: My theory is that she would choose to die, rather than return to her family and the wizarding world. This choice to die could trigger the ancient magic, a related but somewhat different spell; for this one, it's not essential that she suffer a violent death, only an avoidable one. We know the wizarding world has much more sophisticated means of healing, so staying in a muggle hospital would verge on suicidal. Then again, suicide might be a part of this; many cultures accept either altruistic suicide, or suicide that preserves one's family's name. I was thinking that Mrs. Riddle, being a descendant of Slytherin, would know better than to take her half-blood child back to her family. They would not be supportive; in fact, they might "cleanse" the family of this embarrassment. (Remember, their patriarch saw fit to breed a basilisk to eliminate the "lesser" elements at Hogwarts.) However, she might be unwilling to launch her son into the MW unprotected, so she creates a protection around her that will be activated by her preventable death. That's the plain vanilla version. The chocolate swirls are that she might then leave a note, a la Dumbledore, explaining her sacrifice and the actions Tom needs to complete the protection (recall that Lily's sacrificial charm is complete only when Harry is taken in to dwell in the house of his mother's blood). The orphanage, having no agenda as the Dursleys do, dutifully hand over the letter when Tom turns 11, and he discovers his heritage as well as the next steps to secure his protection. This might be where he diverges; he discovers much more powerful magic at Hogwarts, and he eschews the ancient magic of his mother's protection. Without the full protection, he is more vulnerable to AK than Harry, but he still carries his mother's sacrifice. I realize only a smidgen of this can be backed with canon, but I do think it's no accident that Dumbledore tells Harry that LV knows ancient magic. akh, who's very pleased with herself that she found a place to use "eschew" --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Sep 4 20:13:46 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:13:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112065 Magda Grantwich: > > > The worst in Snape is his inability to understand people. He > > consistently assumes the worst of others Nora: > Let me say first of all that I think the analysis here is really > perceptive, and I like it quite a bit. This is, perhaps, something > where JKR will hit us with something more subtle than the basic idea > that you don't want someone who was deeply involved *in* the Dark > Arts teaching about them, because the pull to become re-involved in > them is too strong. Magda Grantwich: > > > > Should he become DADA professor, he would view his task as training > > a miniature army of aurors, without regard for their youth, their > > innocence or their human tendency to make mistakes. Nora: > It also seems to me that this is akin to one of the tendencies of > what we've seen so far as the Dark Arts--they are arts of domination > and control over other people. I've had problems snipping here. I think that all of this is spot on character analysis. However, it doesn't really (for me anyway) answer the question I was trying to ask. Which is why I've left in too much but not enough. ;-) If the worst of Snape is his inability to empathise with or understand others, a tendency to assume the worst of others, why could JKR not say so? What could that possibly give away about the next two books? Even if it the fact that Dumbledore thought it would give him too much opportunity to dominate or control, I don't really see that that isn't something that we couldn't have worked out relatively easily. What JKR's statement suggest to me is that we are going to find out something about Snape which is going to be of great significance. Whether that is simply something about Snape himself of whether it is something about Snape's part in the developing action is the question and I suppose it must be the latter. I'll throw another of his personality traits into the mix: a tendency to go it alone, which combined with a certain secrecy and assumption that he knows best, better even than Dumbledore on occasion, could lead him to be a bit of a loose cannon. Would his specialising in DADA encourage this? Or are we going to see the Darker side of Snape's personality trying to assert itself in any case, DADA or no? Are we going to see him being drawn back towards the Dark Arts? Has he ever truly left them behind? I think not, although I don't believe he still practises. OK, maybe he still shoots flies for fun. Did Dumbledore suspect that for Snape, teaching DADA would cause him a massive conflict as he equipped his students to fight against his own preferred form of magic? Perhaps we *will* see him teach DADA and JKR is intending to show us the consequences; that would certainly be a reason for not telling us what they were. I hope it's more complicated than his using an Unforgivable on Harry (or Neville) though. Of course that reminds me that we *have* seen Snape teach DADA and that it did bring out if not the worst in him, then something pretty close: he used it as a way to try and expose Lupin. And in the matter of Lupin, he was both arrogantly disregardful of Dumbledore's opinion and acting on his own, arguably as a loose cannon. It's a pattern of behaviour which I fear we'll see again. ~Eloise From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 21:25:41 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904212541.95462.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112066 --- eloise_herisson wrote: > If the worst of Snape is his inability to empathise with or > understand others, a tendency to assume the worst of others, why > could JKR not say so? What could that possibly give away about the > next two books? Magda replies: These qusetions are, at the moment, unanswerable because we don't know what's ahead in the series in any detail. But I don't think not having the answers prevents us from speculating. One of the things I think will happen in the next two books is that Harry will have the choice of whether he wants to walk away from what seems to be his destiny (ie, kill or be killed by Voldemort). If the power of love is going to be Harry's biggest asset, then he's got to voluntarily assume his role as WW-saviour, otherwise the whole effort will be meaningless. How can love help Harry if he's coerced or forced to take up arms against Voldemort? It's our choices that show us what we are, and Harry must make this choice. And Snape won't understand it. The future of the WW (tens of thousands of innocent people) depends on Harry snapping into it and practicing heavy-duty spellcasting so he can win the Big One that's coming up. All this talk about love and choices will strike Snape as just so much wussery about emotions that can only make a wizard weak, not strong. Harry should try to conquer those emotions, not channel them. But Dumbledore - and hopefully Harry by that time - knows that the willingness to voluntary sacrifice himself for love is the greatest strength Harry can have. > Eloise: > Even if it the fact that Dumbledore thought it would > give him too much opportunity to dominate or control, I don't > really see that that isn't something that we couldn't have worked > out relatively easily. Magda replies: I don't think it's a control thing; I think it's more of a focus thing. He'd expect the children to focus to the exclusion of everything else on the great goal of defeating evil. And so there would be a lot of cranky, neurotic, paranoid kids taking DADA lessons with a handful of Barty Crouch Sr. fanatics leading the pack and getting really good marks. > Eloise: > What JKR's statement suggest to me is that we are going to find out > something about Snape which is going to be of great > significance. Magda replies: I wish that were true but frankly I doubt it. For some reason JKR finds the Trio fascinating but personally I think the MWPP generation is much more interesting. And JKR is pretty miserly at doling out information about them. Lately though I've been wondering about something: wouldn't it be a total kick if Harry has to time-turner 25 years into the past because it's actually Harry and not James who pulls Snape out of the tunnel and saves him from a werewolf? Because Snape is needed in the future for some potions work or something? > Eloise: > I'll throw another of his personality traits into the mix: a > tendency > to go it alone, which combined with a certain secrecy and > assumption > that he knows best, better even than Dumbledore on occasion, could > lead him to be a bit of a loose cannon. Would his specialising in > DADA encourage this? Magda replies: That's not a description of Snape at all but it's definitely a good description of Harry! Snape is the ultimate suck-it-up-for-the-team man; he won't go against Dumbledore even when he thinks the old guy is wrong. The closest he came was assigning a werewolf essay in POA and even then he was aiming at Hermione, knowing she'd do it and hoping she'd tell Harry who'd been private with Lupin earlier. (And I loved Ron's detention assignment in the hospital wing so that he'd see that Lupin wasn't there.) Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 4 21:33:26 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:33:26 +0100 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please / Kreacher References: Message-ID: <001b01c492c6$d5760d00$542f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112067 mhbobbin wrote: "Kreacher, though, is bound by different rules." ---------------- Yes he is. I read some of the posts suggested by Steve and I found little about Kreacher. I apologize if I'm repeating something already pointed out but I'm rereading GoF and a passage made me jump to the computer and I just *had* to say this: In GoF chap.21, Harry asks Dobby if he can speak ill of he's previous masters (I have the Portuguese version so I won't quote) and Dobby *does*, though he runs his head into the wall right after (just lack of practice, according to Harry). Winky, on the other hand, refuses. It's clear to me that house elves have a mind of their one and are perfectly capable to judge their masters. Winky is still loyal to Mr. Crouch Sr. because she *does* believe he is a good man whereas Dobby, like Kreacher, found every excuse to disobey while still in service to a master they disapprove of. IMO, Kreacher is now a liability to the order. If he is set free (or inherited) he will have many secrets to reveal, the most destructive of all being: "Severus Snape drops in from time to time to give important reports". As he went to Narcisa in OotP, the Malfoys know of he's existence and can probably guess the amount of useful information he would be willing to give them. If I was Lucius Malfoy, I'd be the first to give testimony about the death of Sirius Black to get my hands on Kreacher. I wouldn't even be surprised if DD would give testimony that Sirius *didn't* die! The real question is not what will Harry inherit - he couldn't care less - but what will Narcisa and Bellatrix inherit. The house is the least of the order's problems! Susana From mommystery at hotmail.com Sat Sep 4 21:49:24 2004 From: mommystery at hotmail.com (mommystery2003) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 21:49:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <20040904123800.34901.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > "Constant Vigilance!" > wouldn't begin to describe Snape's teaching methods of DADA. > > Magda I think Snape and Moody would make a great team teaching DADA. As much as they despise each other, their views on DADA seem to be in sync. > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From greatelderone at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 22:06:54 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:06:54 -0000 Subject: LV's survival In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dcgmck" wrote: > Wow! So you're suggesting that TR's mother laid a similar protective > charm on her young son's life before she died? But doesn't that mean > that someone must have intentionally taken her life as well? GEO: The protections doesn't seem to be a conscious move. It seems to me thats it's more of a sub-conscious move. At > least, that's how C.S. Lewis sets it up in "The Lion, the Witch, and > the Wardrobe" and what DD seems to be saying to HP. GEO: Where has Dumbledore say that? All he says is that the it was created when Voldemort killed Lily. Yet while LV > blames his father for abandoning him before he was even born, there > is no suggestion that any attempts were made to kill his mother. GEO: What exactly is the point of trying to get at a dead person? Beside ever think his attempts at trying to overcome death stem from the fact that his mother died. Seems to me like Voldie is trying to outdo his parents. He's already killed his father and overcoming death would put him one step ahead of his mother since that'd mean he'd escape the same fate as his mother. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 22:16:03 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:16:03 -0000 Subject: LV's survival [HPforGrownups] (quote taken from GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Small snag - "which he knows, which he despises and which he has > always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost." > > Sounds as if his underestimation has led him to have problems before > with this sort of magic. GEO: Not necessarily. > But when? He hated his father, but he talks of > his mother somewhat differently. So why would he 'despise' the magic > that presumably saved him if your idea is correct? GEO: Becuase it seemed to have cost his mother her own life which in the end caused him to end up in a orphanage for the first decade of his life and also at the bottom of the social ladder in the Slytherin house during his Hogwarts years. Also the magic is based on love and remember how Voldemort regards that emotion. > What was it that he underestimated and what was the cost he had to > pay? GEO: Lily's love for Harry and him losing his body? Perhaps also his mother's love for him, which allowed him to survive without a body for ten years. > IIRC his mother died almost as soon as he was born, he'd know > nothing of what happened and being brought up in an orphanage > as a Muggle wouldn't appreciate the significance of whatever she did > anyway. GEO: Yes, but he'd no doubt have learned about the protection as he began studying magic more in depth after Hogwarts. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 4 22:16:12 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:16:12 -0400 Subject: THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville Message-ID: <001201c492cc$ca27b4c0$42c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112071 chinaski "I have been lurking here for quite some time and I feel compelled to post... >From the sporadic posts that I read, I've noticed a general consensus that Snape was the one who overheard the prophecy in the Hog's Head, but, since first reading of OOTP, I assumed it was Mundungus who was the eavesdropper, and I don't think I've ever seen him mentioned as a candidate." DuffyPoo: I don't think it was either one of them, Snape or Mundungus. GoF indicates Mundungus is a part of "the old crowd," although he is not named by Mad-Eye as being in the picture of the original Order, but neither was Arabella Figg who is also listed as part of "the old crowd." I think it was a DE or a Dark Wizard, at the least, who was the eavesdropper. A DE-wanna-be. chinaski said: "Sirius told the trio that Dung was banned twenty years before, that's why he was disguised when the trio was at the Hog's Head. This is probably not the first time in twenty years that Dung has disguised himself and lurked. DD says the eavesdropper was "detected and... thrown from the building" (Am. version OotP, 843)- I assumed he was thrown out because he wasn't supposed to be there, not because he was eavesdropping." DuffyPoo: I assumed that the eavesdropper - not Mundungus, but whoever it was - was thrown out for eavesdropping. I guess I just take it at face value when DD says, "My -- our -- one stroke of good fortune was that the *eavesdropper* was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." DD and Trelawney were, after all, in a "room above the bar at the Hog's Head inn" not in the bar directly. The person was intentionally listening at the door. Twenty years is too long for the ban to be connected to the eavesdropping incident, as you said, but why would Mundungus have need to go back there? Crook business is everywhere, not just in Hogsmeade. There are lots of other pubs around, wizard and otherwise, I'd imagine, he has no need to be in this one again until they need him to follow/protect HP. Even if he had been there on crook business, disguised to hide from the barman, why would he be following DD upstairs, when his crook business would most likely be going on downstairs in the pub? chinaski said: "We also know that DD helped Dung out of a tight spot and Dung is loyal to him. Dung's questionable activities could have tangled him up with LV and the DE's and he could have used the prophecy information to appease them, and DD, knowing him to be a prophecy witness could have intervened and protected him. We've seen other instances of DD intervening and protecting people and receiving loyality in return. DD does not say the eavesdropper was a DE, nor does he indicate that he expected people to spy on him that night." DuffyPoo: If Mundungus is loyal to DD why would he be eavesdropping on a private conversation? While his 'questionable activities' (what a nice way to put that!) may have indeed tangled him up with LV, I can't see him passing on this kind of info if he had heard it...not if he is loyal to DD. If the 'tight spot' situation came after the info was passed to LV, would DD be likely to help out the person who eavesdropped and ran to LV? He does believe in second chances, but would he in this instance, if it was Mundungus? I've always believed Mundungus was on the side of good, while I believe the eavesdropper was on LV's side, a DE or other Dark Wizard (Regulus Black, for instance?). While DD never specifically says the eavesdropper was a DE, he does say "Consequently, he could not warn *his master* that to attack you would be ...." I think Mundungus was banned from the Hog's Head after he informed the authorities about Aberforth "performing inappropriate charms on a goat." The tight spot DD saved him from was Aberforth performing inappropriate charms on Mundungus! ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 4 22:28:14 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:28:14 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112072 mhbobbin: >>Why tell the Ministry at all about Sirius--that he was there or that he fell through the veil? Especiallly if the Order members would have to pretend Sirius was fighting on the DE side? Why not just omit that information? Captive Death Eaters might tell the Ministry about seeing Sirius but only Bellatrix was a witness--I think--to his death. I base that on only Sirius and Bellatrix were fighting at the time of Sirius' death. DD is the one that is going to brief the Ministry. Does DD simply omit the parts about Sirius?<< HunterGreen: I think so. Why get into it? He'd only have to explain what he was doing with an escaped convict and get into the whole 'trying to prove Sirius' innocence' thing again, which doesn't even matter any more. As for the Death Eaters, what would they get out of telling? "Oh Sirius Black was with them!" "He was fighting with them?" "Yes!" "The escaped suspected death eater, fighting *against* death eaters?" Like you said, we only know for sure that Bellatrix knows he died, and she wasn't captured. Lucius might have something to gain by proving Sirius' *death* (because Draco, as the oldest male, would be the 'official' heir), but if he doesn't know that Sirius died, he has nothing to gain by mentioning him (in fact, if he thinks Sirius is still alive, its better to NOT mention that he was on the side of good, because that might clear his name). As far as the issue of inheritence goes, it might be 'unofficial' only, with the order deciding what to do with his things. If Sirius left a will, I think DD would have to honor it. I wonder, though, is there a way to detect if someone died? In the case of the MoM looking for Sirius, I wonder if there's some signal they get if he dies. That's the only way I can see the issue of inheritence becoming public. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 4 22:35:51 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:35:51 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112073 Hannah: >>why does Lily stand there and plead? She's a talented witch, as is mentioned several times in the books (can't think of specific example at the moment). Why doesn't she try using her wand? Even if she had little hope of it working, surely an 'expelliarmus' or 'stupefy' at least would have been worth a try. Instead she pleads with LV, whose reputation as someone who is merciful or swayed by the pleas of others isn't well known. What makes her think that pleading could possibly work, or even be a better option than magic?<< HunterGreen: She pleads instead of using her wand because she *wanted* him to kill her. Even if she managed an expelliarmus or something else, he probably would have still won, or would have escaped and come back another time. I doubt she would have got the chance anyway. IMO, the only reason he hesitating in killing her is the fact that she was standing there without a wand posing no threat. I think the ancient magic thing was something she knew about and something she had planned as a last-resort. (personally, I think this is one of Voldemort's thickest moments, if your enemy is begging you to kill them, maybe you *shouldn't*). I think the reason he didn't kill her right off is that perhaps AK takes a lot of energy and since she was merely in his way, he was more interested in Harry than in her. Whether or not he would have killed her on the way out is a mystery. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 4 23:46:25 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 00:46:25 +0100 Subject: speculations on the Boggart References: Message-ID: <009c01c492d9$891b9020$542f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112074 Neha S. wrote: "In PoA, Professor Lupin teaches his students that nobody knows what a Boggart looks like in it's true form? When, in the OotP Headquarters, Mrs. Weasley asks Mad-Eye Moody to look through the ceiling and confirm the presence of a Boggart in the drawer upstairs and Moody looks up, what exactly is it that he sees? Does he see what he fears most or does he see what a Boggart looks by itself?" ------------------- Yes, I noticed it too. It made me assume Moody's eye was very rare. When Harry looks at a Boggart but someone else is standing closer to it he doesn' t see a Dementor but what the other person most fears. That means the Boggart only transforms when someone is close. Moody must have seen the Boggart in its true form and not for the first time either, because he recognized it. I felt outraged that no one in the room was curious enough to ask him what it looked like. ----------------- Neha S. wrote: "Also, if somebody is scared of seeing their own fear to such an extent as to fear it more than the (what they) fear itself, would they see the Boggart in it's true form?" ----------------- I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're asking what if a person fears fear it self more than anything, Lupin answered that in PoA. He said the fact Harry's Boggart turns into a Dementor suggests what Harry fears most is fear it self. It seems to me Harry fears to loose the ability of happiness. Dementors don't cause fear but the lost of hope. Someone who fears fear doesn't see something that impersonates fear - a Boggart - but something that causes fear to take over their emotions. But if you're asking what if a person fears most finding out what his fears are... Susana (Probably as confused as the Boggart would be) From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sat Sep 4 16:19:33 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:19:33 -0000 Subject: Pre-Hogwarts education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112075 cybiloliver: > JKR has already answered that question... some students go > to muggle schools and the rest are home schooled till the age of > 11: http://www.worldbookdayfestival.com/2004/jkrowling_chat.html > > "kai: Where do wizarding children go to school before Hogwarts? > JK Rowling replies -> They can either go to a Muggle primary > school or they are educated at home. The Weasleys were taught by > Mrs. Weasley." That presumably accounts for the younger generation's familiarity and comfort with muggle clothing, while the older folks (like Arthur Weasley) are no-hopers. There's no better conformity teacher than a school yard. I wonder if there's any link between familiarity with/use of muggle clothing (and presumably early education and presumably social contact), and social status. Or anything else. Thoughts? "frugalarugala" From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 16:33:40 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:33:40 -0000 Subject: GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112076 Kneasy wrote: > "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -" > The sounds of someone stumbling from a room - a door bursting > open - a cackle of high-pitched laughter - (PoA chap. 12) > > For whatever reason (lack of time, choice, confusion) she doesn't. > We've been told by JKR that Harry was in his cot, and again, for > whatever reason (fear, not having her wand to hand) Lily does not > try to fight Voldy. Instead we have:- > > "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" > "Stand aside, you silly girl...stand aside now..." > "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead -" > . > . > "Not Harry! Please...have mercy....have mercy..." > (PoA chap. 9) Karen L, responds: Consider that Harry's cot is upstairs, Lily goes upstairs to get Harry and is trapped without her wand. (I imagine that most wizards don't carry their wands in their own homes where they probably feel safe.) Many homes in England are similar to the one which the Durleys live in. I imagine that Lily and James would have one similar, but smaller. I don't believe that Lily did sacrifice herself thinking that that would spare Harry in the future, she sacrificed herself because she didn't want to see her infant son murdered. She had no idea that Harry would survive the Curse LV was about to use. From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 4 17:37:40 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPT. DISCUSSION: Chapter 25, The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904173740.50744.qmail@web80802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112077 > theotokos said: > Okay, I understand (sort of) your position. However, as has been > pointed out, these are KIDS (not shouting, just emphasizing). To > compound that, these KIDS do not have a great track record for > being listened to. Who would believe them? > Potioncat: > I don't really have any objection to what Hermione has done, myself. > It's just that it is a Slytherin thing to do and we react to it a > certain way because it is Hermione and not Pansy Parkinson. DD is > very Slytherin in his approach to things. Sometimes I think the > overall opinion is: If the good guy does it, it's OK. But if the > bad guy does it, it isn't OK. > > I keep changing my own reaction as I go between "within this story" > and "in the real world." theotokos: I, also, go back and forth. Initially when you said we wouldn't think of Hermione's actions quite the same if Pansy Parkinson committed them, I thought well of course not because Pansy would never put herself out there to help anyone. . .but perhaps she would. I can see her doing such to help Malfoy, but only because she fancies him. Phineas Nigellus tells Harry [paraphrasing] 'we Slytherins are clever, yes, but not stupid. We would never endanger ourselves for some noble purpose. We are self-preserving.' He told Harry this as Harry was readying to leave GP after learning from the extendable ears at Arthur's hospital door, that Voldemort could be possessing him. When we first meet Hermione, she is obsessed with following rules. She has since gotten better at going against this tendency to break rules when *she feels* it is necessary. This could be look upon as courageous. Courage is not "not being afraid" but going forward with what must be done in spite of fear. Courage is not concerned with the individual and their comforts, but concerns itself with what needs to be done. It may be weak philosophy, but sometimes the end does justify the means. It is like Sirius says "The world is not divided between good people and death eaters." Hermione does what needs to be done, not for selfish ends, but for the good of the whole WW. This evil wizard comes back from the dead, kills a fellow student, takes blood from Harry, has tried to kill Harry (her best friend), wants to kill people like her, and no one will believe them! The people in authority, whom Hermione has always trusted, are refusing to believe. It is her basic nature to trust superiors. She always assumes Snape is okay, if a bit unpleasant, because he is a teacher. She says, "But He is a teacher" over and over again throughout the books. Now here is Fudge, the Minister, spreading lies. She once received her news from the Daily Prophet. Now she cannot trust that because horrible people like Rita spread fowl lies which most of the WW believe. How disheartening. In a normal situation I would agree with you. Making deals with the "bad guy" is not choice--although, come to think of it, the authorities do it all the time. They make judgment calls and decide whose wrong is worse and when to make concessions. Basically, I think Hermione has a good understanding of the working of society even if she doesn't understand individual groups much (SPEW). Really, she is fighting the same the arguments about House Elves and their happiness as was leveled for slaves in the US. It just so happens, the arguments appear to be correct in this case. But I digress-- another topic. I think Hermione knew she couldn't go to the authorities and when the idea to put Harry's story out there came, she called on all her resources. theotokos From n.crins at planet.nl Sat Sep 4 18:39:56 2004 From: n.crins at planet.nl (niekycrins) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 18:39:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112078 This may be a very stupid question, but if Harry is still protected by his mother's sacrifice then why does LV try to AK him again in GOF and OOTP? What if it bounces back again? Nieky From steve51445 at adelphia.net Sat Sep 4 19:28:36 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:28:36 -0400 Subject: Lovegoods in Ottery St Catchpole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040904192852.XVDD24693.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 112079 weirdsister06: >In reading GoF again, I noticed something I hadn't caught before. >When the Weasley party meets the Diggorys on the hill to take the >portkey to the QWC and Mr. Weasley and Mr. Diggory talk about >whether any other witches/wizards will be joining them, one of them >mentions that the Lovegoods live in the area. Could this be Luna >and her father? Steve now: That was the impression that I got. The Lovegoods had been at the campground for a week already and the other family from the area, the Fawcetts, couldn't get tickets. I don't know for sure if those Lovegoods are Luna and her father. I think now that Luna is hanging out with the group, we might hear of her visiting the burrow. Do we hear of any Fawcetts in the books? Steve From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 4 23:16:41 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 23:16:41 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112080 > Hannah: > >> why does Lily stand there and plead? Why doesn't she try > >> using her wand? HunterGreen: > She pleads instead of using her wand because she *wanted* him to > kill her. Even if she managed an expelliarmus or something else, > he probably would have still won, or would have escaped and come > back another time. I doubt she would have got the chance anyway. > IMO, the only reason he hesitating in killing her is the fact > that she was standing there without a wand posing no threat. I > think the ancient magic thing was something she knew about and > something she had planned as a last-resort. Karen L., I'm sorry, but I feel everyone is putting more into this than is necessary. Are there no parents in this group? Imagine if you will a wizard family sitting in their Living Room watching TV or whatever, and the Dark Wizard, LV smashes through your front door. The husband jumps up to defend his family, telling the wife to go get the child (Harry) and run. Now suppose that the house is a two story and the child is upstairs, asleep in his "cot". The mother/wife runs upstairs, followed by the dark wizard and gets trapped in the child's room. (she has no wand, because being in her own home she feels safe enough not to carry one.) She pleads with said Dark wizard for the life of her son, not wanting to see her child murdered in front of her, and ends up sacrificing herself. There is not enough time to really think, hmmm, if I sacrifice myself for my child, then he will be protected from this dark wizard. I firmly believe the entire episode is pure maternal instinct on Lily's part. From pcsgames at toltbbs.com Sun Sep 5 00:59:53 2004 From: pcsgames at toltbbs.com (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:59:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Lovegoods in Ottery St Catchpole In-Reply-To: <20040904192852.XVDD24693.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> References: <20040904192852.XVDD24693.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040904205942.02ab2800@mail.toltbbs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112081 >Steve asks: > >That was the impression that I got. The Lovegoods had been at the >campground for a week already and the other family from the area, the >Fawcetts, couldn't get tickets. I don't know for sure if those Lovegoods >are Luna and her father. I think now that Luna is hanging out with the >group, we might hear of her visiting the burrow. > >Do we hear of any Fawcetts in the books? > >Steve Now Phil answers: From the same book: "I did warn you," said a deep, amused voice, and everyone turned to see Professor Dumbledore coming out of the Great Hall. He surveyed Fred and George, his eyes twinkling. "I suggest you both go up to Madam Pomfrey. She is already tending to Miss Fawcett, of Ravenclaw, and Mr. Summers, of Hufflepuff, both of whom decided to age themselves up a little too. Though I must say, neither of their beards is anything like as fine as yours." There is also a quote later on about Miss Fawcett, of Ravenclaw: Squeals issued from many of the bushes, and dark shapes emerged from them. "Ten points from Ravenclaw, Fawcett!" Snape snarled as a girl ran past him. "And ten points from Hufflepuff too, Stebbins!" as a boy went rushing after her. And from book two: "Dear, dear," said Lockhart, skittering through the crowd, looking at the aftermath of the duels. "Up you go, Macmillan. ... Careful there, Miss Fawcett. ... Pinch it hard, it'll stop bleeding in a second, Phil closes his books. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 00:55:17 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:55:17 -0000 Subject: Who was Marvolo? (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol responds (about Voldemort's mother) : > She may have given him both names as a clue to > his identity--these names are who you are: the son of Tom Riddle, the > grandson of the wizard Marvolo. I'm pretty sure that the middle name > was a clue he followed up on, possibly consulting the library or his > head of house to find out about Marvolo. Could Marvolo have been (or mentored) Grindenwald perhaps? I'm unclear what, if anything, Grindenwald did with/for Voldemort, but I know others have had theories of a link since CoS was opened by Riddle around the time DD defeated Grindenwald ('50 years ago'). From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Sep 5 01:32:17 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 01:32:17 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slgazit" wrote: > She is more mature and level headed but I disagree that she is the > social/moral conscience in the trio - that one is Harry. Hermione is > my favorite person in the HP saga, but she is not too good at making > moral judgements and lacks understanding of people's emotional > motivations. She is good at problem solving when that could be reduced > into a logical puzzle. Therefore she could figure out things like the > basilisk, animmagus Rita, how to handle Harry in book 5, etc. but > totally fails in things where the logical explanation just does not > cut it (house elves, relationship with Ron, etc.). > I think Hermione downfall will eventually come from her deficiency in > the spiritual/emotional sense compared to her intellectual brilliance. > I am sure she'll use it as a learning opportunity though. Marianne: Yes, exactly my feelings. Hermione, as smart as she is, is still a kid. She doesn't have the life experience of someone older. She's still relatively new to the wizard world. Her logical intelligence and her diligent studiousness are great qualities and have served her well. But, these can also inhibit her understanding of other people's emotions. One small example from OoP: When it's time for the kids to go back to school, Sirius goes into one of his moody spells. Hermione immediately interprets that as selfishness on Sirius' part because he won't have Harry around. We have no evidence that this is indeed the case; we only have Hermione's pronouncement. She then softens that assessment a bit by saying that she thinks Sirius is very lonely. And then she immediately goes emotionally tone-deaf by assuming that, since other Order people will be around 12 Grimmauld Place, that everything should be fine and dandy. It doesn't occur to her that a lonely person would perhaps welcome the presence of some people more than others. I think she's right in sensing Sirius' loneliness, but I think she is jarringly wrong to assume that having any old, warm body around the house will alliviate that loneliness. On the one hand, it does make logical sense - a person cut off from society for 12 years will be helped by any sort of contact with others. But, on the other hand, that person might be better off if the people around him are people he cares about and trusts, and not just anyone who happens to need a place to sleep when in London. Now, I don't want it to sound like I'm beating up on Hermione. I do think she is a good person, and I think that she rarely, if ever, does something morally questionable to further her own ends. She acts for what she perceives to be the greater good. Maybe what she lacks is a certain sense of nuance, that things are not necessarily right or left, black or white, up or down, but, that there are gradations in people's actions and emotions that are not always logical or predictable. This is the sort of understanding that comes with growing up, but, unfortunately Harry and Co. now face perilous times and will not have the luxury of growing up slowly in a relatively safe environment. Marianne From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 5 01:37:53 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 01:37:53 -0000 Subject: Slytherin behavior across houses wasRe: CHAPT. 25 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112084 > > Previously Potioncat wrote: > > I don't really have any objection to what Hermione has done, > > myself. It's just that it is a Slytherin thing to do and we react to it a certain way because it is Hermione and not Pansy > Parkinson. DD is very Slytherin in his approach to things. Sometimes I think the overall opinion is: If the good guy does it, it's OK. But if the bad guy does it, it isn't OK. snip Zoe C: snip > P.S. Maybe I've missed this somewhere in all the posts, but in what way is DD 'Slytherin' in his approach to things? Potioncat: I'm not sure what JKR thinks about Hermione's solution to Rita. But to me it was a cunning, means to an end approach to a real problem. Therefore: Slytherin. So far in the books, the Slytherins have been the bad guys. But are they always the bad guys? And are Slytherin traits sometimes good things? DD also seems to have a "means to an end" approach to things. Suggesting the TT to save Buckbeak and Serius comes to mind. Leaving Harry with the Dursleys... I know there are others...soon, very soon I'll be able to check canon again. I'm wondering if JKR is slowly setting up some parallels for us in order to turn things upside down? From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Sep 5 02:05:42 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:05:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hannahmarder" < > > Hannah: > > "Perhaps DD felt that it was necessary to have Sirius out of the > > way, so that he had control over Harry's fate himself. It was > > best for Harry to go to the Dursleys, however nasty," > > > > DuffyPoo: > > There's a world of difference between growing up at the Dursleys' > > and spending twelve years in Azkaban. IMO. If DD had left an > > innocent man - any innocent man, not just Sirius - in Azkaban for > > twelve years it would make him quite as evil as LV, in my mind. > > > Hannah again: > But maybe in some senses he is. Marianne: Well, maybe so. He did imply that he somehow forced Kreacher to give him the correct story of why everyone at 12 Grimmauld Place, including Sirius, had dashed off to the DoM. Somehow I doubt his methods included bribing Kreacher with piles of chocolate bars. Hannah: It's a bit like the discussion > recently on Hermione's behaviour towards Rita and Luna in OotP > chapter 25. It's been pointed out that if Lucius Malfoy used > blackmail like this everyone would be horrified, but it's OK if > Hermione does it because her ends justify her means. I don't think > Dumbledore is above using pretty unpleasant tactics if he feels the > end is worth it. Perhaps he considered protecting Harry so > important he felt that imprisoning Sirius was justified? I'm playing > devil's advocate a bit because I don't really think DD is that > ruthless. But if you are to accept the idea that he allowed Sirius > to stay in Azkaban while knowing he was innocent, I think that > protecting Harry is one of the few reasons he would do it. Marianne: I have a real problem with this. It implies that this is the only alternative. As part of protecting Harry, DD's only option is to let Sirius, whom he knows to be innocent, to rot in Azkaban. Surely Harry could still have the protection of the Dursleys without Sirius being left in jail. Some sort of shared custody, or whatever. I know, I know, it's now a common interpretation of Sirius' character to paint him as so totally reckless, arrogant, irresponsible that really, all Dumbledore could do would be to leave him in prison. If he got Sirius out, the man would be such a total loose canon that he'd immediately destroy all of Dumbledore's carefully laid plans. Sorry, it doesn't wash for me. If DD can be so trusting of others, even former DEs, to give them second chances, then surely he'd show at least a modicum of trust in one of his own soldiers to explain why it was imperative for Harry to spend a certain amount of time, even the majority of his time, living with his blood relatives. We know that DD can be somewhat manipulative - don't you think that Sirius' feelings of guilt over the deaths of James and Lily would have given Dumbledore a gigantic keyboard of buttons to push to make sure Sirius accepted his decision that Harry had to live with the Dursleys? Maybe I still have a naive, altruistic world-view, but I think there are things that are simply wrong. Leaving a person in prison when you can prove their innocence is wrong. If presenting the evidence for their innocence and release causes complications in your plans, tough darts. Find another way. Marianne From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 02:17:37 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:17:37 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem ( was Why Voldemort would Spare Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > Hannah: > >>why does Lily stand there and plead? She's a talented witch to which > HunterGreen: > She pleads instead of using her wand because she *wanted* him to kill > her. > I think the reason he didn't kill her right off is that perhaps AK > takes a lot of energy and since she was merely in his way, he was > more interested in Harry than in her. MacFoTUK now writes: Not sure on that last part - maybe AK *does* drain you but then he'd already AK'd James and is, after all, a 'powerful' (THE darkest) wizard. As I've said (not uniquely) before, I believe Voldemort (or his wand) killed James for some reason other than that he was simply one loving parent protecting a child - could be James had just been a thorn in his side just one too many times or that Snape wanted LV to kill him because he stood in Snape's way to Lily (LV having 'debts' to Snape, e.g. for immortality/death-defeating potion?). The real point of this post though is as follows: I asked myself this question - 'Where in canon does it say that LV killed James *and then killed Lily* (before going on to try to kill Harry)?' - we hear that he did both, but we haven't seen the killing yet in enough detail (book 6 or more likely 7 IMO) to know much about process and detail. However, LV's own wand in GoF tells us during the priori incantatem regurgitation that it (in reverse order and scuse me if recall doesn't get it all right) crucio'd Harry, Pettigrew's silver hand, cricio'd Harry again, AK'd Cedric (at Pettigrew's hands) Crucio'd Pettigrew and possibly others, AK'd the Riddle's gardener Frank Bryce, AK'd Bertha Jorkin, and then (resolving the 'mistakes' between early vs late editions) AK'd Lily and James. Where is the AK sent at Harry? - It seems distinctly MISSING!. Was it done using a different wand (somehow I doubt this) or is it the AK that killed Lily was in fact the spell which rebound from Harry thus killing Lily, evaporating Voldie into part dalek- like wrath/spirit subhuman and fusing the rest of him by a ehrwaz- shaped (sp?) scar into Harry and blew up most of GH into the bargain? If the latter then LV never intended to kill Lily and, in fact, didn't try, but she died in the magic that protected Harry, rebounded the spell, blew up Godric's Hollow and nearly even saw off LV (certainly ended his powers for 13 years - is 13 significant?). BTW we know nothing about which of these spells were actually performed by LV himself since we know Cedric died at Pettigrew's hand using LV's wand and he or others might have wielded the wand for some of the other spells (e.g. Barty Crouch Jr using Harry's for summoning the dark mark at the Quidditch world cup). Anyone got a theory? From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 02:45:44 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:45:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "niekycrins" wrote: > This may be a very stupid question, but if Harry is still protected > by his mother's sacrifice then why does LV try to AK him again in > GOF and OOTP? What if it bounces back again? > > Nieky Haven't heard from Kneasy in a while, but I'm sure he would agree that this simply shows that LV never learns and has more weaknesses than he should have as an archetypically ESE character. That is, though JKR says he's the baddest - he's actually a completely bungling baddie. He's *still* convinced that little HP is a mere upstart who fluked it first time. Despite knowing half the prophecy he still feels he can snuff (swat) this pesky little Potter (he is, after all, the darkest, mst powerful wizard ever!). Fans of Divination surely will have spotted LV's boast in GoF graveyard scene to his assembled DE's " ... 'You see, I think, how foolish it was to suppose that this boy could ever have been stronger than me' said Voldemort. 'but I want there to be no mistake in anybody's mind. Harry Potter escaped me by a lucky chance. And I am now going to prove my power by killing him, here and now, in front of you all, when there is no Dumbledore to help him, and no mother to die for him. I will give him his chance. He will be allowed to fight, and you will be left in no doubt which of us is stronger. ..." Setting oneself up to fail? hmmmmm JKR loves to show how dumb LV (ESE defined) can be and how HP (we the reader see as good) will prevail - though she may not protect him in book 7 by which time he is as expendable as any other character). It has always struck me that yes, the developments of this scene (Harry's survival despite LV's intent to make an example of him) show that in fact HP is the stronger, for he escapes, against all odds and, notice, without DD's or Lily's obvious protection (excepting that Lily is there during the priori incantatem spell and perhaps DD might be argued to be too, through the pheonix song and the wand cores involved). This scene reemphasises that LV constantly under-estimates whatever it is about Harry that makes him a formidable adversary - a theme returned to in OotP (DD saying HP has powers LV knows little of and/or underestimates - which we all take to mean love and selflessness). LV still hasn't learned this by the end of book 5 (nor I suspect the denoument in book 7). From garybec101 at comcast.net Sun Sep 5 02:55:31 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:55:31 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112088 Becki has a new revolution; Book 2 discovery; What about Harry's discovery of Filch being a squib? This would add a few things together. One could be a squib and still be considered half-blood. (You are still considered Half-blood if you come from wizard parents, could be a grandparent muggle), so could Filch possibly be the half-blood prince? Jo's mention of someone coming into their magicness later in life? Again, could it be our man Filch? Filch's squibness was mentioned in the media-that-must-not-be-named, (only in quick passing, not nearly in depth as the book.) And, it is not outragous to think Squib!Filch could have been a big side-storyline in the book that could have been put on the back burner until later. Not a really strong theory, but as much a possibity as some. Becki (inserts disclaimer here if this has been mentioned before...) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 03:00:36 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:00:36 -0000 Subject: Portraits of Hogwarts Founders Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112089 usual excuses about hope this is an original idea (and fears that it isn't, so apologies in case!): I know it was a really, really lomg time ago, but why aren't there any portraits of Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga Hufflebuff and Rowena Ravenclaw? is it just convenient for JKR that there aren't? Yes, it was a long time ago and there are no portaraits of King Arthur etc, but even so... many portaraits of ancient and venerable headmasters exist, so why not the founders? Also for the SHIPper's two males and two females among the founders - is this just year 2000+ PCness or - any SHIPs here? (I see no ships said the pirate cap'n). From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 03:12:47 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:12:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "niekycrins" wrote: > This may be a very stupid question, but if Harry is still protected > by his mother's sacrifice then why does LV try to AK him again in > GOF and OOTP? What if it bounces back again? > > Nieky Actually, I think that by GoF the protection that Lily left to Harry is null and void, because LV has Harry's, and therefore Lily's, blood in him now (after the resurrection scene). In SS Quirell!Mort couldn't touch Harry because of that protection, but during the graveyard scene in GoF LV makes it a point to touch Harry's face to prove that he can now do so without trouble. The protection that made LV's curse rebound at Godric's Hollow is no longer a factor, but the protection that keeps Harry safe at Privet Drive is still functioning, or there is no way Harry'd be back there after OotP. Meri - who really doesn't think that LV would make the same mistake twice, especially since there are so many new ones he can make... From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 03:17:34 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:17:34 -0000 Subject: Uric the Oddball Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112091 Uric the Oddball is this month's wizard of the month at www.JKRowling.com. he was mentioned in book 1 chapter 8 ('The Potions Master') at HP's first ever history of magic lesson and there's a statue of him at Hogwart's I noticed in some other book (CoS?). Is he just someone with a highly amusing name that makes JKR (and us) smile so that she puts him in now and then or does anyone have a theory about greater significance? at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-s-u.html#Uric it says (from his JKR-sponsored Chocolate frog card) : " ... Eccentric Medieval, dates unknown Highly eccentric wizard who is famed for, among other things, wearing a jellyfish for a hat. No one knows if he meant to be the weirdest wizard of the ages or if it just came naturally (SS8, FB, fw18, CF). For more details about Uric's strange life, purchase a copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. ''Uric" means of or relating to urine. ..." (this material taken from website) Note that poking fun is, in idiomatic UK English, 'taking the piss' (hence urine) Can anyone add what it says in fantastic beasts about Uric? (my copy is in storage at present). From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 03:19:39 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:19:39 -0000 Subject: Some Questions about the Scar and CoS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112092 I have just finished a reread of CoS and something started niggling at me. Why is it that during the scenes down in the actual Chamber of Secrets Harry's scar never bothered him? In SS Vapo!Mort made Harry's scar burn from across a room, in GoF and OotP Harry can feel LV from miles away, so why is it that when Harry is in close contact with Diary!Tom he doesn't feel anything? Shouldn't his head be splitting open from agony? Come to that, how did Diary!Tom know so much about his own future? I always assumed that Ginny told him about Harry's defeat of LV, but how did he know all that other stuff, like the fact that he became LV at all? Was Lucius Malfoy writing in Tom Riddle's diary, communicating with it somehow? Or did LV keep the journal longer than Tom implied (ie: long after he was sixteen)? If the diary hadn't been destroyed, what could it tell us about Tom and LV and the Malfoys and all that good stuff? Would there have been a way to make the diary tell the truth? Meri, puzzled... From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 03:39:37 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:39:37 -0000 Subject: LV's survival (was GH again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112093 ---Carolyn: I hope no one still imagines that it is a coincidence that that wand was waiting at Ollivanders, and that Harry chose it. Angie agrees: > And let's forget where the phoenix feather came from: DD's pheonix, Fawkes. I know that Mr. Olivander said the pheonix only gave two feathers, but he's also made referece to plucking other animals, like unicorns. I don't see why he couldn't pluck another feather from Fawkes at any time and make another wand. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 04:51:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:51:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112094 >> Marianne: > > I have a real problem with this. It implies that this is the only > alternative. As part of protecting Harry, DD's only option is to let > Sirius, whom he knows to be innocent, to rot in Azkaban. Surely > Harry could still have the protection of the Dursleys without Sirius > being left in jail. Some sort of shared custody, or whatever. I > know, I know, it's now a common interpretation of Sirius' character > to paint him as so totally reckless, arrogant, irresponsible that > really, all Dumbledore could do would be to leave him in prison. If > he got Sirius out, the man would be such a total loose canon that > he'd immediately destroy all of Dumbledore's carefully laid plans. Alla: I hope it is not that common interpretation of Sirius' character, Marianne. :o) I do think that he would have done what best for Harry's safety. He, after all, went along with Dumbledore's plans during the OOP, despite the fact that he wanted to tell Harry about the prophecy soon after he arrived to Grimmauld Place . I think that Sirius was right in such thinking and Dumbledore incredibly wrong. I am sure Dumbledore could have worked out some kind of arrangement for Harry. Marianne: Maybe I still have a naive, altruistic world-view, but I think there > are things that are simply wrong. Leaving a person in prison when > you can prove their innocence is wrong. If presenting the evidence > for their innocence and release causes complications in your plans, > tough darts. Find another way. > Alla: Then you and me share the same worldview in that aspect. Coming back to what Dumbledore thought, I still prefer to think that he did not know that Sirius was innocent, otherwise it will turn my view of the message that book convey totally upside down and I don't want that to happen. From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 5 05:17:56 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:17:56 -0000 Subject: LV's survival (was GH again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > ---Carolyn: > > I hope no one still imagines that it is a coincidence that that > wand was waiting at Ollivanders, and that Harry chose it. > > Angie agrees: > > > And let's forget where the phoenix feather came from: DD's > pheonix, Fawkes. I know that Mr. Olivander said the pheonix only > gave two feathers, but he's also made referece to plucking other > animals, like unicorns. I don't see why he couldn't pluck another > feather from Fawkes at any time and make another wand. imamommy: I would like to say that I agree with the theory that TR's mother may have left the same protection with him that HP's mother did. I have thought about this a lot, actually. I wonder if this is something that Tom never knew about though? As for the feathers, no, I don't think it was "coincidence"; but I also don't think it was DD (or Ollivander, for that matter) manipulating things. I have long felt, in the absence of any defined deity in Potterverse, that there is some entity that is "good" and one that is "bad", and that *something or someone* higher than mortals is providing Harry with some of the tools to defeat this great evil. The wand is one of those tools. As to Olly plucking Fawkes' tail any time he got the urge, I think the phrasing of "he gave another feather-just one other" (forgive any paraphrasing) indicates that at least with Fawkes the phoenix this was a voluntary procedure. imamommy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 5 05:31:50 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:31:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > Then you and me share the same worldview in that aspect. > > Coming back to what Dumbledore thought, I still prefer to think that > he did not know that Sirius was innocent, otherwise it will turn my > view of the message that book convey totally upside down and I don't > want that to happen. imamommy: I concur. Even if DD *knew* of Sirius' innocence, which, IMO, he did not, what proof could he offer? He couldn't deliver a subpoena to Wormtail and get him to testify. He could have used his own persona, I suppose, but even he wouldn't have been able to do much with so many muggle witnesses. imamommy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 05:37:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:37:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112097 > imamommy: > > I concur. Even if DD *knew* of Sirius' innocence, which, IMO, he did > not, what proof could he offer? He couldn't deliver a subpoena to > Wormtail and get him to testify. He could have used his own persona, I > suppose, but even he wouldn't have been able to do much with so many > muggle witnesses. > Alla: Well, if Dumbledore indeed knew that Sirius was innocent and had enough humanity left in him to do the right thing, I am sure he could have come up with something. His word means A LOT in wisarding world. He could have for example pull his weight in the Ministry and force them to give Sirius veritaserum, no matter how controlled this potion is. I choose to think that he did not know, untill canon says the opposite, otherwise Dumbledore and Voldemort become way too similar for my liking. From caesian at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 05:36:53 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:36:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Portraits of Hogwarts Founders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <978D4C62-FEFD-11D8-9ECD-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112098 On Sep 4, 2004, at 8:00 PM, macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: > I know it was a really, really lomg time ago, but why aren't there > any portraits of Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga > Hufflebuff and Rowena Ravenclaw? Caesian responds: I don't see why there could not be a portrait, but this would probably be of limited value - the personality of each of the founders seems well established in other ways, and portraits are "not very fully realised": From the Edinburgh Festival: Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry?s parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? A: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore?s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius? mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix?I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained?there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death. I also see no reason why we could not meet one of the founders as a ghost. The Grey Lady, the Ravenclaw ghost and the Bloody Baron both seem like potential candidates for backstory. And I would like to know how the silver blood stains occurred. Could one of these be a Hogwarts founder? Who knows.. Cheers, Caesian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 05:50:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:50:00 -0000 Subject: Portraits of Hogwarts Founders In-Reply-To: <978D4C62-FEFD-11D8-9ECD-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112099 > On Sep 4, 2004, at 8:00 PM, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > I know it was a really, really lomg time ago, but why aren't there > > any portraits of Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Helga > > Hufflebuff and Rowena Ravenclaw? Alla: I posted this info some time ago. When I bought chocolate frog candy in the store, there was a card inside it, of course and it had the names of the wizards featured on all the cards. So, I saw the names of Rowena and Helga, but there were NO Godric or Salasar names. My suspicion (and not only mine of course, quite a few people posted it) is that JKR really does not want us to see either Godric or Salasar faces before she deemes necessary, because they may look similar to some characters we know. Harry as possible Godric heir is a primary candidate for that, of course From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 06:29:04 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 02:29:04 EDT Subject: Snape and DADA Message-ID: <1e3.29c8f4b3.2e6c0c30@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112100 > >Eloise: > >I'll throw another of his personality traits into the mix: a > >tendency > >to go it alone, which combined with a certain secrecy and > >assumption > >that he knows best, better even than Dumbledore on occasion, could > >lead him to be a bit of a loose cannon. Would his specialising in > >DADA encourage this? > > Magda replies: > That's not a description of Snape at all but it's definitely a good > description of Harry! Snape is the ultimate suck-it-up-for-the-team > man; he won't go against Dumbledore even when he thinks the old guy > is wrong. The closest he came was assigning a werewolf essay in POA > and even then he was aiming at Hermione, knowing she'd do it and > hoping she'd tell Harry who'd been private with Lupin earlier. (And > I loved Ron's detention assignment in the hospital wing so that he'd > see that Lupin wasn't there.) > Juli sez: If Dumbledore directly tells Snape to do (or not to do) something, Snape will comply even if he doesn't agree with Dumbledore's assessment of the situation. But, left on his own, Snape does have a tendency to go it alone. He regularly takes whatever action he feels is necessary to achieve his goal (whether that goal is to assist the Order, or to bring glory upon himself, or both), and without bothering to seek assistance or approval. For instance, in PS/SS Snape suspects Quirrell but doesn't tell anyone (AFAWK). Instead he conducts his own surveillance and then tries to stop Quirrell by himself during the Quidditch match. He also skulks around Hogwarts regularly, often coming upon Harry at inopportune times (for Harry), and in POA he shows up at the Shrieking Shack to confront Sirius and Lupin. And I'm sure there are more examples. However, I don't think that Snape is a loose cannon. That seems a more apt description of Harry because he acts on his emotions, while Snape is usually more calculating. But Snape is definitely secretive, and his motives remain unclear. I tend to buy JKR's own explanation why Snape isn't teaching DADA. Dumbledore thinks it could bring out the worst in him. I suspect it's as much to protect Snape as anything else. Why would DD want Snape in a position where he might be tempted in any way to stray from his redemptive path? I still think Snape *will* teach DADA though, in Book 7, where Snape's knowledge of the Dark Arts may become pivotal in turning the tide in the war against Voldemort. Just as DD can't protect Harry forever, he also can't protect Snape forever. Both will eventually have to conquer their outer, and inner, demons alone. Juli [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Sep 5 06:41:06 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:41:06 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> > > > Ginger ponders: > > > > Wow, this is one of those areas where I don't think there will > ever be a consensus drawn. We all bring in our pasts and > experiences. > > > > Personally, I don't think James and Sirius were any worse than > the kids I grew up with. I knew plenty of guys who got "pantsed" > on the schoolyard. I never got "pantsed" myself, but I did get > "bra-ed". > > . Schoolyard brats, certainly. Evil, to me, means a deeper lack of moral concern. > > I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that if I label J&S as > "evil", then I have to label the RL people I know who did the same > things as "evil" as well. I can't do that, because I know they are > not. > > > > Pippin: > Ahhhh...community standards. Okay, but the community which > should apply is not yours, or mine, but Hogwarts. Is 'pantsing' > normal student fun at Hogwarts? Have we ever seen anybody > 'pantsed' at Hogwarts before? Lupin says they were out of line > and he ought to know. This is not considered a bit of dirty fun. Lily > doesn't tell Snape to be a good sport and buck up, does she? > > But perhaps you think canon takes a different view of evil? Are > you saying that in the Potterverse,a person who does evil and > repents of it is not only evil no longer, but never was evil in the > first place? > I loved Ginger's definition of Evil as "deep lack of moral concern", and I think it's bang on in regard of JKR's own view of what is Evil. Remember Voldemort's "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it"? This is what makes Voldemort the ultimate evil figure, and also a personofication of Evil -he not only lacks completely any kind of moral concern, he has turned this lack into an explicit creed. I agree that James' abuse of Snape is true cruelty,and as such, evil. However, a single evil deed doesn't show a person to be evil, right? Everybody has cruel, sadistic streaks in them, that may surface at certain circumstances. I think that an evil person (per JKR, also) is one who isn't concerned about those tendencies, doesn't try to fight them. The ultimate evil, as I said above, is to consciously choose to let the cruel tendencies reign. Naama From jessifly at frii.com Sun Sep 5 03:46:45 2004 From: jessifly at frii.com (Jessifly) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:46:45 -0600 Subject: LV is ANCESTOR of SS? (taken from Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) References: <1094347946.8199.82155.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000701c492fa$f6d5e9f0$0500a8c0@Jessi> No: HPFGUIDX 112102 > Tim now: > > No. JKR has said in both the books and elsewhere (her website I thought but I can't find it > so it may have been a chat) that Harry and LV are NOT related. In the books it is clearly > stated that LV is Salazar Slytherin's LAST desendant. Therefore Harry is not a desendant of > Slytherin. > Jessi says: I also have some ideas about Harry being related to both Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin (meaning of course he would also be of relation to LV). I find it to be very interesting that it was mentioned in some versions of CS that Voldemort is the last remaining ANCESTOR of Salazar Slytherin. (Read a small tidbit about it on the Lexicon here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/puzzles2.html ) If it was just a mistake and it was corrected, then why did JKR have it put back in later editions and suggested the word ancestor was used intentionally? In an interview 10/6/2000 someone asks JKR: Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother? JKR replies: I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it? But she didn't actually say no, it seems she has taken a lot of ideas from books, movies, stories... From sewabearbear at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 04:11:34 2004 From: sewabearbear at yahoo.com (sewabearbear) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:11:34 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem ( was Why Voldemort would Spare Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112103 My first post. Ever. :) > MacFoTUK now writes: > > I asked myself this question - 'Where in canon does it say that LV > killed James *and then killed Lily* (before going on to try to kill > Harry)?' I think this was implied in PoA when Harry heard his parents' voices when dementors (or boggart-turned-dementors) neared him. For e.g., on pg 178 (UK): 'That's the first time I've heard (James) - he tried to take on Voldemort himself, to give my mum time to run for it...' MacFoTUK: > Where is the AK sent at Harry? - It seems distinctly > MISSING!. Priori incantatem produces a "reverse echo" of AK spells performed if they killed someone. Since the AK LV meant for Harry didn't actually kill anyone, there shouldn't have been any ghost like figures from that spell. What I found interesting was that no part of LV emerged. If the AK reflected back at LV killed any part of his being, wouldn't there be some kind of faint shadow of him? Or would this spell be completely reversed and LV would regain the powers he possessed at the time he tried to kill Harry? I was under the impression when Harry was retelling the story in front of Sirius & DD that the spells would reverse out of the wand unless somebody was killed because spells can't reawaken the dead. Sarah From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 05:37:18 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (tonks_op) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:37:18 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily and more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112104 Here is a thought. DD knew the prophesy. He waited... 2 children were born at the end of July. If he knew that both boys were in danger wouldn't he have told each mother how to save her child by dying herself? If LV had gone to the Longbottom's home first the boy who received the mark as LV equal could have been Neville. Why did LV go to the Potter's first? We must assume that he did since the Longbottoms were still alive to be tortured later. Also when he says "stand aside, silly girl" maybe he is trying to tempt her somehow to not give herself for her son. If she did stand aside, then what? Would he have had more power somehow? I think that he would have. That her "going to the dark side", even for a moment, give him more power. There is something that DD says, I think in SS (maybe CS) about what keeps LV alive. And I think it is us. I will have to read the book again to find it. Does anyone remember that passage? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 06:48:55 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 06:48:55 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem ( was Why Voldemort would Spare Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112105 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: macfotuk > The real point of this post though is as follows: > > However, LV's own wand in GoF tells us > during the priori incantatem regurgitation that it (in reverse order > and scuse me if recall doesn't get it all right) crucio'd Harry, > Pettigrew's silver hand, cricio'd Harry again, AK'd Cedric (at > Pettigrew's hands) Crucio'd Pettigrew and possibly others, AK'd the > Riddle's gardener Frank Bryce, AK'd Bertha Jorkin, and then > (resolving the 'mistakes' between early vs late editions) AK'd Lily > and James. Where is the AK sent at Harry? - It seems distinctly > MISSING!. Geoff: Priori Incantatem shows the result of a spell, i.e. Wormtail's hand, the "wraiths" of Cedric, Frank Bryce etc. Since the Avadra Kedavra directed at Harry didn't have that sort of outcome, it has nothing to show on "replay". Would it show the spellcaster disappearing into a grey mist or something similar? I have my doubts. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Sep 5 07:34:12 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:34:12 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > > Sorry, it doesn't wash for me. If DD can be so trusting of others, > even former DEs, to give them second chances, then surely he'd show > at least a modicum of trust in one of his own soldiers to explain why > it was imperative for Harry to spend a certain amount of time, even > the majority of his time, living with his blood relatives. We know > that DD can be somewhat manipulative - don't you think that Sirius' > feelings of guilt over the deaths of James and Lily would have given > Dumbledore a gigantic keyboard of buttons to push to make sure Sirius > accepted his decision that Harry had to live with the Dursleys? > > Maybe I still have a naive, altruistic world-view, but I think there > are things that are simply wrong. Leaving a person in prison when > you can prove their innocence is wrong. If presenting the evidence > for their innocence and release causes complications in your plans, > tough darts. Find another way. > I don't think you're any more naive and altruistic than JKR. The idea of DD knowing Sirius to be innocent but leaving him in Azkaban for 12 year not only goes completely against DD's characterization, it is also illogical. If DD knows Sirius to be innocent, why is he so worried for Harry's and the rest of the students' safety when Sirius escapes? And if he is so uncaring of Sirius' fate, why risk *Harry's* life (for whom he supposedly sacrificed Sirius) by sending him to rescue Sirius via the timeturner? The whole thing just doesn't make sense - it makes DD's behavior too full of inconsistencies. Naama From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 08:43:12 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 08:43:12 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112107 Hannah wrote: >Perhaps he considered protecting Harry so > important he felt that imprisoning Sirius was justified? I'm > playing devil's advocate a bit because I don't really think DD is >that ruthless. But if you are to accept the idea that he allowed >Sirius to stay in Azkaban while knowing he was innocent, I think that > protecting Harry is one of the few reasons he would do it. Marianne replied: >>I have a real problem with this. It implies that this is the only alternative. As part of protecting Harry, DD's only option is to let Sirius, whom he knows to be innocent, to rot in Azkaban. Surely Harry could still have the protection of the Dursleys without Sirius being left in jail. Some sort of shared custody, or whatever. I know, I know, it's now a common interpretation of Sirius' character to paint him as so totally reckless, arrogant, irresponsible that really, all Dumbledore could do would be to leave him in prison. If he got Sirius out, the man would be such a total loose canon that he'd immediately destroy all of Dumbledore's carefully laid plans. Sorry, it doesn't wash for me.<< HunterGreen: Me niether. For one thing, I very much doubt that DD has it in him to be so callous to someone he considers an ally, especially considering his opinion of the dementors. Sirius doesn't demand immediate custody of Harry in OotP when he has a residence. Nor did he put up that much of a fight when Hagrid took Harry initially waay back when James and Lily first died (he was still a free man then, he had the "rights" to Harry, yet let Dumbledore override him). As often as Sirius is painted as 'reckless' or a 'bad influence', there's little evidence that the adult Sirius (outside of PoA, which I blame on dementia from being in prison for 12 years) is actually like that. I don't think that Dumbledore would have such a small opinion of Sirius that he would leave him to suffer in prison just so he wouldn't try to claim Harry. I wonder how Dumbledore would have known that he was innocent. After all, Peter disappeared, leaving his finger and 12 dead muggles behind, and all the witnesses said that Sirius did it. Sirius didn't have a trial, so there was never a chance for him to even plead his case (which was flimsy anyway...without truth serum there'd be no way for him to prove himself). As we know by now, Dumbledore makes mistakes, this isn't even a big one. He knew there was a spy in the order, he "knew" that James was going to pick Sirius as the secret- keeper and that the secret-keeper gave up James and Lily to Voldemort, and he knew that Sirius had been caught "killing" Peter and the 12 muggles. Innocent!Sirius at this point probably didn't cross his mind. From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 08:50:43 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 08:50:43 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112108 Karen L.: >>I'm sorry, but I feel everyone is putting more into this than is necessary. Are there no parents in this group? Imagine if you will a wizard family sitting in their Living Room watching TV or whatever, and the Dark Wizard, LV smashes through your front door. The husband jumps up to defend his family, telling the wife to go get the child (Harry) and run. Now suppose that the house is a two story and the child is upstairs, asleep in his "cot". The mother/wife runs upstairs, followed by the dark wizard and gets trapped in the child's room. (she has no wand, because being in her own home she feels safe enough not to carry one.) She pleads with said Dark wizard for the life of her son, not wanting to see her child murdered in front of her, and ends up sacrificing herself. There is not enough time to really think, hmmm, if I sacrifice myself for my child, then he will be protected from this dark wizard. I firmly believe the entire episode is pure maternal instinct on Lily's part.<< HunterGreen: I disagree. Her standing there in his way saying 'kill me instead', when she knows for a fact that's not going to happen (rather than running to get her wand, or trying to stop him physically) seems less like a maternal instinct and more like a specific plan to me. They knew Voldemort was after Harry, they knew at any moment he could somehow get to them, I doubt she would be just leaving her wand out of eyeshot in this situation. Remember they had only been in hiding a *week* when he found them, not really enough time to get comfortable. Fighting would be maternal instinct, standing there weakly trying to get the murderer who is there *specifically* for your son to kill you "instead" is just silly unless there's a reason behind it. That's why I think that Dumbledore knew how Harry survived, it was planned beforehand. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 5 09:17:53 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:17:53 -0400 Subject: The Beetle At Bay Message-ID: <002701c49329$bd1d4210$79c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112109 Marianne "I do think she is a good person, and I think that she rarely, if ever, does something morally questionable to further her own ends." DuffyPoo: Sorry, I haven't been following this whole thread but this really jumped out at me. Hermione made NO attempt to tell Madam Pomfrey about the jinx she used on the paper the DA memebers signed. Marietta went home with "SNEAK" across her face (the DA were caught sometime in April). Why? Because telling would possibly get her in trouble? I've said this before. When Fred and George shut Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet, he turned up jammed in a toilet, and Madam Pomfrey had a devil of a time sorting him out, Hermione was right there with 'do you think we should tell her what happened?' Fred and George had left the school by then, it wouldn't get them, or her, into any trouble. When she was in the hospital wing for over a month from the effects of Polyjuice Potion gone wrong, did she tell Madam Pomfrey what happened? Doubtful, as again, that would have gotten Hermione into trouble. Madam P would have been able to sort her out in a minute if she had said what she did, but PP was 'illegal' and it would have gotten her into difficulty, suspension/expulsion - who knows. Given the chance Hermione saves her own neck, which, according to Phineas Nigellus is a Slytherin trait. I think Hermione should switch houses in the next book. What fun that would be!! ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 5 09:19:02 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:19:02 -0400 Subject: LV's survival (was GH again) Message-ID: <002801c49329$bd75c250$79c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112110 ---Carolyn: "I hope no one still imagines that it is a coincidence that that wand was waiting at Ollivanders, and that Harry chose it." Angie agrees: > And let's forget where the phoenix feather came from: DD's pheonix, Fawkes. I know that Mr. Olivander said the pheonix only gave two feathers, but he's also made referece to plucking other animals, like unicorns. I don't see why he couldn't pluck another feather from Fawkes at any time and make another wand. DuffyPoo: "It so happens that the phoenix [Fawkes] whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather -- just *one* other." I think this rules out more of Fawkes' tail feathers in other wands, but not other phoenix feathers, or that would make more 'brother' wands out there that won't fight either HP or LV. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 09:50:54 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:50:54 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, imamommy at s... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > ---Carolyn: > > > > I hope no one still imagines that it is a coincidence that that > > wand was waiting at Ollivanders, and that Harry chose it. > imamommy: > As for the feathers, no, I don't think it was "coincidence"; but I > also don't think it was DD (or Ollivander, for that matter) > manipulating things. I have long felt, in the absence of any defined deity in Potterverse, that there is some entity that is "good" and one that is "bad", and that *something or someone* higher than mortals is providing Harry with some of the tools to defeat this great evil. The wand is one of those tools. > Carolyn: Ah, to have such trust, and so far into the series! Alas, the fine minds on this site have long since convinced me otherwise (if I ever believed it in the first place), and I'm afraid DD himself no longer bothers to pretend (OOP, Ch.37): 'Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I planned and intended..' [re GH events]'And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead.. 'Thus far, my plan was working well' 'You rose magnificently to the challenge that faced you and sooner - much sooner - than I anticipated, you found yourself face to face with Voldemort.' 'Yet there was a flaw in this wonderful plan of mine..' And so it goes on and on. There is little doubt that DD has expended considerable efforts on his plans to protect Harry, from the moment he heard that prophecy at the Hogs Head. Fawkes is his phoenix, and only gave the second feather to Ollivander at Dumbledore's request, once DD realised the weapon would be required in the coming fight with Voldemort. If you are open-minded enough to consider the evidence further, I commend to you a series of posts from the archives (which should be read in this order): 39662 39854 40044 81010 81074 81067 81104 Health warning: these are all *extremely* long, so I suggest printing them off and retiring with suitable refreshments to consider the case for the prosecution. It would be fascinating to continue the argument - and you will notice the hundreds of posts they generated at the time, all of which are worth pursuing (assuming you have no pressing concerns in RL ). Carolyn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 10:48:41 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 03:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040905104841.86002.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112112 > Alla: > Then you and me share the same worldview in that aspect. > Coming back to what Dumbledore thought, I still prefer to think > that > he did not know that Sirius was innocent, otherwise it will turn > my view of the message that book convey totally upside down and I > don't want that to happen. Maybe I'm being naive but do people really think there's a possibility that Dumbledore KNEW Sirius was innocent and left him in Azkaban anyway? I assumed people were talking about it as a theory only. Of course Dumbledore didn't know Sirius was innocent. How could he? Once he found out - by questionning Sirius before the hospital scene in POA - he did what had to be done to prevent Sirius from being dementored. And he was a heck of a lot more effective at saving him than Sirius was at saving himself. Reckless and thoughtless are descriptive terms that accurately reflect Sirius' propensity for "ready-fire-aim" strategies. Both times he went after Peter (in the backstory and in POA) he managed to make himself look guilty as sin. It was a necessary part of the plot in POA but it certainly was realistic, wasn't it? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Sep 5 11:00:42 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:00:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Haven't heard from Kneasy in a while, but I'm sure he would agree > that this simply shows that LV never learns and has more weaknesses > than he should have as an archetypically ESE character. That is, > though JKR says he's the baddest - he's actually a completely > bungling baddie. He's *still* convinced that little HP is a mere > upstart who fluked it first time. Despite knowing half the prophecy > he still feels he can snuff (swat) this pesky little Potter (he is, > after all, the darkest, mst powerful wizard ever!). Fans of > Divination surely will have spotted LV's boast in GoF graveyard > scene to his assembled DE's > > Setting oneself up to fail? hmmmmm JKR loves to show how dumb LV > (ESE defined) can be and how HP (we the reader see as good) will > prevail - though she may not protect him in book 7 by which time he > is as expendable as any other character). It has always struck me > that yes, the developments of this scene (Harry's survival despite > LV's intent to make an example of him) show that in fact HP is the > stronger, for he escapes, against all odds and, notice, without DD's > or Lily's obvious protection (excepting that Lily is there during > the priori incantatem spell and perhaps DD might be argued to be > too, through the pheonix song and the wand cores involved). This > scene reemphasises that LV constantly under-estimates whatever it is > about Harry that makes him a formidable adversary - a theme returned > to in OotP (DD saying HP has powers LV knows little of and/or > underestimates - which we all take to mean love and selflessness). > LV still hasn't learned this by the end of book 5 (nor I suspect the > denoument in book 7). Did I hear my name invoked? "For I can call demons from the vasty deep.." Generally speaking I do tend to be scathing about Voldy; difficult to take him seriously when he constantly falls flat on his face. Sad, that. Down to my FEATHEROA leanings, I suppose - similar to the views of Mr & Mrs Ramsbotham in "The Lion and Albert" "...the waves they was fiddling and small, No wrecks and nobody drowning, In fact nowt to laugh at at all." But just this once, and as an exercise in lateral thinking, devious interpretation and mostly because it's fun, let's assume that there's some method to his madness. Four times he's been confronted by Harry and come off worst. Godric's Hollow In front of the Mirror of Erised The graveyard The Ministry (I'm not counting the CoS; strictly speaking that wasn't Voldy.) Harry's protection was emplaced at Godric's Hollow - but protection against what? "Voldy!" you reply, "as ane fule kno." "Ah," says I, "does Voldy know that?" All Voldy knows is that the particular spell he cast was repelled - and I have a sneaking suspicion that it wasn't an AK. Most posters will disagree. 'Twas ever thus. (I first put this one on the board last year, and it's repeated in a post made yesterday - 112046). For the sake of argument, let's assume that my suspicions regarding the spell are justified. So; he casts a spell; it doesn't work. OK, next time we'll try something different - the "hands on" approach adopted by Quirrell. (Never did like that one - so unwizardly. What's wrong with "Accio! Stone?) Never mind, that one didn't work either - but now Voldy has learned two facts concerning Harry Potter; the spell used at GH won't work and neither will a physical assault. He fixes the latter in the graveyard but instead of utilising it, the silly bugger has to go and ponce around playing at duels. Oh dear. This is where he learns the third brutal fact of life - wand conflict. Unfortunately (from Voldy's point of view) this wand conflict prevents Voldy from learning something I'm sure he'd like to know, namely - is Harry now vulnerable to an AK? He can't tell, the wand conflict prevents the AK from reaching Harry. But being a persistent sort of cove, he's willing to give it another go; this time in less formal circumstances and where Harry might not be casting an interferring spell at the same time - the Ministry. He throws an AK at a defenceless Harry, only for an animated statue to interpose itself. (This should tell him something; if Harry is invulnerable why did DD block the AK? Yippee! Progress!) He tries something else during his tactical withdrawl - possession. This time it doesn't work because of some property inherent in Harrys personality (according to DD) and therefore unlikely to be part of the original protective magic. So if you want to be magnanimous, you can say that Voldy has been on a learning curve, he's been experimenting and like any good investigator he's been changing one parameter at a time. GH - a spell (probably a form of possession or mental intrusion) that is repelled by the protection. Is the protection general or specific to the spell used? Then the Mirror - try a physical attack; no joy. It's general. The graveyard - remove protection and try again. Has it worked? Can't tell, those bloody wands get in the way. The Ministry - Try an AK - but it's blocked by outside agency (promising) and as a bonus he finds out that Harry's mind has developed in ways that Voldy can't live with. ("Make a note of that, Bella.") If I was Voldy, I'd be sticking to the AK from now on, it could well do the trick. Mind you, I doubt he will, he'll try to come up with something 'foolproof' that won't work for one reason or another. As Hermione observes, wizards aren't renowned for logical thinking. Kneasy From rmmiller at gci.net Sun Sep 5 08:03:12 2004 From: rmmiller at gci.net (rmmiller95) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 08:03:12 -0000 Subject: Uric the Oddball In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > Note that poking fun is, in idiomatic UK English, 'taking the piss' > (hence urine) > > Can anyone add what it says in fantastic beasts about Uric? (my copy > is in storage at present). rmmiller95 Hello I don't come out much, but I was reading about Uric and this is what I found. "Uric the Oddball attempted at one time to prove that Fwooper song was actually beneficial to the health and listened to it for three months on end without a break. Unfortunatly the Wizards' Councel to witch he reported his findings were unconvinced, as he had arrived at the meating wearing nothing but a toupee that on closer inspection proved to be a dead badger." ( page 18 Fantastic Beasts and were to find them )(JKR) I hope that this helps you. From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 08:32:44 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 08:32:44 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112115 Hi, I have been wondering about this ever since I've read the fifth book. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't get what. In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the death of James and Lily Potter? Neha. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Sep 5 09:28:07 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:28:07 -0400 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculem (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA Message-ID: <20040905.060510.3924.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112116 Nora said: > If I were Headmaster, all the kids would > have to take literature courses, just to have to *think*. Alas... When I first read PS/SS, and I saw Harry's text book list, I tried to line up which book would cognate to which Muggle subject. It didn't entirly work, but I still fanwank that Wizard schooling isn't that different from muggle, only the format. Potions = chemistry, Transfiguration = physics/biology/biophysics, Herbology = plant-based biology/some chemistry, arithmancy = maths, etc. The wizarding education system apparently doesn't *divide* the sciences the way we do, i.e. a class on biology, both plant and animal. So, my theory is that in the vast areas of the kids' schooling that we don't see, they are learning literature, creative and academic writing, basic arithmetic, even music or art. The classes are just divided differently. I can see how art would be part of Care of Magical Creatures (because you have to draw what you see), early Arithmancy probably teaches "muggle" math as a foundation (in a wizarding way that doesn't marginilize non-mathy kids), maybe the kids learn literature in several classes by reading classic books related to the subject. If you're a wizard professor, with a life expectancy of 150+ years, you have the time to be trained beyond the core curriculem you want to teach, which would allow the education system to be much more interdisceplenary. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Sep 5 09:43:15 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:43:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) Message-ID: <20040905.060510.3924.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112117 Kneasy said: > Well, she's hasn't defeated him him 3 times - she, either alone or > in conjunction with James, has *defied* him 3 times. This bugged me: do we know how or in what capacity she defied Voldemort 3 times? Did I miss something, or are we not supposed to know that? If so, anyone have any theories? It's just a really funny condition of the prophecy, imo, the idea that Lily Peter'd Voldemort. (I mean the disciple Peter, rooster crowing each time he claimed he didn't know Christ; not Pettigrew. Although that *is* interesting...) > I've never believed that Lily came up with the idea of this > protection on her own. "Ancient magic" sounds more like DD's doing to me This may be overly simplistic, but to me, the phrase "ancient magic" has always sounded almost like "force of nature" or "lost and unknown magic." That is to say, the protection happened by accident, completely unexpected by Lily, borne out of her love of Harry. The same would happen if any witch mother protected her baby. > in combination with Harry's recall > of *one* green flash (with the intriguing possibility that he hears > the "high, cold laughter" *after* the flash) The one flash is Lily being killed. Harry doesn't remember the other flash, because it was directed at him. "You never hear the bullet" and all that. Either that, or his mind blocked out the horrible memory of his own near-death. I do like your theory that it may not have been an AK that Vold used on Harry. Very possible. > And then JKR pops up with a question she says we should be > considering- "Why didn't Voldy die?" I think that's a largely exaggerated comment. The first time I heard it, it sounded like JKR was wondering why someone didn't pick up on what she considered a plot hole; her fans had beat her to it and already started constructing explanations for what she considered weak writing, as fans are wont to do. Since then, the comment has evolved in conversation to indicate some great plot suggestion. And, given the phrasing JKR used, I just don't believe it is. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Sep 5 09:16:14 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:16:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA Message-ID: <20040905.060510.3924.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112118 Magda said: > The worst in Snape is his inability to understand people. He > consistently assumes the worst of others Aura: This was my first assesement of Snape's deeper motives, and I still stand by it. I'd go so far to say that, in the literary sense, it's his main character flaw. Magda again: > I think the key to this mystery is his soliloquy to Harry about not > wearing emotions on your sleeve or you'll be easy meat for the Dark > Lord. Snape views almost all emotions as potential sources of > weakness and therefore things to be clamped down on hard for > safety's sake. If his penseive memory of a small child cowering while a man shouted at a woman is read that Snape grew up in an abusive home (and I think that's exactly what that memory is to show us), then Snape would have learned to protect his emotions starting at a very early age. I'm terribly tired so I can't explain all the blahblahpsychologycakes, so you'll just have to trust in my psychology degree that hiding ones' emotions for safety is common to children who have grown up in abusive (or alcoholic) homes. Magda: > Talk about emotions or feelings or > settling for less-than-perfect results is so much self-indulgent nonsense in > the face of the larger battle. > This lack of perspective would actually work against Snape's > efforts to teach DADA. A very good insight! If Crouch-Moody was a little demanding as a DADA prof, Snape would be sociopatic. At least Potions is a relatively objective disciplen (I read it as wizard chemistry), so he can only berate students on their ability to mix carefully and study ingredients. But letting Snape attempt to understand why a kid is afraid of a boggart? And then coach the kid out of his fear? Oi. Talk about the howlers DD would get: "My child is afraid to go to sleep at night! He says Professor Snape is going to let a vampire in his dormitory every night until my son stops screaming and defeats it! Get that demented DADA professor away from my child!" Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 5 15:02:58 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 5 Sep 2004 15:02:58 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1094396578.110.18800.m5@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112119 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 5, 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 snow15145 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 15:03:55 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:03:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112120 (Major snipage) Kneasy: GH - a spell (probably a form of possession or mental intrusion) that is repelled by the protection. Is the protection general or specific to the spell used? Snow: Going once going twice sold! Brilliant Kneasy! JKR has such a knack at leading one into assumption. The spell used at GH has always been referred to but never identified as an AK, it's always the spell that was used that night or something as equally evasive. It has also been referenced that Voldemort came to kill Harry and if he had succeeded it most certainly would have killed the child but that doesn't necessarily mean that he set out with the intension of killing Harry or that it was the AK that was used. The part of the prophecy that was supplied to Voldemort only stated that a child with the power to vanquish what is it that Voldemort seeks? Quirrel was taught the answer to this question by Voldemort "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it". (SS) Power! This child is born with power. Voldemort must have this power. He doesn't want to kill the child with this power but take it from the child to make himself stronger, if in the process of obtaining this power the child dies, so be it. If this spell of "possession or mental intrusion" was used and deflected, in much the same way that it had been at the Ministry (get to that in a bit), it was this power of protection created by Lily that literally split Voldemort in half. Voldemort connected with Harry but that part of him that connected was unable to escape, which left his essence, divided. (snipped just a tad) Kneasy: The Ministry - Try an AK - but it's blocked by outside agency (promising) and as a bonus he finds out that Harry's mind has developed in ways that Voldy can't live with. ("Make a note of that, Bella.") Snow: Yes! Defiantly make a note of that bonus finding because it is very important. Why didn't the same thing happen to Voldemort at the Ministry, as at GH, when he attempted the possession? The answer is quite simple; Voldemort was reborn with Harry's blood. Although Voldemort can now enter Harry's mind he is unable to dwell there because Harry isn't afraid. Harry isn't afraid to run to the rescue at any given moment disregarding his own safety. Harry cares: "You care so much you feel as though you will bleed to death with the pain of it." (OOP) What a choice of words bleed to death something Voldemort can't abide in or with. Harry has now formed his own protection against Voldemort. Kneasy: If I was Voldy, I'd be sticking to the AK from now on, it could well do the trick. Mind you, I doubt he will, he'll try to come up with something 'foolproof' that won't work for one reason or another. As Hermione observes, wizards aren't renowned for logical thinking. Snow: Do you think that maybe Voldemort may realize at this point that he should not go toe-to-toe with Harry? Voldemort was under the assumption that it was Lily's ancient magic that was the factor in Harry's power so he specifically used Harry's blood in order to eliminate this power over him. Voldemort announces to the whole of the graveyard that he is more powerful than Harry but of course he wasn't. Voldemort at this point reassesses the power issue that Harry has and thinks if it isn't the protection that his mother gave him then there must be more to that prophecy. This is actually a very logical assumption. Snape may not have a monopoly in the logic territory. Voldemort must be aware of what lies within Harry after his recent attempt at the Ministry and the reason as to why he was unsuccessful. Dumbledore plainly tells "Tom" that night what power Harry has over him. This power is unobtainable by Voldemort. Where does Voldemort go from here? Like all good hero stories if you cant get the hero get the people closest to him. Kneasy I think you might get your wish. It might not be an all out blood bath but I think it could be a bit of a cat bath. Snow From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 5 15:10:34 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:10:34 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112121 Carolyn: > Ah, to have such trust, and so far into the series! Alas, the fine > minds on this site have long since convinced me otherwise (if I ever > believed it in the first place), and I'm afraid DD himself no longer > bothers to pretend (OOP, Ch.37) Jen: Ah, yes, FAITH is still alive and well in TBAY! There *are* some incredible minds in this group and they have convinced me of many things, including the fact that Dumbledore certainly does have a plan. But as to how far that plan goes and to what extent DD has control of the situation...well, I still have my doubts. Take the wands, for instance. Carolyn said this: > Fawkes is his phoenix, and only gave the second feather to > Ollivander at Dumbledore's request, once DD realised the weapon > would be required in the coming fight with Voldemort. Jen: Yes, I believe Dumbledore requested Fawkes to give the feather. But that's where the certainty ends. First, Fawkes had to agree to do this, something DD could not control or force. Then, Ollivander had to use his skills to make the wand--choosing the wood, the length, the pliability, etc. Again, DD & Ollivander can make their best guess as to what wand would best suit Harry, but that's the extent of it. *Then* and yes, I still believe this, the wand chooses the wizard. We see in PS/SS that when that particular wand was placed in Harry's hand, "He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end..."(Ss, chap. 5, p.85). In addition to being the correct wand for Harry, thus making him more powerful, this sequence was further evidence for DD that Harry is indeed the One, Voldemort's equal. To tamper with the wand or force Harry to choose a wand that didn't choose him would be to Dumbledore's detriment, not his strength. So, yes, I believe Dumbledore has gone to great lengths to safeguard Harry, using every opportunity to his advantage. As in all endeavors though, a certain percentage must be left for Fate to decide. Jen Reese, keepin' the Faith From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 15:27:50 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:27:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112122 Kneasy wrote: > If I was Voldy, I'd be sticking to the AK from now on, it could well > do the trick. Mind you, I doubt he will, he'll try to come up with > something 'foolproof' that won't work for one reason or another. > As Hermione observes, wizards aren't renowned for logical thinking. Hannah now: In fact, perhaps logic is an especial weakness of LV's. DD asks Snape to make an obstacle to reaching the philosopher's stone. He may say that he fears it is LV who is trying to steal it, but even if not, I bet that's who Snape would be most keen to guard it from. So Snape, with his insider knowledge of LV, devises a challenge that he will find especially hard. Of course, Quirrel!Mort manages to solve it, so perhaps his logic isn't as bad as Snape thinks. Unless it is Quirrel rather than LV that does the solving. But if it is a weakness of LV's, perhaps it'll be exploited in later books? Hannah (knowing she'll now be presented with a mass of evidence that LV is logical after all!) From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 5 14:10:00 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 14:10:00 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112123 > Karen L.: > >>She pleads with said Dark wizard for the life of her son, not > wanting to see her child murdered in front of her, and ends up > sacrificing herself. There is not enough time to really think, > hmmm, if I sacrifice myself for my child, then he will be > protected from this dark wizard. I firmly believe the entire > episode is pure maternal instinct on Lily's part.<< > > HunterGreen: > I disagree. Her standing there in his way saying 'kill me > instead', when she knows for a fact that's not going to happen > (rather than running to get her wand, or trying to stop him > physically) seems less like a maternal instinct and more like a > specific plan to me. They knew Voldemort was after Harry, they > knew at any moment he could somehow get to them, I doubt she > would be just leaving her wand out of eyeshot in this situation. > Remember they had only been in hiding a *week* when he found them, > not really enough time to get comfortable. Fighting would be > maternal instinct, standing there weakly trying to get the > murderer who is there *specifically* for your son to kill you > "instead" is just silly unless there's a reason behind it. That's > why I think that Dumbledore knew how Harry survived, it was > planned beforehand. Karen L. If they had a secret keeper whom they trusted, and had no reason to suspect that their location would have been known to LV, why wouldn't they have gotten at least a little comfortable? James obviously had his wand nearby, maybe that's all they thought they needed for protection. Do we know that James and Lily knew about the prophecy? I can't recall if they did or not, and cannot find it in any of the books. I feel that DD used Lily's sacrifice to protect Harry, and that's why he ended up at the Dursleys'. It was about a week after Harry's parents died that he was placed with the Dursleys. If this had been preplanned, wouldn't he have gotten to the Dursley's sooner? He was "unprotected" during that week that DD or whomever had him and was deciding where Harry should go. Maybe that's when DD discovered that this particular magic would protect Harry, he did say it was old magic. Plus, Lily knows LV will kill Harry, watching your son die would be the worst torture he could have inflicted on Lily. Her pleading (and how you can say a mother pleading for their child's life is doing it weakly, you obviously have no idea) with him and not attacking him was her only way to "protect" Harry, she didn't have her wand and if she had tried to physically attack him he could have thrown her off and then killed Harry leaving her there with her dead son and husband. She didn't have a choice, plus they had no idea he was coming, that's the reason he was able to get in. If DD had any idea that LV was going to get to GH and kill the Potter's, don't you think he would have surrounded the house with more security? I firmly believe it was not planned, but DD used his knowledge of old magic to protect Harry after the fact, by sealing the magic by putting Harry with a blood relative. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 15:53:36 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:53:36 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112124 > Carolyn said: > > Fawkes is his phoenix, and only gave the second feather to > > Ollivander at Dumbledore's request, once DD realised the weapon > > would be required in the coming fight with Voldemort. > > Jen: Yes, I believe Dumbledore requested Fawkes to give the feather. > But that's where the certainty ends. First, Fawkes had to agree to > do this, something DD could not control or force. Then, Ollivander > had to use his skills to make the wand--choosing the wood, the > length, the pliability, etc. Again, DD & Ollivander can make their > best guess as to what wand would best suit Harry, but that's the > extent of it. > > So, yes, I believe Dumbledore has gone to great lengths to safeguard > Harry, using every opportunity to his advantage. As in all endeavors > though, a certain percentage must be left for Fate to decide. Hannah: I agree that Dumbledore probably provided that feather (well, via Fawkes!) with Harry in mind, but I don't think Ollivander was aware of it at all. He seems genuinely surprised and fascinated when Harry suits *that* wand. And he makes Harry try lots of others first, which seems a risky course of action. A wizard must suit more than one wand, otherwise how do people ever manage when they break one. What if another good wand had turned up? Why not just say; 'let's try this one,' present the Fawkes-wand and save a lot of trouble. Harry wouldn't have known any different! Unless it was all part of his and DD's plan, to make it seem accidental. On the point made further up the thread (apologies, I forget who by) about Fawkes being induced to provide another feather now, here's a thought. Who do we know who needs a new wand right now? None other than Neville Longbottom... From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 16:41:37 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (N. Tonks) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:41:37 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112125 Naama wrote: > I agree that James' abuse of Snape is true cruelty,and as such, > evil. However, a single evil deed doesn't show a person to be > evil, right? > Everybody has cruel, sadistic streaks in them, that may surface > at certain circumstances. I think that an evil person (per JKR, > also) is one who isn't concerned about those tendencies, doesn't > try to fight them. The ultimate evil, as I said above, is to > consciously choose to let the cruel tendencies reign. Tonks here: I do not agree that EVERYBODY has cruel, sadistic streaks in them. Not everyone. Everyone is capable of evil or (sin), but this is not the same as being cruel and sadistic!! Can you honesty see Harry doing something so stupid as to, as you say, "pants" someone. (since I am 150 years only, this never happened when I was in school, and I never heard the term until now.) It is true, as I have said in a much earlier post, that the ultimate act of evil is to choose time and again to act in cruel, sadistic and evil way. To turn more and more to the dark side and to prefer that to the light, so that you become something close to Evil itself is the worst thing a human can do. It is the only unforgivable act of evil. And this is what makes TR into LV. Tonks_op From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 16:55:22 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:55:22 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: <20040905.060510.3924.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > So, my theory is that in the vast areas of the kids' schooling that > we don't see, they are learning literature, creative and academic > writing, basic arithmetic, even music or art. The classes are just > divided differently. I can see how art would be part of Care of > Magical Creatures (because you have to draw what you see), early > Arithmancy probably teaches "muggle" math as a foundation (in a > wizarding way that doesn't marginilize non-mathy kids), maybe the > kids learn literature in several classes by reading classic books > related to the subject. But there's completely and utterly absolutely NO mention of it--and the kids do have a pretty solid load of classes as it is. I'm not going to open the can of worms that is trying to work out a Hogwarts schedule, but I don't think there are vast areas of open time for them to enjoy. There are times when it's not mentioned but it's actually there (pace the Charms Club and all that, only revealed in OotP), but here is one place where I'm going to stick to the 'It's not mentioned because it really isn't there' line of thought. There are some entertaining nods to wizarding literature in the schoolbooks, but I think (and I'd love to ask on this) that the lack of music, art, literature, philosophy--basically, ANY humanities class--is thematic for wizarding society. Hogwarts is a school where you go to learn magic. The classes are overwhelmingly practical--how to make potions, how to take care of plants, how to transfigure things, what are Dark Creatures--with maybe a smattering of thinking about what all of this means thrown in, and it's very more than disturbing that most of that came from Crouch!moody. The kids learn how to write essays, as I can't see either Snape or McGonagall accepting things with lots of grammatical errors, but the work we've seen them doing so far seems largely of the book-report caliber. Wizards don't generally do well at logic (with the exception of people like Hermione, not raised in the culture, and the ever enigmatic Snape). They also don't seem, then, to have a terribly lively tradition of critical thinking. This seems to me clearly related to the problem above, because of this: They have magic. They are special and different from Muggles who don't, and they consequently generally see little of value to be gained in thinking about or like Muggles--Dumbledore is a grand exception. I've long nursed the hypothesis, way, way back in the archives (and I don't remember the post numbers) that it's slightly telling that Dumbledore and Flamel are both fans of a Muggle art form, classical music. Chamber music for Dumbledore (the stuff of the truly discerning, traditionally) and opera for Flamel (the urban art-form extraordinare and something wizards really couldn't have developed as one of their own artistic traditions). Magic is the kind of thing that helps stifle artistic creation, because it can perfectly modify reality, and produce perfect replicas. When you have wizarding portraits that move and talk (the highest possible versimilitude), why bother with developing things like Impressionism or abstract painting? (I think that the creative analyst can also link this to the general observation that wizarding society is not an urbanized one. There is one all-wizarding village in Great Britain. There are commercial and social centers, but then people live out in the countryside, as you can *do* that when you have magical transportation. Very nice in some ways, but it means they as a society, splitting when they did, never had to deal with many of the things that the urbanized European societies had to develop as a result of trying to figure out how to live in cities. Political theory is one BIG one. A number of very lovely developments in the arts also go along explicitly with urbanization.) Maybe there is a wide and flourishing tradition of wizarding literature--there are certainly books, of course. There is no evidence of the classroom presence of reading literature in order to read literature, though; reading through a book as a class to discuss meaning, interpretation, all of that jazz, this seems to just not be there. And the kids and the entire WW are intellectually impoverished from it. > If you're a wizard professor, with a life expectancy of 150+ years, > you have the time to be trained beyond the core curriculum you want > to teach, which would allow the education system to be much more > interdisciplinary. We also know (per interview) that there are not wizarding universities, and this is backed up in canon by Hermione in OotP. If there were university as a future educational option, *surely* she would have mentioned it. Fanfiction writers have postulated huge and intricate networks of learning (which somehow even manage to publish journals despite lacking the necessary graduate student slave labor and any defined mechanism for peer review), but I suspect the actuality behind it, in JKR's conception, is much less intricate. Maybe there's some Master/Apprentice structure, but we have no information about this, really. But there are no universities. -Nora notes that a few comments could completely destroy this entire theory, but would love some more information yea or nay on whether it's on to something or not From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 5 16:59:15 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:59:15 -0000 Subject: The Beetle At Bay In-Reply-To: <002701c49329$bd1d4210$79c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112127 --- Duffy Poo wrote: snip Madam P would have been able to sort her out in a minute if she had said what she did, but PP was 'illegal' and it would have gotten her into difficulty, suspension/expulsion - who knows. Given the chance Hermione saves her own neck, which, according to Phineas Nigellus is a Slytherin trait. > > I think Hermione should switch houses in the next book. What fun that would be!! ;-) > Potioncat: Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who thinks Hermione is very Slytherin, and that it isn't always a bad thing. I don't think she'll change houses, but maybe there will be a new ship with Hermione and Theo! Potioncat From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 16:52:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:52:33 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <003201c49267$a63c1a20$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112128 > Hannah now: > "I find it hard to understand why Snape didn't know that > Pettigrew was the traitor, since the other death eaters seemed > to know, judging by their lack of surprise at finding him by > LV's side at his return. Maybe he didn't know until after the > betrayal occurred (because that raises the question of why he > didn't tell DD if he did know who the traitor was), and perhaps > he decided it would be rather fitting to see his old enemy Black > in Azkaban. He could have lied to DD about having found some > sort of damning evidence that Black was indeed the traitor." > > DuffyPoo: > But then why would DD still trust Snape as he so obviously does, > and says, as late as OotP? He would have known of the deception > by PoA. Hannah again: That's a good point. Could he forgive Snape? Is it to do with the mysterious reason Snape switched allegiance (sp?)? I'm not sure. It's just, the more I think about it, the harder I find it to understand why Snape didn't know Pettigrew was the traitor, when all the other DEs do. Sirius says the reason Pettigrew 'hides' as a rat is because the other DEs are angry that he gave LV information that sent him to his (temporary) doom. Why doesn't Snape know when the rest do? Is it that LV suspected him and so withheld that crucial information from him? If so, why let Snape back again? Did the DEs only find out after LV's downfall that Pettigrew was the traitor? If so, where was Snape when this information was being spread around? Snape is Lucius Malfoy's 'lapdog.' Wouldn't Lucius, knowing Snape's feelings about Black, drop into conversation the delightful news that poor old Black was innocent after all? Perhaps Snape's crime isn't as bad as lying to DD to convict Black, but simply keeping his mouth shut once he's learnt the truth? He probably believed the imprisonment of Sirius wouldn't harm the Order any more, and I reckon he'd consider it justice for Black's 'attempted murder' of teenaged Severus. His hysterical behaviour at the end of PoA could be partly due to his horror at realising DD now knows the truth and is not going to be very pleased with him, might even cease to trust him. DD's good opinion and trust matter to Snape, I think. There are a number of questions here that I'd like to hear people's thoughts on. 1. Did Snape know Pettigrew was the traitor? 2. If he did, when did he find out? 3. If he knew before the betrayal, why didn't he say anything - or did he? 4. If he didn't know at all, why didn't he when the other DE's did? 5. Vice versa, why didn't Pettigrew know Snape was a spy for the Order? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Sep 5 17:14:51 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:14:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > Snow: > > Going once going twice sold! Brilliant Kneasy! JKR has such a knack > at leading one into assumption. The spell used at GH has always been > referred to but never identified as an AK, it's always the spell that > was used that night or something as equally evasive. Not quite. Crouch!Moody says that Harry survived an AK but also says that there's no counter-curse to it and no blocking it. Emphatically and repeatedly. Seems a bit contradictory to me. So I take the easy way out - if it's a spell that was countered by an ancient magic charm then it couldn't by definition have been an AK. Crouch!Moody was guessing, he didn't *know* what happened. Kneasy From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Sep 5 17:31:57 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:31:57 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c4936e$3f352670$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 112130 Hi, I have been wondering about this ever since I've read the fifth book. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't get what. In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the death of James and Lily Potter? Neha. Sherry now, Well, I am sure the dementors were always dreadful creatures, no matter which side they served. After all, when Harry first meets up with them, they are supposedly on the side of the ministry, but they are terrible and terrifying. I'm sure they were well known in the wizarding world before voldemort's fall. Oh just a slight correction: Petunia doesn't specifically say it James talking to Lily. She just says, "that dreadful boy" or something to that effect, which has led to some fascinating discussion on this list! Sherry email and MSN messenger: sherriola at earthlink.net From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 17:42:20 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:42:20 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112131 Neha wrote: >I have been wondering about this ever since I've read the fifth book. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't get what. In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the death of James and Lily Potter.< Hi Neha, everyone! As far as I know, nowhere in book four does it say specifically the dementors joined the Ministry after LV's fall. Dumbledore tells Fudge the dementors won't stay loyal to him and the Ministry with LV's return. He says the *giants* will rejoin Voldemort. I believe the dementors were guarding Azkaban since before Lily and James' death. I'm going to throw one of my own posts in here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/109517 Rather than requote the whole thing, I'll just briefly summarize and then quote. The Pensieve trials in Goblet of Fire all take place after LV's fall. Dementors appear in the Pensieve. So we know the dementors were with the Ministry after Godric's Hollow but before Fudge becomes Minister. However, I think there's reason to believe they were guarding Azkaban before Voldeomrt's fall from power. from 109517: "2. Dumbledore's comment to Moody in the pensieve: "I have long felt the Ministry is wrong to ally itself with such creatures." (GoF Ch 30, US ed. p 588) This sounds like the dementors have been around for a while, at least for a part of the first war. Now, I don't know why the dementors would choose to ally with the Ministry over LV considering their nature and Dumbledore's comment at the end of GoF that they wouldn't remain loyal to Fudge (Ch 36, US ed. p 707) but it does seem likely they were Azkaban guards during the first war." So I don't think there's any problem with saying Petunia could actually have heard about dementors guarding Azkaban from Lily and James. Whether this is truly where she got her information and if "her" and "that boy" are really Lily and James is questionable. But given Petunia's nosy nature, I have no trouble beleivng she learned all sorts of things about the WW from eavesdropping or spying on her sister. KathyK From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 5 17:55:13 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:55:13 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112132 mz_annethrope: > I don't think JKR is a Christian so I doubt this would be her > exact take in HP, but who knows.... SSSusan: Would you please clarify--*you* don't believe she meets the criteria of being a Christian? or you don't believe she has *stated* that she is a Christian? I won't even touch the former, but I can address the latter. >From CanadianChristianity.com (Nov. 2000): When pressed for details, the author told Solomon that she attends church regularly -- "I go to more than just weddings and christenings" -- and that she finds solace there. "It is a place I would go to in a time of trouble." Rowling also said she hasn't always turned to God for help during tough times, but she does now. >From HPfGU Fantastic Post "J.K. Rowling" by Penny Linsenmayer: She has cited involvement with the Church of Scotland.... And from Katie Couric interview, June 2003: Rowling: "Oh, I do believe in God." Couric: "You do?" Rowling: "Yeah, which I've said before, but that just seems to annoy them even more For some reason. I don't think they want me on their side at all." Now, you had been talking about *Eastern* Christianity in your post, and so it may be that you were referring to that belief system when you spoke? Just curious. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 18:14:22 2004 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Lady Pensieve) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:14:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112133 > Not quite. > Crouch!Moody says that Harry survived an AK but also says that there's no counter-curse to it and no blocking it. Emphatically and repeatedly. Seems a bit contradictory to me. So I take the easy way out - if it's a spell that was countered by an ancient magic charm then it couldn't by definition have been an AK. Crouch!Moody was guessing, he didn't *know* what happened. Kneasy <<< What if the curse wasn't blocked, but deflected, and that's why Harry has a scar, and why Lily died. A mother's love is quite protective and that particular love connected to a very strong deflection charm may be the reason Voldemort keeps saying the mother didn't have to die...the spell wasn't mean for her? Kathy From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 5 18:43:42 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:43:42 -0400 Subject: DD's agenda Message-ID: <002301c49378$45377f00$5dfae2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112134 Carolyn "And so it goes on and on. There is little doubt that DD has expended considerable efforts on his plans to protect Harry, from the moment he heard that prophecy at the Hogs Head. Fawkes is his phoenix, and only gave the second feather to Ollivander at Dumbledore's request, once DD realised the weapon would be required in the coming fight with Voldemort." DuffyPoo: I have rather a different understanding of this. Fawkes gave two feathers and Ollivander made two wands. Tom Riddle/LV bought one and the other remainded on the shelf until young Mr. Potter came along. There is no canon to prove either version, it is a wait and see if JKR reveals it, thing. "Tricky customer, eh? Not to worry, we'll find the perfect match *here somehwere* -- I wonder, now -- yes, why not -- unusual combination -- holly and phoneix feather..." (PS) If DD had truly manipulated the situation, Mr O. wouldn't have had to go through all this...should have just picked up the wand made to DD's specs and handed it to HP. As Hanna said: >>He seems genuinely surprised and fascinated when Harry suits *that* wand. And he makes Harry try lots of others first, which seems a risky course of action. A wizard must suit more than one wand, otherwise how do people ever manage when they break one. What if another good wand had turned up? Why not just say; 'let's try this one,' present the Fawkes-wand and save a lot of trouble. Harry wouldn't have known any different!<< "I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather -- just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother -- why, its brother gave you that scar. ... The wand chooses the wizard, remember." (PS) How, possibly, could DD 'know' that this wand (if he had specified that it be made) would choose HP? How could he 'know' that HP would ever attend Hogwarts? How could he 'know' that HP was even magical, that he wasn't a squib? DD, IMO, is only working on circumstantial evidence in believing that HP is the one who will fulfill the prophecy. I personally think JKR is setting us all up for a big GOTCHA at the end of the series. "Mr Ollivander wrote to tell me you had bought the second wand, the moment you left his shop four years ago." (GoF) Why would he need to write and tell DD something he would no doubt know if he set it up? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 5 18:46:47 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:46:47 -0400 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: <002701c49378$b336d410$5dfae2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112135 Magda "Of course Dumbledore didn't know Sirius was innocent. How could he? Once he found out - by questionning Sirius before the hospital scene in POA - he did what had to be done to prevent Sirius from being dementored. And he was a heck of a lot more effective at saving him than Sirius was at saving himself." DufffyPoo: I don't believe DD knew Sirius was innocent at the time of the betrayal/Muggle-murders. I do believe he came to the knowledge before the end of PoA and the questioning though, based on OotP, "We entered your third year. I watched from afar as you struggled to repel Dementors, as you *found Sirius, learned what he was* and rescued him." Why would DD let HP get this close to someone he believed to be a mass murderer, betrayer of HP's parents, and - according to Fudge - someone who escaped Azkaban to kill HP? Everyone else was trying to keep HP away from Sirius Black, but DD let him go to him. Doesn't make sense unless DD found out Sirius was innocent between the S-K switch and the Azkaban break-out. I also have a problem with DD with the whole Time Turning Sirius rescue thing. Yes, if he hadn't been rescued he would have been soul-sucked. However, Hermione said "Don't you understand? We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody!.....Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...." And what happened here because wizards meddled with time? Sirius and Buckbeak were rescued. Sirius and HP became close enough that LV could use Sirius to bring HP to the ministry which caused Sirius to go to the ministry and be killed. DD set the whole thing in motion by messing with time, yet he doesn't apologize for that in OotP, only for not telling HP about the prophecy, and that LV would use him to get the prophecy, but IMO, DD caused the whole mess by messing with time. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlawlor at gmail.com Sun Sep 5 18:47:27 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:47:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid in Knockturn Alley In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c4918f$c0acafb0$39c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <96773c8804090511471730ef32@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112136 Dungrollin: > I suspect that it was in both the book and the film so that there > was the potential for doubt about Hagrid when Riddle tells Harry > that it was him opening the chamber of secrets, so that we don't > immediately dismiss Heir-of-Slytherin!Hagrid as impossible. > > However, having said that, what was he _really_ doing in Knockturn > Alley? I remain convinced that flesh-eating slugs would have no > interest at all in the school cabbages. James: Or perhaps there are some things we don't know about the school cabbages. Come to think of it, I don't think we've ever seen anyone eating a salad... I can just hear Hermione now. "Harry, STOP. Don't you *know* what kind of cabbages they grow here? I read about them n Hogwarts, A History..." - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Sep 5 19:03:11 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:03:11 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: Jen: Ah, yes, FAITH is still alive and well in TBAY! There *are* some incredible minds in this group and they have convinced me of many things, including the fact that Dumbledore certainly does have a plan. But as to how far that plan goes and to what extent DD has control of the situation...well, I still have my doubts. Carolyn: Indeed, I am glad to hear it, but rumour had it a while ago that FAITH had been 'spotted walking down the promenade arm in arm with George, and .. occasionally been caught eyeing a speculation badge with an expression of hopeless longing'. Personally, I would have thought that George's many unusual acquaintances might have given the silly girl pause for thought by now. If not worse. As it is, I continue to worry for her fresh-faced innocence in this big bad world, and think her mother should have been just a tad clearer about a few things at some point in her upbringing. Jen: Take the wands, for instance. Carolyn said this: > Fawkes is his phoenix, and only gave the second feather to > Ollivander at Dumbledore's request, once DD realised the weapon > would be required in the coming fight with Voldemort. Jen: Yes, I believe Dumbledore requested Fawkes to give the feather. But that's where the certainty ends. First, Fawkes had to agree to do this, something DD could not control or force. Then, Ollivander had to use his skills to make the wand--choosing the wood, the length, the pliability, etc. Again, DD & Ollivander can make their best guess as to what wand would best suit Harry, but that's the extent of it. Carolyn: Fawkes readily does whatever DD asks - look at the alarm system the bird provides, alerting them to Umbridge's approach when DD needs time to send the Weasley's and Harry back to GP. And look at the role he plays in carrying DD out of the office when Fudge comes to arrest him, and then in the MoM he swallows an AK to save DD's life. Plus the numerous services he has performed for Harry. I think Fawkes' allegiance is pretty clear. Many posts have been written on the nature of wand wand, suitability of wands to people etc, but firstly, I think that having the same core as Voldemort's was the most important element, and that DD could control. Secondly, the length suitable for Harry could be guessed at by comparing him with James, and what height he eventually grew to. Thirdly, Ollivander would surely be the expert on the wood - and he chose the ancient holly, emblem of hope and joy (but also, worryingly for Harry, of death on the cross), to oppose yew, symbol of immortality, resilience and magic. Perhaps he knew they were of equal strength, and that was the best protection his skill could offer. Jen: *Then* and yes, I still believe this, the wand chooses the wizard. We see in PS/SS that when that particular wand was placed in Harry's hand, "He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end..."(Ss, chap. 5, p.85). In addition to being the correct wand for Harry, thus making him more powerful, this sequence was further evidence for DD that Harry is indeed the One, Voldemort's equal. To tamper with the wand or force Harry to choose a wand that didn't choose him would be to Dumbledore's detriment, not his strength. Carolyn: Only two wands that we know of have phoenix cores, Voldemort's and Harry's [although I'd bet quite a bit that DD's wand does as well]. I think it was inevitable that Harry's wand would choose him, because, as you say, Harry has a power to equal Voldemort. DD already guessed this would be the case from the prophecy, and from his knowledge of Voldemort's powers; he didn't have to force or risk anything. Jen: So, yes, I believe Dumbledore has gone to great lengths to safeguard Harry, using every opportunity to his advantage. As in all endeavors though, a certain percentage must be left for Fate to decide. Jen Reese, keepin' the Faith At the risk of shocking FAITH's sensibilities yet further, is it worth asking why DD might have set all this up? The MD team asserted (post 40044) that Voldie gave Harry back his wand at the graveyard simply to try and tire him out, hoping that a child would become exhausted duelling with a wizard of Voldie's ability using a wand that he had not yet learned how to use properly. Voldie hoped he might be softening Harry up for death by AK - except that the rare priori incantatem effect intervened. How sure are you that DD had not anticipated this? Maybe he had no knowledge of where and when it might be useful, but he must certainly have known that the second wand would not work against its brother? Even Sirius had heard of the reverse spell effect, so I am sure Voldie knew too, but what he didn't know was that he was facing such a wand - how could he? Finally, having hopefully induced further feelings of disquiet, I would like to ask a further wand-related question. Does Voldie know where the core of his wand originated? And if he does, what implications does that have? To speculate on the answer to this, I return yet again to what I think really makes the WW tick (see post 108963). I detailed there numerous examples of how magical ability drives the heirarchy in the WW, and whether it is possible that the role of Hogwarts down the ages has been to nurture and train that power, carrying out the original four founders' wishes. I speculated that for many years DD has been the most powerful wizard in the WW, but (because he has rejected immortality following his work with Flamel .. 'its your choices' etc) he has to look for a successor to carry the baton. He thought he had found that person in Tom Riddle, and his clue was Tom being able to claim his particular wand (containing the Fawkes feather core). Unfortunately, it appears that Tom concluded that immortality sounded rather a good idea, once he realised he had the necessary magical ability to claim it. Maybe he was possessed by essence of Slyth as Kneasy thinks, whatever. The situation went critical at this point, and DD has been struggling for many years to think of a way of dealing with him - and then along comes the prophecy, and the rest is history, or possibly toast, as far as Weapon!Harry is concerned. JKR said at the recent Edinburgh chat that the reason that DD gave Voldie for not killing him at the MoM ('your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death') was: 'not the real reason..Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that'. The betting has to be that some sort of wand-less magic, raw magic power, is going to win the day in the end, though who will be left standing is anyone's guess. But Jen, going waaaay back to your post 81106 (everything catches up with you in the end!), would you really be any happier with one wizard's power winning out over the other? What does that solve? Carolyn Hoping that JKR will leave us with that kind of problematic moral ending, and actually not caring very much whether Harry is dead or alive as result. FAITH, poor love, will, like truth be one of the first casualties of the war. RIP. From jlawlor at gmail.com Sun Sep 5 19:26:08 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:26:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Some Questions about the Scar and CoS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96773c8804090512264c703ba8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112138 Meri:: > I have just finished a reread of CoS and something started niggling > at me. Why is it that during the scenes down in the actual Chamber > of Secrets Harry's scar never bothered him? In SS Vapo!Mort made > Harry's scar burn from across a room, in GoF and OotP Harry can feel > LV from miles away, so why is it that when Harry is in close contact > with Diary!Tom he doesn't feel anything? Shouldn't his head be > splitting open from agony? James: I'd think perhaps because the Voldemort who he was talking with, in addition to not being a real person, was not the Voldemort that gave him the scar. I wonder his scar would hurt if Harry were to Timeturner back to, say, shortly before he was born and run into Voldemort. But of the two, I'd say it was mostly because Diary!Tom wasn't a real person (if Harry were to see a portrait of LV, I doubt that would make his scar hurt either). Meri: > Come to that, how did Diary!Tom know so much about his own future? I > always assumed that Ginny told him about Harry's defeat of LV, but > how did he know all that other stuff, like the fact that he became > LV at all? Was Lucius Malfoy writing in Tom Riddle's diary, > communicating with it somehow? Or did LV keep the journal longer > than Tom implied (ie: long after he was sixteen)? If the diary > hadn't been destroyed, what could it tell us about Tom and LV and > the Malfoys and all that good stuff? Would there have been a way to > make the diary tell the truth? James: I always assume that Ginny filled him in on what he didn't know. I would expect it went something like this: Ginny starts writing about all the little things going on in her life with going to Hogwarts, and mentions Harry. Diary!Tom nonchalantly asks about Harry as part of gaining Ginny's trust and mentions that Harry is famous for being the Boy Who Lived etc etc. Diary!Tom is of course fascinated, learning that his future self was defeated and asks for more information, and Ginny tells him what she knows. That would amount to that LV was a terrible dark wizard who's name is even feared to be spoken and was the cause of many tragedies up until the year before she was born, and that after being defeated by Harry he was still lurking around trying to come back to power, able to posess Quirrel, etc. (Although come to think of it, we don't actually know if anyone besides the Order and H/R/Hr knows that Voldemort was posessing Quirrel). Diary!Tom would be able to put this secondhand information together with his own ideals and plans for the future and have a fairly solid idea of what went on. It could easily be that Lucius wrote in the Diary as well, which would make some sense (not as Lucius-keeping-a-diary but Lucius-communicating-with-memory-of-LV) but if Lucius was "filling in the boss" so to speak, he would assumably have told Diary!Tom about what LV became and LV's downfall and therefore Harry, but Tom indicates that he found out about Harry from Ginny, so perhaps not. - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 5 18:41:50 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:41:50 -0000 Subject: GH again (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: <20040905.060510.3924.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112139 Karen L. agrees with what annegirl11 says below: > > I've never believed that Lily came up with the idea of this > > protection on her own. "Ancient magic" sounds more like DD's doing to > me > > This may be overly simplistic, but to me, the phrase "ancient magic" has > always sounded almost like "force of nature" or "lost and unknown magic." > That is to say, the protection happened by accident, completely > unexpected by Lily, borne out of her love of Harry. The same would happen > if any witch mother protected her baby. I have never believed the theory that Lily purposefully sacrificed herself to save Harry with the ancient magic. She was trying to protect her son the only way she could at the moment. I firmly believe it was an unplanned event that gave Harry the protection, because of DD's knowledge of the ancient magic, that he has. The only reason LV would have spared Lily was to torture her with the memory of her dead son and husband.... From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 19:06:24 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:06:24 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > Maybe there is a wide and flourishing tradition of wizarding > literature--there are certainly books, of course. There is no > evidence of the classroom presence of reading literature in order to > read literature, though; reading through a book as a class to discuss > meaning, interpretation, all of that jazz, this seems to just not be > there. And the kids and the entire WW are intellectually > impoverished from it. Historically, people read a lot more FOR ENTERTAINMENT than most people do today, so maybe, lacking tv and radio, the wizarding world thinks of it's literature more as a form of entertainment. The same used to be true for music, with the number of people who could play decreasing when recording technology came along. I also suspect that if the wizarding world relies on muggle schools (along with homeschooling) for early education, they probably also rely on the muggle educational system for higher levels than Hogwarts provides. I can picture them going into appreniceships to study magic-related feilds in depth, but going on to a muggle university to study something were the wizarding world and muggle world overlap. Afterall, why create a seporate system of their own, when the majority (the muggles) already have one in place? I see Hogwarts as the school for what they can't get from the muggle schools. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 5 17:06:51 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:06:51 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112141 > Karen L. I feel that DD used Lily's > sacrifice to protect Harry, and that's why he ended up at the > Dursleys'. It was about a week after Harry's parents died that he > was placed with the Dursleys. If this had been preplanned, > wouldn't he have gotten to the Dursley's sooner? He was > "unprotected" during that week that DD or whomever had him > and was deciding where Harry should go. Maybe that's when > DD discovered that this particular magic would protect Harry, he > did say it was old magic. If DD had any idea that LV was going to get to GH and kill the > Potter's, don't you think he would have surrounded the house > with more security? I firmly believe it was not planned, but DD > used his knowledge of old magic to protect Harry after the fact, by > sealing the magic by putting Harry with a blood relative. Hannah: Sorry, I don't think that's supported by canon. In PS/SS, McGonagall says LV turned up at the Potters' 'last night.'(British softback p14). So Harry is in fact being placed with the Dursley's the night after the attack, not a week later. Secondly, Hagrid, who lifts Harry out of the ruined house straight after the attack, already knows he's going to the Dursley's. He tells Sirius so, who turns up just after Hagrid (PoA pub conversation, UK softback p154). Dumbledore knows where Harry is going almost as soon as he hears of the attack - IMO, *before* the attack has even occurred (see my earlier post on this). Even if you don't subscribe to this theory, cannon tells us Harry's guardians were chosen before he was even removed from the wreckage of his former home. From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 5 22:41:23 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:41:23 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "henwen53207" wrote: > Snip from Keli > > After reading many of the replies about JK's comments on Pertunia, > > it got me thinking. Although Lily's grandparents were both > muggles, > > as, apparently were her parents, doesn't mean than any great- > > grandparents or even great-great-grandparents were. > >From Hen Wen > Please correct me if I am wrong -- I thought that Lily's grandparents > were > wizards. I got that impression from the FAQ About the Books section > of JKR's > website. Under the question of Half-Blood/Pure-Blood she write > "Therefore > Harry would be considered only 'half wizard' because of his mother's > grandparents." > > I take that to imply that Lily's grandparents were wizards. Their > child (one of > Lily's parents) must have been a squib. > >From Karen: James Potter is a full-blood. For Harry to be a half-blood, Lily is a Muggle. Therefore, Lily's grandparents are Muggles. - Karen From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 5 23:26:15 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:26:15 -0000 Subject: F+G/Muggle culture/sparing Lily/SnapeLikes/Kreachur/Founders/Deity/Relatives Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112143 Tina wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/111628 : << I do think however that [the twins] are Molly's and Arthur's natural children. In GoF Ch5 Harry notes "Charlie was built like the twins, shorter and stockier than Percy and Ron, who were both long and lanky." Not definitive but points to their being brothers. >> Charlie, the twins, and apparently (from OoP) Ginny, are build like Molly, while Bill and Ron are built like Arthur. It's far from impossible that Molly's brothers were built like her, and that her brother's sons were built like their dad. However, I think the twins are her sons, not her nephews. Aura wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/111864 : << I wonder if the last Vold War somehow led to more Muggle culture leaking into the wizarding world. >> Surely it did. One reason would be that it would have suddenly become fashionable to like Muggle-borns and want to protect Muggles (as proof that one did not share the defeated Death Eater beliefs), and part of that would be to adopt clothing styles, slang, etc that the Muggle-born were already using (from their Muggle lives). I have an elaborate theory of the inheritance of magic which specifies that there would actually be MORE Muggle-borns born during the Bad Times than usual, and therefore more Muggle-born students at Hogwarts than usual for the 11 or 12 or 13 years starting around Harrys's birth. (Timing: Harry was one year old when DD said the wizarding folk hadn't had much to celebrate for 11 years, therefore the Bad Times started 10 years before Harry was born.) Having more Muggle-borns among the Hogwarts students would mean they would have more influence on the wizarding youth culture. The relevant aspect of my theory of inheritance of magic is that somehow there are always the same number of wizarding people alive, so when one dies, another is born. (Someone, maybe Ffred, offered the improvement that rather than there being a constant number, it is a constant fraction of the human population, which would work out the same in the short term.) The magic tries to go to the closest most suitable baby born at the time (suitability is based on 1) closeness to magic during pregnancy and 2) genetics). The reason for Muggle-borns is that a wizard or witch died when no wizarding baby was being born, and the reason for Squibs is that a wizarding baby was born when no witch or wizard was dying. It seems to me that quite a few wizards and witches have no children or only one child, so there are always Muggleborns but Squibs are very unusual, maybe one in thirty years normally. During the Bad Times, MANY wizards and witches were dying (killed by Death Eaters or Aurors) so many new witches and wizards had to be born to replace them. And even fewer than usual wizarding people were having babies, because they wouldn't want to bring children into a world of such fear and danger. Thus, LV's attempt to exterminate Muggle-borns ironically resulted in an increase of Muggle-borns. But there may have been a wizarding baby boom after LV's defeat, and that may have resulted in more Squibs being born than usual. Angie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111926 : << Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? >> Why hasn't anyone mentioned yet the family of theories with names like TOO EWW TO BE TREW and SO EWW ITS IN THE SEWER? They started from the LOLLIPOPS ("Love of Lily left ire polluting our poor Severus") theory that the motive of most of the backstory is that Snape was in love with Lily. In that theory, he joined the Death Eaters in a snit when Lily chose his enemy James instead. When he found that his master desired to kill all three Potters, he tried to save Lily's life by begging LV to give Lily to him as a slave. LV liked Sevvie enough to promise that he would do so as long as Lily didn't interfere with killing the males. Severus knew that Lily would NEVER agree to save her life at the cost of her baby's life, so his next attempt to save her was to change sides and warn Dumbledore and James that LV had a spy and was after all three Potters. Part of why Severus hates James so much is that he felt that James disregarded his warning, thus killing Lily. The first offshoot was the theory that Pettigrew made some deal with LV in which LV would give him Lily as his payment for revealing the Secret. Rationales range from Pettigrew had already revealed the secret and was trying to save at least one life to Pettigrew had the hots for Lily bad enough that he brought the proposed deal to LV as a way to get her. Another offshoot was that LV wanted Lily for his own use. A form of this was offered by Lady McBeth in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112054 suggesting that LV wanted to use Lily as a charms expert. The EWW version was that he wanted her to bear him a child, possibly because there was some prophecy that Lily's son would win the war for his father's side. Personally, I doubt that because I believe that LV had already turned himself into an immortal unhuman snake-man when he started recruiting DEs, and that part of his snake-man condition was total lack of sexual desire and sexual organs. Magda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112041 : << those [Snape] doesn't like - which seems to mean the entire world outside of Dumbledore and McGonagall >> He seems to like Filch, or at least trust him to bandage his Fluffy-bite. Is there any canon evidence that he doesn't like Sprout and Flitwick, that he assumes the worst of Sinistra and Vector? What does canon indicate he feels about Hagrid? Marianne wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112085 : << He did imply that he somehow forced Kreacher to give him the correct story of why everyone at 12 Grimmauld Place, including Sirius, had dashed off to the DoM. Somehow I doubt his methods included bribing Kreacher with piles of chocolate bars. >> Veritaserum, Legilimency, or Imperius. All ethically dubious but faster and more efficient than my hope that DD had tortured the little toe-rag to the point that his head is now on the wall with his ancestors'. Macfotuk wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112089 : << Also for the SHIPper's two males and two females among the founders - is this just year 2000+ PCness or - any SHIPs here? >> You mean, besides the ever-popular Godric/Salazar ship, based on the idea that they were closer than brothers and more than best friends before they split up? Personally, my own Founderfic has Salazar being already evil before Godric was ever born and they were never best friends, just colleagues. In my own private Potterverse, at the time of Founding, Godric and Helga were married, each a bit over 100 years old, third marriage for both of them (because previous marriages were to Muggles who died naturally). 600-year-old Salazar is courting 21-year-old Rowena, both because her magical power and her intelligence can be useful for him and because she is quite beautiful. To me, Godric was pureblood, Helga witch mother Muggle father, Rowena Muggle-born, and Salazar probably Muggle mother wizard father. And Godric and Helga got the school to start a school when they observed this immensely talented child, Rowena, with no one to teach her, so they wanted to teach her. Imamommy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112095 : << I have long felt, in the absence of any defined deity in Potterverse, that there is some entity that is "good" and one that is "bad", and that *something or someone* higher than mortals is providing Harry with some of the tools to defeat this great evil. >> In RL, people argue about whether the universe had a Creator, whether a Higher Power can interfere in current events, whether the future can be foretold. In the Potterverse, it is very clear to us readers that there was a Creator who continues to control events and who knows what is going to happen in future books, named Joanne Rowling. In general, people who have theories in which DD is the puppetmaster point to examples of unlikely co-incidences that save Harry's life or advance LV's defeat, like Harry and LV having brother wands, or Crouch!Moody fooling Moody's old friend DD for an entire year, and say that someone must have PLANNED and CAUSED that co-incidence to happen. SOMEONE did, the question is whether it was DD or JKR. Should we question JKR's ethics is making Sirius languish in a particularly horrible prison for 12 years? Carolyn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112137 : << Only two wands that we know of have phoenix cores, Voldemort's and Harry's >> The wands Harry tried in Ollivander's shop included: ""Maple and phoenix feather. Seven inches. Quite whippy." Jessi wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112102 : << I also have some ideas about Harry being related to both Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin (meaning of course he would also be of relation to LV). >> http://www.jkrowling.co.uk/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=3 Rumor: Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative of some description Answer: No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/JKRWorldBookDay2004.html Jami: Is Harry related to Godric Gryffindor? JK Rowling replies -> People are always wondering who Harry might be related to. Maybe he is ;) Harry: Has Voldermort any children JK Rowling replies -> No. Voldemort as a father... now that's not a nice thought. From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 5 23:36:15 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:36:15 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please / Kreacher In-Reply-To: <001b01c492c6$d5760d00$542f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112144 Susana writes: > In GoF chap.21, Harry asks Dobby if he can speak ill of he's previous > masters (I have the Portuguese version so I won't quote) and Dobby *does*, > though he runs his head into the wall right after (just lack of practice, > according to Harry). Winky, on the other hand, refuses. It's clear to me > that house elves have a mind of their one and are perfectly capable to judge > their masters. Winky is still loyal to Mr. Crouch Sr. because she *does* > believe he is a good man whereas Dobby, like Kreacher, found every excuse to > disobey while still in service to a master they disapprove of. > > IMO, Kreacher is now a liability to the order. If he is set free (or > inherited) he will have many secrets to reveal, the most destructive of all > being: "Severus Snape drops in from time to time to give important reports". > As he went to Narcisa in OotP, the Malfoys know of he's existence and can > probably guess the amount of useful information he would be willing to give > them. > Karen M writes: Difference between Dobby/Winky and Kreacher is that Dobby and Winky were given clothes thereby freeing them from their service and Kreacher's service to the Black family has not been through clothes. IMO this difference will force Kreacher to keep the Order's secrets no matter who his next "master" is. - Karen From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 23:53:01 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:53:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's protection References: Message-ID: <02db01c493a3$7ae9c6f0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 112145 From: "Lady Pensieve" >> What if the curse wasn't blocked, but deflected, and that's why > Harry has a scar, and why Lily died. A mother's love is quite > protective and that particular love connected to a very strong > deflection charm may be the reason Voldemort keeps saying the mother > didn't have to die...the spell wasn't mean for her? Charme: Hey now, you know there's canon to support that directly from LV's snake lips? In Gof, pgs 652 US: " You all know 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..." and then again on page 653: " I miscalculated my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself." I think you're right, Kathy. Charme From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 00:01:12 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:01:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lady Pensieve" wrote: (Quoting Kneasy) > > Not quite. > > Crouch!Moody says that Harry survived an AK but also says that > there's no counter-curse to it and no blocking it. Emphatically and > repeatedly. Seems a bit contradictory to me. So I take the easy way > out - if it's a spell that was countered by an ancient magic charm > then it couldn't by definition have been an AK. Crouch!Moody was > guessing, he didn't *know* what happened. Kneasy <<< I think that's right Kneasy. LV wasn't around to tell anyone what he did at GH until at least QuirrelMort and possibly nobody else could know (Harry too young to remember conciously, Lily and James both dead - we have no canon about other witnesses). It was simply assumed that LV would use AK - the young Barty likely wouldn't know a worse spell and the WW assumes this too in naming HP 'the boy who lived'. > What if the curse wasn't blocked, but deflected, and that's why > Harry has a scar, and why Lily died. A mother's love is quite > protective and that particular love connected to a very strong > deflection charm may be the reason Voldemort keeps saying the mother > didn't have to die...the spell wasn't mean for her? > > Kathy I think we have canon to say that the spell *did* rebound AND, now that I re-read it properly, that LV used AK - on JKR's site and its transcript of her recent Edinburgh interview she states near the end (my emphasis): The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?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? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. 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, particularly now that you know about the prophesy. I'd better stop there or I will really incriminate myself. She may mean another killing curse perhaps, but AK is THE killing curse surely? And this leads me back to an earlier post about why priori incantatem didn't reveal this spell - and yes I accept from others that maybe it's because it didn't work, though it certainly didn't have 'no effect'!!!!!!! From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 6 00:04:35 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:04:35 EDT Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112147 Hannah wrote: > There are a number of questions here that I'd like to hear people's > thoughts on. 1. Did Snape know Pettigrew was the traitor? 2. If he > did, when did he find out? 3. If he knew before the betrayal, why > didn't he say anything - or did he? 4. If he didn't know at all, why > didn't he when the other DE's did? 5. Vice versa, why didn't > Pettigrew know Snape was a spy for the Order? > Juli's thoughts 1. No. Snape's reactions, both in the Shrieking Shack and later to Sirius's escape at the end of POA, as well as his reaction to Sirius's return at the end of GOF seemed too genuine to me. On that basis alone, I think Snape adamantly believed Sirius was the traitor. Skip 2. and 3. as they don't apply when answer to 1. is "no." 4. This is a good question. Isn't there mention, or at least implication, somewhere in the books that the DEs didn't always know each other's identities? I've always gotten the feeling that Snape performed a different task for LV than many of the other DEs (perhaps making potions). So he may not have mingled with the rest of the DEs often. And while Sirius said Peter was hiding in rat form because the DEs were angry at him over LV's downfall at GH, we don't know how many DEs actually knew (or needed to know) of Peter's involvement or identity. It could have been a select few that Peter feared. The question is, was Lucius one of those few? We don't know, but if we assume Snape didn't know about Peter (as I do), then perhaps Lucius didn't know. Or he could have known but kept it to himself. Those DEs who knew each other, like Lucius and Snape, may have feared conversing much about their activities once Voldemort was gone. There's also the question of just how much Lucius actually trusts Snape. All loyalty among the DEs seems pretty suspect. 5. Do you mean why doesn't Peter realize it once his identity is revealed in the Shrieking Shack? Perhaps he has told Voldemort, and Voldy is waiting for an opportune time to take out Snape. Or Snape has convinced Voldy he is a double agent and is pretending to spy for the Order while really on Voldemort's side. Any way you look at it, it is a little messy. Maybe that was or wasn't JKR's intention, but we don't have enough concrete information about how the DEs were organized or how they performed their "duties" to say for sure who did and didn't know Peter's identity. Juli (who is becoming more and more suspicious Snape has avoided his head landing on the chopping block because of a yet to be revealed blood connection to Voldemort.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 00:06:05 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:06:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] THEORY:Re: Snape and Neville References: <001201c492cc$ca27b4c0$42c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <033001c493a5$4e31a5e0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 112148 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cathy Drolet" > DuffyPoo: > I assumed that the eavesdropper - not Mundungus, but whoever it was - was thrown out for eavesdropping. I guess I just take it at face value when DD says, "My -- our -- one stroke of good fortune was that the *eavesdropper* was detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the building." DD and Trelawney were, after all, in a "room above the bar at the Hog's Head inn" not in the bar directly. The person was intentionally listening at the door. Twenty years is too long for the ban to be connected to the eavesdropping incident, as you said, but why would Mundungus have need to go back there? Crook business is everywhere, not just in Hogsmeade. There are lots of other pubs around, wizard and otherwise, I'd imagine, he has no need to be in this one again until they need him to follow/protect HP. Even if he had been there on crook business, disguised to hide from the barman, why would he be following DD upstairs, when his crook business would most likely be going on downstairs in the pub? > Charme: After re-reading GoF today, I'm convinced that the "eavesdropper" is Ludo Bagman. Ludo was accused of "passing information to Lord Voldemort's supporters." We're never told what information he supposedly passed, and only that he mistakenly passed whatever it was to Rookwood whom Ludo claims was an old friend who promised to get him a job in the Ministry. Something to think about, anyway. charme From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 00:10:03 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:10:03 -0000 Subject: Uric the Oddball In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112149 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rmmiller95" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Note that poking fun is, in idiomatic UK English, 'taking the > piss' > > (hence urine) > > > > Can anyone add what it says in fantastic beasts about Uric? (my > copy > > is in storage at present). > > > > rmmiller95 > > Hello I don't come out much, but I was reading about Uric and this > is what I found. > > "Uric the Oddball attempted at one time to prove that Fwooper > song was actually beneficial to the health and listened to it for > three months on end without a break. Unfortunatly the Wizards' > Councel to witch he reported his findings were unconvinced, as he > had arrived at the meating wearing nothing but a toupee that on > closer inspection proved to be a dead badger." > ( page 18 Fantastic Beasts and were to find them )(JKR) > > I hope that this helps you. Thanks rnmiller95. So, this guy is completely loopy (Luna Lovegood and father ring any bells? - perhaps he's an ancestor) and has a penchant for wearing strange beasts as headgear (jellyfish and badgers). Given that FB was written for comic relief, it does seem Uric is simply there to provide moments of light relief and repetition of his appearance is because JKR loves him. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Mon Sep 6 00:08:17 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:08:17 +0100 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban References: Message-ID: <002d01c493a8$90d0d350$1e280dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112150 Hannah wrote: "There are a number of questions here that I'd like to hear people's thoughts on. 1. Did Snape know Pettigrew was the traitor? 2. If he did, when did he find out? 3. If he knew before the betrayal, why didn't he say anything - or did he? 4. If he didn't know at all, why didn't he when the other DE's did? 5. Vice versa, why didn't Pettigrew know Snape was a spy for the Order?" ------------------ My view is: 1. Did Snape know Pettigrew was the traitor? No. At the end of GoF he doesn' t turn to Hysterical!Snape after seeing Sirius. It seems to me he's over the grief of knowing Sirius was innocent of the betrayal. At the end of PoA he has a reaction I can only interpret as 'No! He's a murderer! I've known it for 20 years!' and even then Hysterical!Snape is cold enough to accept DD's decision. If he had known 15 years ago he was innocent and said nothing out of meanness, why freak out now? As long as Pettigrew didn't sow up Sirius would still be blamed, and if he did sow up Snape could say he didn't know. 2. If he did, when did he find out? He didn't; not until the end of PoA. 3. If he knew before the betrayal, why didn't he say anything - or did he? He might have been the spy who told DD that the secret keeper had given the whereabouts of the Potters to LV - without knowing who the SK was. 4. If he didn't know at all, why didn't he when the other DE's did? The other DEs would only have learned about the SK change in Azkaban, the same way Sirius learned about them wanting revenge from the SK. The fact that Pettigrew was afraid of that revenge doesn't mean *all* the DEs knew he was the one. Nevertheless, some (the top ones) probably knew. That could mean that Lucius Malfoy did but why would he tell Snape? People (smart people, at least) don't brag stupidly about things when they're in hot water. If Pettigrew was caught it's likely he would turn in every DE he knew of to get himself of. The DEs at large who knew about Pettigrew would want to kill him for that reason more than the other. 5. Vice versa, why didn't Pettigrew know Snape was a spy for the Order? The same way Snape didn't know that Pettigrew was the spy for LV - Sirius didn't seem to know. Susana From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 00:30:17 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:30:17 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <20040905.060510.3924.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > Nora said: > > If I were Headmaster, all the kids would > > have to take literature courses, just to have to *think*. Alas... > > When I first read PS/SS, and I saw Harry's text book list, I tried to > line up which book would cognate to which Muggle subject. It didn't > entirly work, but I still fanwank that Wizard schooling isn't that > different from muggle, only the format. Potions = chemistry, Mac interjects: I agree insofar as chemistry is an exact science and reactants must be mixed and treated precisely, although cooking also springs to mind - a well-brewed potion owes more to the mastery of the maker (a bit like a souffle) than to the recipe per se (instruction list). Also ingredients being magical (many having to be harvested during the correct phase of the moon) are a bit akin to canned versus fresh, organic - which can produce dishes of quite different eating experience from an identical recipe. > Transfiguration = physics/biology/biophysics, Herbology = plant- based > biology/some chemistry, arithmancy = maths, etc. The wizarding education > system apparently doesn't *divide* the sciences the way we do, i.e. a > class on biology, both plant and animal. Care of Magical Creatures? > So, my theory is that in the vast areas of the kids' schooling that we > don't see, they are learning literature, creative and academic writing, > basic arithmetic, even music or art. All those essays and textbooks to read presumably take care of reading and writing and, arguably languages, but it seems distinctly odd from an author of JKR's voracious novel consumption that there isn't an equivalent medium by wizards (novels/fiction that is), but maybe all the missing things (art, music and novels) could be in muggle studies? Where do the WW portrait painters learn their art? or robe-makers (Madame Malkin)? or the musicians (Weird Sisters)? Where are the 'games'/PE/sports? - PE is compulsory as far as know in muggle education worldwide. Hogwarts classes do one broom lesson (it would seem) and then never again - what DOES madame Hooch teach? Can Hermione fly a broom (as a complete one-time muggle before Hogwart's)? > The classes are just divided > differently. I can see how art would be part of Care of Magical Creatures > (because you have to draw what you see), early Arithmancy probably > teaches "muggle" math as a foundation (in a wizarding way that doesn't > marginilize non-mathy kids), maybe the kids learn literature in several > classes by reading classic books related to the subject. > > If you're a wizard professor, with a life expectancy of 150+ years, you > have the time to be trained beyond the core curriculem you want to teach, > which would allow the education system to be much more interdisceplenary. > > Aura > > ~*~ > Well that's a horse of a different color. > Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 02:52:55 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 02:52:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <20040904212541.95462.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112152 Magda: > All this talk about love and choices will strike Snape as > just so much wussery about emotions that can only make a wizard > weak, not strong. SSSusan: "So much wussery"--what a great word! ;-) Magda: > Lately though I've been wondering about something: wouldn't it be a > total kick if Harry has to time-turner 25 years into the past > because it's actually Harry and not James who pulls Snape out of > the tunnel and saves him from a werewolf? Because Snape is needed > in the future for some potions work or something? SSSusan: I have *such* a hard time w/ time-turning, that I hesitate to even ask this, but.... Is it the general consensus that a person can TT to a moment *before* he was even born **and then perform some action which changes events**? Not like in PoA, when H/H simply time-turn to a point w/in the same day? Could Harry go back 25 years, to when he was "minus-10"?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 03:04:41 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 03:04:41 -0000 Subject: Events at GH & How did WW know? (was Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hannahmarder" wrote: > > (Quote) Karen L. > >It was about a week after Harry's parents died that he > > was placed with the Dursleys. > Hannah: Sorry, I don't think that's supported by canon. In PS/SS, > McGonagall says LV turned up at the Potters' 'last night.'(British > softback p14). So Harry is in fact being placed with the Dursley's > the night after the attack, not a week later. >Dumbledore knows where Harry is going almost as soon as he > hears of the attack - IMO, *before* the attack has even occurred > (see my earlier post on this). Even if you don't subscribe to this > theory, cannon tells us Harry's guardians were chosen before he was > even removed from the wreckage of his former home. I agree DD knew Harry would have to go to Petunia if, as all suspected/feared, LV ever came after him and released the 'old magic' protecting him. This could only happen at the expense of Lily's life - meaning that DD, James and Lily all knew Harry was a target (DD knew the prophecy and one assumes so did Lily although in scheming!DD theories he may just have persuaded her to protect Harry without giving details of just why he might be under threat and/or how real that threat actually was in all likelihood). I think Karen L. can be forgiven for having come away with the impression that there was a long time between GH and Privet Drive because ALL that day magical folk nationwide were celebrating. ******** How did they know so quickly? ************ Did the DE's have some light at headquarters that burned all the time LV was powerful (alive) that went out (or something?). Stupid example I know. But, there must have been something to get people out of hiding from fear of him. Also, how is it that nobody knows LV came back a year ago in late OotP yet the WW knew the instant (inside a few hours) something had happened at GH? perhaps a thousand imperio victims were released at once, but surely this would not depend on just one, albeit very powerful, wizard? Another thing about GH that doesn't make sense to me (perhaps someone has theories posted or to propose) is why there was screaming that Harry recalls (when dementors attack - or used to). When did Lily scream? - at the point of being Ak'd? I assume not - victims usually don't scream. It's most logical that she's screaming because her baby is under threat and/or being attacked, but if so even LV can't be so stupid as to think that saying 'stand aside you silly girl' (or whatever the words were) was likely to make her do so. Perhaps because he's callous enough to want (and be able, cold- bloodedly) to zap a 1 year-old baby his understanding of a mother's feelings, for her baby over her own life, are equally psychopathic - that is, in his own values/belief system he cannot comprehend anybody wanting anything more than to preserve their own life ahead of anyone else's (Pettigrew would be in this mould) - that would be 'silly'. I always read it that he thought her silly to think she could stand up to him. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 6 04:32:34 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 04:32:34 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112154 > Carolyn: > Fawkes readily does whatever DD asks - look at the alarm system the > bird provides, alerting them to Umbridge's approach when DD needs > time to send the Weasley's and Harry back to GP. And look at the role > he plays in carrying DD out of the office when Fudge comes to arrest > him, and then in the MoM he swallows an AK to save DD's life. Plus > the numerous services he has performed for Harry. I think Fawkes' > allegiance is pretty clear. Jen: Fair enough. So since the Phoenix song inspires courage in the pure of heart & has tears with magical healing powers, you could extrapolate out to say the Phoenix would only be loyal to a person of purity and integrity. So Fawkes would *not* grant Dumbledore something for personal gain or impure motives. So, I'd say Fawkes gave the feather willingly based on his loyalty to Dumbledore, a person Fawkes deems to have integrity. > Carolyn: > Only two wands that we know of have phoenix cores, Voldemort's and > Harry's [although I'd bet quite a bit that DD's wand does as well]. I > think it was inevitable that Harry's wand would choose him, because, > as you say, Harry has a power to equal Voldemort. DD already guessed > this would be the case from the prophecy, and from his knowledge of > Voldemort's powers; he didn't have to force or risk anything. Jen: The only thing that bothers me here is a point Hannah brought up in post 112124. She said: "And he {Ollivander} makes Harry try lots of others first, which seems a risky course of action. A wizard must suit more than one wand, otherwise how do people ever manage when they break one. What if another good wand had turned up? Why not just say; 'let's try this one,' present the Fawkes-wand and save a lot of trouble. Harry wouldn't have known any different!" Why bother with the pretense? As Hannah points out, the process is completely new to Harry and he wouldn't question if the 1st, 5th or 100th wand was the one! Carolyn: > At the risk of shocking FAITH's sensibilities yet further, is it > worth asking why DD might have set all this up? > How sure are you that DD had not anticipated this? Maybe he had no > knowledge of where and when it might be useful, but he must certainly > have known that the second wand would not work against its brother? Jen: Oh, absolutely! I'm certain Dumbledore saw an opportunity to influence the outcome of some future duel between Harry and Voldemort, with one possible outcome being Prior Incantatem. But that is where our paths divide. Once again, I see Dumbledore wisely setting up yet another barrier to Voldemort vanquishing Harry before the opposite happens. But many events had to occur for DD's plan to suceed. IF the brother wand chose Harry and IF he and Voldemort are dueling and IF they both cast a spell at the same time, Dumbledore's plan suceeds. That's not a 100% gurantee, just one outcome of many possible ones. Carolyn: > Finally, having hopefully induced further feelings of disquiet, I > would like to ask a further wand-related question. Does Voldie know > where the core of his wand originated? And if he does, what > implications does that have? Jen: Interesting thought. I guess now LV does know about the brother wands, so if there are any negative implications for having Fawkes' feather as his wand core, he'd better be working out a plan that's more successful than his usual machinations! Carolyn: > I speculated that for many years DD has been the most powerful wizard > in the WW, but (because he has rejected immortality following his > work with Flamel .. 'its your choices' etc) he has to look for a > successor to carry the baton. He thought he had found that person > in Tom Riddle, and his clue was Tom being able to claim his > particular wand (containing the Fawkes feather core). > Unfortunately, it appears that Tom concluded that immortality sounded > rather a good idea, once he realised he had the necessary magical > ability to claim it. Maybe he was possessed by essence of Slyth as > Kneasy thinks, whatever. The situation went critical at this point, > and DD has been struggling for many years to think of a way of > dealing with him - and then along comes the prophecy, and the rest is > history, or possibly toast, as far as Weapon!Harry is concerned. Jen: I don't have any speculation myself, but you make a good case for Tom-as-succesor based on having the Fawkes feather wand core. Even though 16 y.o. Riddle tells Harry that Dumbledore, "never seemed to like me as much as the other teachers did" (COS, chap. 17, p. 312) that could be the infamous Riddle paranoia surfacing. Or Dumbledore was starting to suspect Tom would *not* follow in his own footsteps and in fact, was headed in a very troubling direction. Carolyn: > But Jen, going waaaay back to your post 81106 (everything catches up > with you in the end!), would you really be any happier with one > wizard's power winning out over the other? What does that solve? Jen: Ah, yes, one of my favorite posts! There's no contradiction though, between what I said then and now. Do I want Harry to defeat Voldemort? Yes. Because, as I said in that post, "I believe a society set up to disapprove of evil is a better society. Any society that chooses to transform Evil to Good is making the better choice." Do I want to see Dumbledore sacrifice the entire WW in the Fires of Transformation to eradicate Evil once and for all, without the knowledge or consent of most of the population? Well, you know my answer to that one ;). > Carolyn > Hoping that JKR will leave us with that kind of problematic moral > ending, and actually not caring very much whether Harry is dead or > alive as result. FAITH, poor love, will, like truth be one of the > first casualties of the war. RIP. Jen, who doesn't have a clue whether Harry will live or not, and even less of an idea what type of ending JKR is going for. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Mon Sep 6 04:39:41 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 04:39:41 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: <000d01c4936e$3f352670$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112155 Neha wondered: >> In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors >> and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard >> James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, >> according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side >> after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the >> death of James and Lily Potter? And Sherry commented: > Slight correction: Petunia doesn't specifically say it James > talking to Lily. She just says, "that dreadful boy" or something > to that effect... Yb's thoughts: GoF, AmVer, Chap 27, p. 527: [Sirius] "And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial." [Sirius] "I saw the dementors bringing him in..." (referring to Barty Crouch, Jr.) p. 529: [Sirius] "He [Jr.] died about a year after they [dementors] brought him in.... So old Crouch lost it all.... One moment, a hero, poised to become Minister of Magic... next, his son dead, his wife dead, the family name dishonored, and, so I've heard since I escaped, a big drop in popularity. Once the boy had died, people started feeling a bit more sympathetic toward the son... The conclusion was that his father never cared much for him. So Cornelius Fudge got the top job..." So what do we learn from this? 1) Fudge became Minister at least a year after the Potters died, maybe even two. 2) The dementors were in place before Sirius was put in Azkaban. We know that Sirius was arrested the day after the Potters died. PoA, AmVer, Chap. 10, p. 207: [Madam Rosmerta] "But he didn't manage to disappear, did he? The Ministry of Magic caught up with him the next day!" Thus, it is entirely possible that Petunia could have overheard James and Lily talking about the dementors. But, I DON'T THINK SO!!! Listen to what she says: OotP, AmVer, Char. 2, p. 31-32 "They guard the wizard prison, Azkaban," said Aunt Petunia. Two seconds' ringing silence followed these words and then Aunt Petunia clapped her hand over her mouth as though she had let slip a disgusting swear word. ... Harry's brain reeled. ... "How d'you know that?" He [Harry, I'm assuming] asked her, astonished. Aunt Petunia looked quite appalled with herself. She glanced at Uncle Vernon in fearful apology, then lowered her hand slightly to reveal her horsey teeth. "I heard -- that awful boy -- telling /her/ about them -- years ago," she said jerkily. OK, so she did know what they were, though she's never let on. She knows what Azkaban is, as well. This slips out: it doesn't seem like she's dragging the information out of her memory; on the contrary, it is pretty fresh. She looks at Vernon in apology: she is NOT supposed to know this, since they both (supposedly) abhor magic, and Harry is the only connection they have to the magical world. She has a few seconds (probably several) to think of something to say, but her mind isn't running too quickly, so her excuse (** see below **) is jerky. She's heard about dementors since 15 years ago, that's for certain. Not that she may have /not/ heard about Dementors from Lily and AB (Awful Boy). She and Vernon (from PS/SS) pretend she doesn't even have a sister, and when he refers to Lily in the first chapter, he says "/her/," the same way Petunia does in the quote above. Lily and James may well have talked about dementors and Azkaban. They were in the Order, so they may have discussed captured DEs and Petunia may have overheard them once or twice. But, PS/SS says that "Mrs. Potter was Mrs. Dursley's sister, but they hadn't met for several years." (AmVer, p. 2). So, either Petunia had been seeing the Potters without Vernon, or she heard them talking several years earlier (>3), when James and Lily were almost or fresh out of school, a little young for the Order. Therefore, IMO, Petunia has heard of dementors more recently than before Harry was dropped on their doorstep, and she probably knows a /lot/ more about the WW than Harry, Vernon, or Dudders suspects. No, I don't think she's a squib, or a witch with under-developed powers, but she knows plenty. ~Yb, with a post that was apparently eating its Wheaties today. My, it got so BIG... From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Sep 6 00:06:37 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:06:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum Message-ID: <20040905.200939.1008.4.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112156 Nora: > But there's completely and utterly absolutely NO mention of it--and > the kids do have a pretty solid load of classes as it is. I don't mean extra classes, I mean learning things as part of classes and a more wholistic view of education. For example, rather than only studying magical creatures in magical creature class, they also may study art, because drawing is related to studying magical creatures. We're only seeing the "magical" studies, and it's not like we're reading their syllabi or perusing their textbooks. In between all the other stuff going on in the books, who knows what the kids are learning. I know there's no evidence of this. That's what makes it a theory or a fanwank. I'm just saying it *could* work, that in the magical world, educational topics are divided differently, and taught differently. Maybe even better, so kids don't need to spend an entire year learning algebra before they can apply it to arithmancy. Maybe blending algebra and arithmancy makes learning maths clearer, because it's more relevant. > Hogwarts is a school where you go to learn magic. The classes are > overwhelmingly practical That's what I'm saying: this is the perspective we get from Harry, but maybe it's not the whole story. Maybe Harry (our narrator) just doesn't feel like making note of boring muggle stuff like literature, art, etc. We aren't with him every minute of the day, week, or year. > Wizards don't generally do well at logic They have magic. That sounds like cultural bias to me: they don't learn things the way we do, so their shortcomings must be because of differences from our culture. We just don't know what's going on in the inner workings of the Wizard world -- or the inner workings of any adult wizard -- because Harry doesn't know. And I apologize for talking so seriously about an imaginary, fairly silly universe. :) > that it's slightly telling that > Dumbledore and Flamel are both fans of a Muggle art form, classical > music. Do we have any evidence that those classical musicans weren't wizards? (I honestly don't remember.) > Magic is the kind of thing > that helps stifle artistic creation Now you're just being an art-fundie. That's like saying the computer is the death of artwork. Photoshop can make things like shading, line, and perspective easier, but if you don't have the talent, you're not going to produce a decent work of art on Photoshop (trust me, I've tried, and I suck as much as I do on paper). Similarly, I don't see why a wizard can't use magic in his art. Imagine the kind of crazy artistic stunts Warhol (some kind of floating, twisting mobias cube thing?), Calder (transmogrifying the Eiffle tower into a self-supporting mobile?), or that guy who put the umbrellas down the LA parkway (umbrellas 400 feet above the parkway?) could pull with magic. Hieronomyous Bosh was *totally* in touch with the dark arts, yo. What a wacko. Basically, it comes down to this: we're only seeing things through Harry's extremely limited, rather self-absorbed perspective; this is a kid who still goggles at common items in the wizarding world when he's spent 5 years there. Considering the level of detail JKR has put into her books, and the copious notes she took while constructing her world, we are safe to assume that there's *much* more to the wizarding world than Hogwarts. > We also know (per interview) that there are not wizarding > universities So? Maybe they have other traditions for higher learning. Apprenticeships, independant study, a general attitude that you don't stop learning once you leave school. College isn't the be-all-end-all of gud lurning, and a lot of people would question its use in modern society. If Wizards have a better way to orient themselves to the adult, working world than spending 4 years hiding from it in a glorified summer camp (yes, I'm a recent grad - cum laude, dean's list - who can't find a job), power to them. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From womanofdunedain at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 22:00:08 2004 From: womanofdunedain at yahoo.com (womanofdunedain) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:00:08 -0000 Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112157 A friend of mine came up with this theory, based on the following quote: The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these might be. I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else agrees. From cristelmc at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 03:16:04 2004 From: cristelmc at yahoo.com (cristelmc) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 03:16:04 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112158 frugalarugala: I also suspect that if the wizarding world relies on muggle schools (along with homeschooling) for early education, they probably also rely on the muggle educational system for higher levels than Hogwarts provides. I can picture them going into appreniceships to study magic-related feilds in depth, but going on to a muggle world overlap. Afterall, why create a seporate system of their own, when the majority (the muggles) already have one in place? I see Hogwarts as the school for what they can't get from the muggle schools. Cristelmc: I Lean more toward the belief that most wizards are home schooled until they come of age. This belief is based on the fact that most wizards really know very little about muggle ways of life. For example: the silly questions asked by Mr.Weasley about certain muggle artifacts.If the WW children attended muggle schools then the misuse of muggle artifacts office would be more informed of every day, household items. From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Sep 6 05:12:10 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:12:10 -0400 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA Message-ID: <20040906.011216.3312.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112159 Mac said: >Also ingredients being magical (many having to > be harvested during the correct phase of the moon) Considering Snape's first questions to Harry in PS, it sounds like the kids also study properties of ingredients, ie the magical equivalent of studying the elements on the periodic table. Mac (re:muggle equiv. of magical classes) > Care of Magical Creatures? Another class that we would put under 'biology.' Different classes at Hogwarts cognate to what we could call biology or chemisty; yet the studies of animals, magical ingredients, and specific plants are separated. This indicates to me that the wizarding education system does classify knowledge differently than the muggle world. Different classification, symptomatic of a different approach to understanding the world, indicates to me a very different approach to teaching. Mac: > arguably languages Ancient Runes may also incorporate language. But surely if a professor is teaching about a specific spell, he's going to understand the etymology of the words; the kids are learning language in all their classes. Mac: >but it seems distinctly > odd from an author of JKR's voracious novel consumption that there > isn't an equivalent medium by wizards (novels/fiction that is) Or English class just makes boring story telling compared to riding hippograffs and turning teapots into rats. Mac: > Where are the 'games'/PE/sports? what DOES madame Hooch teach? Obviously, we aren't seeing all of Harry's classes. Maybe PE isn't a formal class so much as a club, or something. I dunno. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Sep 6 07:53:16 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:53:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: <20040905.060510.3924.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112160 Eloise previously: > > If the worst of Snape is his inability to empathise with or > > understand others, a tendency to assume the worst of others, why > > could JKR not say so? What could that possibly give away about the > > next two books? > Magda replies: > These qusetions are, at the moment, unanswerable because we don't > know what's ahead in the series in any detail. But I don't think not > having the answers prevents us from speculating. Eloise: Exactly. My point was that JKR has given us a little hint there, saying in effect that if she told us why Snape was unsuitable for the DADA post, that it would be giving away things about the future books, therefore giving basis for speculation. Magda: > > One of the things I think will happen in the next two books is that > Harry will have the choice of whether he wants to walk away from what > seems to be his destiny (ie, kill or be killed by Voldemort). If the > power of love is going to be Harry's biggest asset, then he's got to > voluntarily assume his role as WW-saviour, otherwise the whole effort > will be meaningless. How can love help Harry if he's coerced or > forced to take up arms against Voldemort? It's our choices that show > us what we are, and Harry must make this choice. Eloise: This is true. Though I have a problem with the idea that Snape would be able to coerce Harry into anything; Harry`s stubborn enough to do exactly the opposite. Actually, given Snape's feelings for Harry, I wonder if his temptation might be deliberately to ill-equip Harry for the task ahead of him. Anyone who's read my old posts might remember that one of my recurrent themes is my belief that Snape is basically jealous of Harry and wants he himself to be the one who brings about Voldemort's downfall. But if that is the worst of him, it was pretty perceptive of Dumbledore to have realised at that early stage. Not impossible, but difficult to predict if Snape took up his teaching position before Voldemort's downfall .. Did he? He changed his loyalties before that point, but Sirius was surprised to learn he was at Hogwarts, which I should have thought he would have done if he'd taken up the position before his incarceration in Azkaban. Logically it should have been the September before Lily and James' murder, I think. Now if Snape only came after the teaching job *after* Voldemort's unhappy encounter with baby Harry, I can just imagine Snape letting slip something which would give away the fact that he resented it was a baby and not he who had been responsible for ending Voldemort's regime. Magda: > > And Snape won't understand it. The future of the WW (tens of > thousands of innocent people) depends on Harry snapping into it and > practicing heavy-duty spellcasting so he can win the Big One that's > coming up. All this talk about love and choices will strike Snape as > just so much wussery about emotions that can only make a wizard weak, > not strong. Harry should try to conquer those emotions, not channel > them. Eloise: Love, perhaps, but I think Snape knows about choices. > > Eloise: > > What JKR's statement suggest to me is that we are going to find out > > something about Snape which is going to be of great > > significance. > > Magda replies: > I wish that were true but frankly I doubt it. For some reason JKR > finds the Trio fascinating but personally I think the MWPP generation > is much more interesting. And JKR is pretty miserly at doling out > information about them. Eloise: Well, when you put it like that, I doubt it, too. ;-) I'm just trying to interpret what JKR said: "JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defence against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape Somewhat" Now yes, perhaps answering it fully would mean explaining the sort of thing you explain above, "giving away" the fact that Voldemort can only be defeated by the power of love, etc. My problem is the fact that she didn't really need to say that about giving stuff away. We can all predict what Snape would be like as a DADA teacher. Some reference to that would be fine if that were what it was. One of her slightly evasive answers that appears to answer the question but gives nothing away. I hope there *is* more to be revealed: "The character of Professor Snape fascinates me. Will you reveal his back story further in the next Harry Potter book? You will find out more about Snape in future books. Keep an eye on him!" ( http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-livechat- barnesnoble.html ) > > > Eloise: > > I'll throw another of his personality traits into the mix: a > > tendency > > to go it alone, which combined with a certain secrecy and > > assumption > > that he knows best, better even than Dumbledore on occasion, could > > lead him to be a bit of a loose cannon. Would his specialising in > > DADA encourage this? > > Magda replies: > That's not a description of Snape at all but it's definitely a good > description of Harry! Eloise: Ah, but Snape and Harry (and James and Sirius, for that matter) have a certain amount in common. As someone else noted, we tend to dislike in others that which we recognise in ourselves. Snape is the ultimate suck-it-up-for-the-team > man; he won't go against Dumbledore even when he thinks the old guy > is wrong. The closest he came was assigning a werewolf essay in POA > and even then he was aiming at Hermione, knowing she'd do it and > hoping she'd tell Harry who'd been private with Lupin earlier. (And > I loved Ron's detention assignment in the hospital wing so that he'd > see that Lupin wasn't there.) Eloise: Juli's come up with the incidents I was thinking of. If I might expand a little, I see him working to his own agenda all the way through PoA. From the overheard conversation with Dumbledore, it is clear that he has been openly disagreeing with Dumbledore all year about the appointment of Lupin. Because Dumbledore doesn't take him seriously, he attempts to entrap Lupin himself, acting at the first opportunity he gets, *without* involving Dumbledore or anyone else. He also makes it clear that he was hoping that it would be *he* who caught Sirius. Whatever the motive, he wanted it to be *he* individually who did it. We don't know exactly what happened with Quirrell. Was he warning Dumbledore about him, too? Did he tell him he was going to do during the troll incident? I don't know, but it could certainly fit the pattern of behaviour seen in PoA. As I tried to point out before, in assigning the werewolf essay, in teaching werewolves at all, Snape was using the DADA curriculum to try to further his own agenda. We don't know fully what Snape's agenda is, yet, but Dumbledore might and JKR certainly does. That's what intrigues me about this whole question. Magda again (different post): >> I think the key to this mystery is his soliloquy to Harry about not > >wearing emotions on your sleeve or you'll be easy meat for the Dark > >Lord. Snape views almost all emotions as potential sources of > >weakness and therefore things to be clamped down on hard for > >safety's sake. Aura: >If his penseive memory of a small child cowering while a man shouted at a >woman is read that Snape grew up in an abusive home (and I think that's >exactly what that memory is to show us), then Snape would have learned to >protect his emotions starting at a very early age. I'm terribly tired so >I can't explain all the blahblahpsychologycakes, so you'll just have to >trust in my psychology degree that hiding ones' emotions for safety is >common to children who have grown up in abusive (or alcoholic) homes. Eloise: But didn't you read this soliloquy as heavily ironic? Snape *does* wear his emotions on his sleeve (he must be a brilliant actor when spying). From his first poetic entrance, through his undisguised dislike for the trio, Neville, Lupin, Sirius . We see him spitting in rage, colouring and with vein throbbing when confronted by Crouch/Moody, incandescent at the climax of PoA. I'm not saying that Snape doesn't see emotions as potential sources of weakness, just that he hasn't done a very good job of learning to hide them on a day-to-day basis. ~Eloise From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 08:02:53 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:02:53 -0000 Subject: Boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112161 I think that when the Boggart is alone, it's shape is what _it_ fears most. And what does a boggart fear most? Laughter (because that's what defeats it!). So, I'd assume it's true form is clown or something... but I do think Moody knows how boggart's look like! Not only by seeing a boggart INSIDE the cupboard, but also by seeing trough it's attempt of deception... Finwitch From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Sep 6 08:56:14 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 08:56:14 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112162 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "N. Tonks" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > I agree that James' abuse of Snape is true cruelty,and as such, > > evil. However, a single evil deed doesn't show a person to be > > evil, right? > > Everybody has cruel, sadistic streaks in them, that may surface > > at certain circumstances. I think that an evil person (per JKR, > > also) is one who isn't concerned about those tendencies, doesn't > > try to fight them. The ultimate evil, as I said above, is to > > consciously choose to let the cruel tendencies reign. > > > Tonks here: > > I do not agree that EVERYBODY has cruel, sadistic streaks in them. > Not everyone. Everyone is capable of evil or (sin), but this is not > the same as being cruel and sadistic!! Can you honesty see Harry > doing something so stupid as to, as you say, "pants" someone. (since > I am 150 years only, this never happened when I was in school, and I > never heard the term until now.) > Well, ok - I take the "everybody" back, but as regards Harry, we are specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He imagines torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does it to Bella. There is also a description in OoP (I don't have the books with me) where Harry says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and feels satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint that further. You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that for JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, based on my understanding of Harry as Everyboy). Naama From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 10:52:13 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:52:13 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112163 Naama: as regards Harry, we are > specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He imagines > torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does it to Bella. > There is also a description in OoP (I don't have the books with me) > where Harry says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and > feels satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint > that further. > > You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that for > JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, based on my > understanding of Harry as Everyboy). Finwitch: Right - but Neville doesn't seem to. (unless we count self-cruelty). Sure, he can make an exception to the 'no violence'-rule, but he certainly doesn't _like_ it. (which is one reason why Neville doesn't do well in potions/Transfiguration: he does not wish to powder/transfigure even a beetle, because he doesn't want to hurt them... I think Neville's an empath, and a strong one if he can feel the pain of the beetles when a Potions Class crushes them... And I think the beetle is hurt when Hermione turns it into a button, too! (at least the Polyjuice-transformation seemed to be painful) Even Charms - well, I don't know if I'd like being sent flying around and crushing things by a Leviosa, Accio or Banishment (what other Charms is there?) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 11:29:30 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 11:29:30 -0000 Subject: Grimmauld Place / Death Certificate please. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112164 > > HunterGreen: > > As far as the issue of inheritence goes, it might be 'unofficial' > only, with the order deciding what to do with his things. If Sirius > left a will, I think DD would have to honor it. > I wonder, though, is there a way to detect if someone died? In the > case of the MoM looking for Sirius, I wonder if there's some signal > they get if he dies. That's the only way I can see the issue of > inheritence becoming public. Finwitch: And, I'd like to add that the House of the Black family is VERY hidden - Ministry doesn't KNOW where it is... Only Kreacher was there to watch over it, along with lots of magical protections and portraits. I don't know how hidden Sirius' home was (not the Grimmauld Place, the one he purchased at seventeen)... and as I don't see him having any house-elves *there*, well-- but I'd think that he did place some protective spells on it! And I'd think that a Will is to be honored - it's probably magical as it is, and informs the recipients certain time after the giver has gone behind the Veil or something like that? Who knows, maybe Sirius left behind a boxful of letters to be given to Harry (so we get to see them) in case of his death. (Writing them would give him something to do, you know). Now, I think that Harry has access to Sirius' personal Vault and has had, in theory, since the first letter of Sirius' - 'I used your name, but told them to take the money of my own vault, number 711' - and Goblins won't let the Ministry of Magic interfere with their business. So in effect, Harry already *has* sort of inherited whatever is in Vault number 711. (But Harry won't use it unless he gets information that Sirius left it for him in a Will, and I doubt he would even so, if he's not specifically told to do so by some letter/the Will/whatever)... Finland From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 11:34:37 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 11:34:37 -0000 Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "womanofdunedain" wrote: > A friend of mine came up with this theory, based on the following > quote: > > The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither > lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he > kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these > might be. > > I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else > agrees. mhbobbin: Funny you should write this. I was just wondering that myself before I saw your post. My suspicion is that it IS Malfoy as he is the only wealthy man we know but JKR only gives us this one clue. And in true JKR fashion she first gives us a reason for the wealthy man's ownership--tax benefit---and then casts doubt upon it--not clear what tax benefit . IMO, by underlining the unexplained, absentee ownership of the Riddle house, she's told us that who owns the Riddle house connects back to the story. The only character other than Malfoy who could own it, I think, would be Voldemort himself. But then he had to have someone else continue to pay the taxes. But maybe this is all a red herring--she wants us to think it's Malfoy and it's really James Potter, the Blacks, or DD. Hmmmm. We'll have to wait but I suspect Malfoy. Which brings me to---why has she spent so much time telling us about the Riddle House, to use it only in GOF. Where is LV hanging out these days, with Wormtail, Bellatrix and Nagini? Where were the escaped DEs hanging out prior to showing up at the Ministry. The Riddle House might just be an appropriate site. Bet Muggles can't find it anymore. Or would want to. mhbobbin From terpnurse at qwest.net Mon Sep 6 11:44:30 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 04:44:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CFF2D19-FFFA-11D8-A579-0003930C168E@qwest.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112166 womanofdunedain wrote: > The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither > lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he > kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these > might be. > > I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else > agrees. > > Terpnurse: It had always been my assumption that The Wealthy Man was Malfoy. That would be consistent with his having his financial finger in almost every major pie in the UK WW. Certainly, if he were close enough to LV to have possession of his school belongings, why not hold the Riddle House in trust for him as well? From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 12:14:32 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:14:32 -0000 Subject: THEORY:Re: Mundungus Fletcher&brothers Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <001201c492cc$ca27b4c0$42c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112167 DuffyPoo: > > I think Mundungus was banned from the Hog's Head after he informed the authorities about Aberforth "performing inappropriate charms on a goat." The tight spot DD saved him from was Aberforth performing inappropriate charms on Mundungus! ;-) > Finwitch: Hm - interesting... True, According to Albus: "My own brother, Aberforth, was accused of performing inappropriate charms on a goat, but what did Aberforth do? Did he hide? No, he held his head up high and went about his business as usual. Then again, I'm not entirely certain he can read, so it might not have been bravery". (but, if Hagrid does so, it *would* be). Accused. That does not mean he _did_ any "inappropriate charms" at all. (I myself think he was experimenting in order to get bezoars out without cutting their stomachs open, thus letting the goat to live on). But well, if Aberforth found out that Mundungus Fletcher was telling such ugly lies to the papers, well... maybe he would have turned the offender into a goat if Albus hadn't stopped him. (and afterwards, Albus spends Christmas/Yule/whatever in Hogwarts, neither visiting nor inviting Aberforth... Is it just that the two can't agree on where to spend the family feast or are they in a quarrel? Considering Dumbledore brought him up when discussing unsavoury relatives with Harry and Hagrid, and Aberforth is never so much as mentioned before.) Oh, and unless that accusation was published in a paper, why that comment on Aberforth's reading ability? Anyway, even with this little, I consider Aberforth to be a goer of his own way, not bothering with others, particularly not any _bookish_ people who believe everything they read... Of their ages: I think, for some reason, that Aberforth is the older one. It is possible that he spent his time to provide their living while Albus was learning how to read... Tending to goats, gathering mushrooms&berries, hunting.. Mostly, living in the woods, taking care of himself (and Albus, if the brother was there instead of school). (I can imagine young Albus carrying a load of books with him, and Aberforth using them to lit the fire). Finwitch From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 13:45:03 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:45:03 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: <20040905.200939.1008.4.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > I don't mean extra classes, I mean learning things as part of > classes and a more wholistic view of education. For example, rather > than only studying magical creatures in magical creature class, > they also may study art, because drawing is related to studying > magical creatures. We're only seeing the "magical" studies, and > it's not like we're reading their syllabi or perusing their > textbooks. In between all the other stuff going on in the books, > who knows what the kids are learning. Studying art in the context of 'hey kids, draw this animal because we're studying it in class' and, say, studying the aesthetics and history and practice of drawing are profoundly different things. It's like saying 'Yeah, I have to read my textbooks for class--that covers what an English class would, right?' Maybe I am personally over-invested, but I want to sing the glories of actually studying the humanities for their own sake, *as* art and literature and music and philosophy, looking at the kinds of questions that aren't going to really be something you can be tested on. I'm sure that the kids do learn something about essay construction and all that from their assignments, but they aren't engaged in small-group discussion of something that could open up their worldviews, that's for sure. (I suspect Dumbledore would *like* to do something like that, but he's already bucking the Ministry somewhat on basic curriculum--I shudder to think of how truly unstimulating a completely Ministry-run Hogwarts would be. Oh, wait. That would be Umbridge's DADA class.) > I know there's no evidence of this. That's what makes it a theory > or a fanwank. I'm just saying it *could* work, that in the magical > world, educational topics are divided differently, and taught > differently. Maybe even better, so kids don't need to spend an > entire year learning algebra before they can apply it to > arithmancy. Maybe blending algebra and arithmancy makes learning > maths clearer, because it's more relevant. I do think it's more thematic that there are some things the WW does very poorly, and I am not particularly concerned about the charges of 'cultural imperialism' that have been made at anyone who posts cutting critiques of the WW made from a modern perspective. It is an interesting theory, but it doesn't address exactly what I was lamenting the loss of. >> Hogwarts is a school where you go to learn magic. The classes are >> overwhelmingly practical > > That's what I'm saying: this is the perspective we get from Harry, > but maybe it's not the whole story. Maybe Harry (our narrator) just > doesn't feel like making note of boring muggle stuff like > literature, art, etc. We aren't with him every minute of the day, > week, or year. Hermione doesn't make any mention of it either, which is interesting, because coming from Muggle education, she might know something more of it. We know all of these other classes that Harry isn't in because of Hermione, we have professors and all that for most of them >> Wizards don't generally do well at logic They have magic. > > That sounds like cultural bias to me: they don't learn things the > way we do, so their shortcomings must be because of differences > from our culture. Actually, it's a fairly canonical comment that most wizards have absolutely no logic, at the end of SS/PS. That's why the potion puzzle is so ingenious--it's going to trip up your average student, but not Muggle-raised Hermione. Many a fanfic has Hermione solving a problem that the wizards who don't know how to think like her can't-- not trying to adduce any evidence from fanfic, of course, but it's an interesting idea. (She's the one who works out how to catch and that she needs to catch Rita, as well.) Hermione's logic is something that leads her to be critical of things in the WW that other people take complacently, and I think she's ultimately going to be partially vindicated on SPEW, as Dumbledore has a certain measure of agreement, and he was telling us an ontological truth at the end of OotP. > We just don't know what's going on in the inner workings of the > Wizard world -- or the inner workings of any adult wizard -- because > Harry doesn't know. Sure, we don't. But we can look at the evidence of people's behavior, and that comment above. > Do we have any evidence that those classical musicans weren't > wizards? (I honestly don't remember.) We have no evidence either way, but, again, the separation of worlds takes place before almost all of the major genres and styles of what we now think of as 'classical' music developed. No opera, no string quartets, absolutely no piano music, no symphonies, no Lieder...and I'd note that the cultural isolation of the WW seems pretty strong. Dumbledore is a real exception for taking Muggle society and culture seriously; he actually understands it, and is canonically the only wizard we've seen who really does. Not to mention, again, that all of these genres of music are the result of urbanized culture, a phenomenon decidedly lacking in WW Britain. > > Magic is the kind of thing > > that helps stifle artistic creation > > Now you're just being an art-fundie. That's like saying the > computer is the death of artwork. Photoshop can make things like > shading, line, and perspective easier, but if you don't have the > talent, you're not going to produce a decent work of art on > Photoshop (trust me, I've tried, and I suck as much as I do on > paper). Similarly, I don't see why a wizard can't use magic in his > art. Imagine the kind of crazy artistic stunts Warhol (some kind of > floating, twisting mobias cube thing?), Calder (transmogrifying the > Eiffle tower into a self-supporting mobile?), or that guy who put > the umbrellas down the LA parkway (umbrellas 400 feet above the > parkway?) could pull with magic. Sure, people might be able to do that kind of big, flashy, ooh look at that it's so COOL art. (I am not an art fundie, BTW.) The argument is, perhaps, that in many cases, time-saving convenience abilities do lead to a kind of laziness. Portrait painting, so far as we've seen, is strongly oriented towards the magical portraits that preserve a part of the essence of a person--when you can get that close to real life, why bother developing anything else? > Hieronomyous Bosh was *totally* in touch with the dark arts, yo. > What a wacko. Heh. Saw one of my favorite Bosch paintings this summer. But I think not. :) > Basically, it comes down to this: we're only seeing things through > Harry's extremely limited, rather self-absorbed perspective; this > is a kid who still goggles at common items in the wizarding world > when he's spent 5 years there. Considering the level of detail JKR > has put into her books, and the copious notes she took while > constructing her world, we are safe to assume that there's *much* > more to the wizarding world than Hogwarts. This is partially true. I've grown to be very wary of the 'Harry's perspective' argument, because it's so often used as a 'I can postulate what I want even though there's no evidence or it's actually contradicted, but it's just being filtered through Harry'. Should JKR come out and give us more details and this all be contradicted, I will bow gracefully. But to invoke the fuzzy pink bunny for a moment; isn't it interesting from a literary perspective that, even if it's 'actually' there, we don't get shown these art/music/drama classes? Their omission, even if they do form an actual part of the Hogwarts background, is something that makes at least a few readers go 'guh?'--conspicious by their absence, we might say. I hate to argue from a lack, because it's a good way to get smacked in the ass in the Potterverse, but this is one I'll run with until contraindicated. > > We also know (per interview) that there are not wizarding > > universities > > So? Maybe they have other traditions for higher learning. > Apprenticeships, independent study, a general attitude that you > don't stop learning once you leave school. College isn't the be-all- > end-all of gud lurning, and a lot of people would question its use > in modern society. If Wizards have a better way to orient > themselves to the adult, working world than spending 4 years hiding > from it in a glorified summer camp (yes, I'm a recent grad - cum > laude, dean's list - who can't find a job), power to them. I'd feel your pain, except I'm in graduate school and therefore work hard all the time... The problem is, if you really want to train people to do intellectual things at a high level, you need a lot of resources, no matter what the subject area is. Books (which are expensive, especially when you want a large and comphrensive collection), experienced people who know their stuff, other students to generate ideas with and argue with, and a place to do it all. I have my money on some sort of Apprentice system, but generally, if you're looking to develop anything original of a fairly high caliber, you need that community. There's certainly a strongly limited freedom of the press in the WW; 'Daily Prophet' and the inherent pun there says it all. Maybe Hermione isn't reading the WW equivalent of 'The Atlantic Monthly' yet, but it's significant (yet probably there mainly for plot reasons) that they end up going to a tabloid to get their story out. OotP and the WW government do not exactly paint a nice picture of a society engaged in free exchange of ideas and debate, though. -Nora goes to do some re-re-research From garybec101 at comcast.net Mon Sep 6 14:04:48 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:04:48 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112169 Becki is wondering; During Priori Incantatem in the graveyard, it goes as follows; (and the parenthesis is my interpretation of what it is, feel free to correct me if I am wrong...) 1. "Screams" (LV crucio of Harry) 2. "Wormtails Hand" (Silver Hand given to Wormtail by LV) 3. "Shouts of Pain" (LV crucio of Wormtail) 4. "Cedric" 5. "Screams of Pain" (?) 6. "Frank Bryce" 7. "Bertha Jorkins" 8. "Lily" 9. "James" My questions are for numbers 5 and 7. In #5, who are those screams of pain? I have read GoF many times and in my quick go-over to research this question, I could not find anything. My curiosity was sparked by another's post of why was there nothing in the PI referring to LV's AK on Harry? If there is nothing in cannon describing what #5 screams were, perhaps it is a *flint* and #5 should be between Lily and Bertha, perhaps LV's "screams of pain". He did describe the rebounding curse as being "pain beyond pain", (GoF, 653, AM), why would screams not come out of the PI? On to my other question, #7. Shouldn't there be screams here? Before LV killed Bertha, he tortured her so badly that "her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair", (GoF, 655, AM). (The word "torture" came from Barty Jr. in Vertiaserum). Unless he used another form of torture, but in cannon, there are only 3 unforgivable curses, I would think that any form of torture, especially one that could break through a very powerful memory charm, would be classified as unforgivable. Becki (who is waiting for someone to give simple explanations for her pondering). From terpnurse at qwest.net Mon Sep 6 14:14:52 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:14:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EC509AA-000F-11D9-A579-0003930C168E@qwest.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112170 Becki wrote: > 5. "Screams of Pain" (?) > > 6. "Frank Bryce" > > In #5, who are those screams of pain? I have read GoF many times > and in my quick go-over to research this question, I could not find > anything. My curiosity was sparked by another's post of why was > there nothing in the PI referring to LV's AK on Harry? If there is > nothing in cannon describing what #5 screams were, perhaps it is a > *flint* and #5 should be between Lily and Bertha, perhaps > LV's "screams of pain". He did describe the rebounding curse as > being "pain beyond pain", (GoF, 653, AM), why would screams not > come out of the PI? > > Terpnurse: I don't have my copy of GoF handy just now, but I seem to remember that LV crucio'd wormtail in the scene with Frank Bryce. I don't recall if it was before or after the AK though. I guess I had always assumed that those screams were wormtail's. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Mon Sep 6 14:38:20 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:38:20 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112171 Becki is wondering: > During Priori Incantatem in the graveyard, it goes as follows; > (and the parenthesis is my interpretation of what it is, feel free > to correct me if I am wrong...) > > 1. "Screams" (LV crucio of Harry) > > 2. "Wormtails Hand" (Silver Hand given to Wormtail by LV) > > 3. "Shouts of Pain" (LV crucio of Wormtail) > > 4. "Cedric" > > 5. "Screams of Pain" (?) > > 6. "Frank Bryce" > > 7. "Bertha Jorkins" > > 8. "Lily" > > 9. "James" > > My questions are for numbers 5 and 7. > > In #5, who are those screams of pain? I have read GoF many times > and in my quick go-over to research this question, I could not find > anything. My curiosity was sparked by another's post of why was > there nothing in the PI referring to LV's AK on Harry? If there is > nothing in cannon describing what #5 screams were, perhaps it is a > *flint* and #5 should be between Lily and Bertha, perhaps > LV's "screams of pain". He did describe the rebounding curse as > being "pain beyond pain", (GoF, 653, AM), why would screams not > come out of the PI? > > On to my other question, #7. Shouldn't there be screams here? > Before LV killed Bertha, he tortured her so badly that "her mind and > body were both damaged beyond repair", (GoF, 655, AM). (The > word "torture" came from Barty Jr. in Vertiaserum). > Unless he used another form of torture, but in cannon, there are > only 3 unforgivable curses, I would think that any form of torture, > especially one that could break through a very powerful memory > charm, would be classified as unforgivable. Yb, vocalizing her thoughts: The other screams (#5) were from Wormtail. He screwed up and let old Barty get away from him, so Voldemort exacted a little punishment. (GoF, AmVer, Chap. 29, p. 577.) As for Bertha and #7, I never thought about it before, but perhaps Wormtail did the actual /torture/, using his own wand or maybe LV used a different wand, instead of his own. People have remarked that wands seem to disappear when Wormtail is around, so perhaps a different wand was used. ~Yb From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 15:42:04 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's pact (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040906154204.14655.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Josh Warren" Also, keep in mind the related hinting elsewhere of a late- bloomer... > the only person we'll see (and very rare in JKR's world) who will > develop magic after the age of 11. I think we all agree that it is > Petunia. This would seem to mean that it still hasn't happened yet, > and based on other things, won't until book 7. > > We don't know what hold Dumbledore has over her, but yeah, based on > the hints thus far and what not, I don't see a binding making > sense. :-) > Alla: I realised that I did not finish my post. Thanks! I also agree that Petunia is likely to be the late bloomer, but what if her magic will wake up again after it was binded? As I said, I know that it is pretty out there. :o) How long after someone dies do the spells cast keep in effect? Many are specualting on DD's death in book 7. I, myself, would hate to see this happen, but if it did, and suppose this theory is correct, would the un-binding be the trigger of the "re-awakening" of the magic? As for the timing - would Petunia's refusal to go to Hogwarts be the basis of the binding and not Harry being delivered. This would explain the bitterness. DD simply took advantage of the binding and used it to say "You owe me one". moonmyyst --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From womanofdunedain at yahoo.com Sun Sep 5 21:54:01 2004 From: womanofdunedain at yahoo.com (womanofdunedain) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:54:01 -0000 Subject: Lily, James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112173 Neha wrote: > In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors > and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard > James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, > according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side > after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the > death of James and Lily Potter? Couldn't they just have been discussing the prison in general? As in, they had received news about some suspected Death Eater who had been arrested, or any doubts that they might have had about the Dementors? "womanofdunedain" From jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com Mon Sep 6 00:41:08 2004 From: jbenne27 at tampabay.rr.com (James Bennett) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:41:08 -0400 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum (was: Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112174 Aura wrote: > If you're a wizard professor, with a life expectancy of 150+ > years, you have the time to be trained beyond the core curriculem > you want to teach, which would allow the education system to be > much more interdisciplinary. I can see where you're coming from but wouldn't it stand to reason then that there must be something like a college also? "James Bennett" From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 04:42:03 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <002701c49329$bd1d4210$79c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20040906044203.72426.qmail@web80807.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112175 Marianne: "I do think she is a good person, and I think that she rarely, if ever, does something morally questionable to further her own ends." DuffyPoo: > Sorry, I haven't been following this whole thread but this really jumped > out at me. Hermione made NO attempt to tell Madam Pomfrey about the jinx > she used on the paper the DA members signed. Marietta went home with > "SNEAK" across her face (the DA were caught sometime in April). Why? > Because telling would possibly get her in trouble? When she was > in the hospital wing for over a month from the effects of Polyjuice Potion > gone wrong, did she tell Madam Pomfrey what happened? Doubtful, as again, > that would have gotten Hermione into trouble. Madam P would have been able > to sort her out in a minute if she had said what she did, but PP was > 'illegal' and it would have gotten her into difficulty, suspension/expulsion > - who knows. Given the chance Hermione saves her own neck, which, according > to Phineas Nigellus is a Slytherin trait. I think Hermione should switch > houses in the next book. I disagree. Hermione is not saving solely her own neck; there are other necks being saved as well. In CoS with the PP potion, is there canon for her *not* telling Mdm P? I had the impression she was in the hospital for so long because that was how long it took. I think someone made a comment in one of the early books about Mdm P being great and not asking too many questions. I know she wouldn't want to compromise RW or HP. But, since being a cat wasn't life threatening, why would she tell on her self? Is there any reason for it? No one else is being hurt by her silence in this instance. As for Marietta, we are now in a period of pre-war. Her snitch was not some password to a game card club or something. *It matters,* and not just for O.W.Ls. If Hermione would have gone forward to save someone whom did not have the same concern for her, she would be putting in danger every other member of the D.A. Is that right, is that the just thing? They would most certainly be expelled, the rest of their lives compromised, and in possible danger on the outside from LV and the DE. Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To be clever and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning. theotokos From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 09:35:00 2004 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:35:00 -0000 Subject: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112176 > mz_annethrope: > > I don't think JKR is a Christian so I doubt this would be her > > exact take in HP, but who knows.... > SSSusan: > Would you please clarify--*you* don't believe she meets the > criteria of being a Christian? or you don't believe she has > *stated* that she is a Christian? > > I won't even touch the former, but I can address the latter. > > mz_annethrope: Thanks. This is the first info I've seen about any of her spiritual inclinations. It doesn't really show she has Christian beliefs, etc, but does show that she's interested. I go to a church that includes Christians, seekers, a few Buddhists, a couple of Jews, agnostics, and quite a number of people who were hurt by the church, p.o.'d at God, yet still are curious. (Yes, I live in California.) What I was suggesting was that I might be off my head for making the connection to Christianity when there might be none intended. What I was trying to say is that immortality really does cost one one's life, at least in Christian thought. I referred to Eastern Christianity because Orthodox traditions have never held that death was God's punishment for human sin. Eastern Church Fathers considered death a blessing, though a painful one. Western Christians have tended to view death as a punishment, but not always. I'm thinking of the Struldbrugg's in "Gulliver's Travels" who have endless life, but neither endless youth nor endless good looks. I don't know if Voldemort is aging, but his beauty is none the better for his death defying measures. And his life seems even less savory than the lives of Struldbrugg's because he dedicates it to evil. Voldemort holds on to "life" because his fear of death is boundless (death is a punishment to him) but at terrible cost considering that his choices have cursed his life. Now this is leading me to wonder if Hermione is correct when she identifies the bell jar (that contains the egg that turns into a bird that turns into an egg) as "time." Is it really time or is trapped time? Stoppered time? If it really is time, then HP time seems like circular Platonist time and a challenge to any notion that Voldemort's death would be a blessing or even make a difference. He'd just come back as is or in a different form. If it's stoppered time, then what's the significance of the phoenix? mz_annethrope (who probably should have changed the heading, but doesn't want to open a can of worms when she doesn't have enough time to read the posts) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 14:48:38 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (N. Tonks) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:48:38 -0000 Subject: Cruelty vs. "cruel", Harry (Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112177 Naama wrote: > Well, ok - I take the "everybody" back, but as regards Harry, > we are specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He > imagines torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does > it to Bella. There is also a description in OoP where Harry > says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and feels > satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint > that further. > > You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that > for JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, > based on my understanding of Harry as Everyboy). ---------- Tonks here: I still disagree. Harry is not a cruel person. Yes he may have had thoughts and feelings about hurting someone when he is angry, but that is not the same as being cruel. Remember it is our actions.. our choices .. even when he choices to respond to his feelings of rage, the strongest feelings he has had in his life, he can't even do a proper Cruciatus on Bella. Because he does not have it in him to really hurt another person, even the evil Bella. But Bella can do a Cruciatus because she IS cruel and sadistic. She ENJOYS hurting others. Humans are basically kind/good, they are not basically cruel/evil. So it follows that EVERYBODY does not have cruelness in them. Tonks_op From squeakinby at tds.net Mon Sep 6 17:34:59 2004 From: squeakinby at tds.net (squeakinby) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:34:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Stopper in Death - Brew/Bottle/Stopper In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <413C9FC3.50905@tds.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112178 mz_annethrope wrote: >>mz_annethrope: >> >>>I don't think JKR is a Christian so I doubt this would be her >>>exact take in HP, but who knows.... > > >>SSSusan: >>Would you please clarify--*you* don't believe she meets the >>criteria of being a Christian? or you don't believe she has >>*stated* that she is a Christian? >> >>I won't even touch the former, but I can address the latter. >> >> > > > > mz_annethrope: > > Thanks. This is the first info I've seen about any of her spiritual > inclinations. It doesn't really show she has Christian beliefs, etc, I felt that since everyone at Hogwart's celebrates Christmas, that was kind of a giveaway. Then Sirius singing "G0d Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs" was another. Jem From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 6 18:07:21 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:07:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's agenda References: <1094449935.14188.51563.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001f01c4943c$5b0ace80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 112179 First, DuffyPoo wrote: >"Mr Ollivander wrote to tell me you had bought the second wand, the moment you left his shop four years ago." (GoF) >Why would he need to write and tell DD something he would no doubt know if he set it up? Conversely, why would he _think_ to write and tell Dumbledore? Unless he'd been primed to do so... Then Carolyn wrote: >Finally, having hopefully induced further feelings of disquiet, I >would like to ask a further wand-related question. Does Voldie know >where the core of his wand originated? And if he does, what >implications does that have? Putting yourself into the shoes of the young Tom Riddle (for whom all this was extremely new), then I think it would have been equally remarkable (and therefore equally _un_remarkable) no matter what his wand had been made of. And having become familiar with it during his school years, would he even have thought to wonder about whether it had any special significance - it could well just have become one of those things that's so familiar you just _don't_ think about them Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 18:18:52 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:18:52 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > Yb, vocalizing her thoughts: > As for Bertha and #7, I never > thought about it before, but perhaps Wormtail did the > actual /torture/, using his own wand or maybe LV used a different > wand, instead of his own. People have remarked that wands seem to > disappear when Wormtail is around, so perhaps a different wand was > used. There is no evidence that LV used torture on Bertha. The damage to her was caused by the spell he used to break the memory charm that Crouch Sr. placed on her: LV: "... for -- with a little persuasion -- she became a veritable mine of information. [deleted] She told me many things... but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerfull, and when I extracted all usefull information from her, her mind and body were damaged beyond repair." [ HB U.S. edition GoF, "The Death Eaters", pp 655 ]. I don't think LV needed to resort to torture to extract information when he could use Veritaserum and legilimency (and possibly other sophisticated methods). Torture is not nearly as effective - it was after all useless when used against the Longbottoms - I think that LV uses the Cruciatus curse as a means of punishment, not usually for interrogation. Salit From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 6 18:19:06 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:19:06 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Founders References: <1094449935.14188.51563.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002301c4943e$014ca560$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 112181 Catlady wrote: >You mean, besides the ever-popular Godric/Salazar ship, based on the >idea that they were closer than brothers and more than best friends >before they split up? Personally, my own Founderfic has Salazar being >already evil before Godric was ever born and they were never best >friends, just colleagues. >In my own private Potterverse, at the time of Founding, Godric and >Helga were married, each a bit over 100 years old, third marriage for >both of them (because previous marriages were to Muggles who died >naturally). 600-year-old Salazar is courting 21-year-old Rowena, both >because her magical power and her intelligence can be useful for him >and because she is quite beautiful. To me, Godric was pureblood, Helga >witch mother Muggle father, Rowena Muggle-born, and Salazar probably >Muggle mother wizard father. And Godric and Helga got the school to >start a school when they observed this immensely talented child, >Rowena, with no one to teach her, so they wanted to teach her. A wicked little thought crossed my mind last weekend. What if Salazar's dislike of Muggle borns was just snobbery? Imagine the scene, as the class of 1004 line up. On one side, there are the wizard born children, decently raised, properly robed and kitted out, talking among themselves in Latin, finding friends and looking forward to the new experience. On the other side is a motley collection of Muggle-born kids, terrified because they've just been kidnapped by witches and the priest had told them they'd be killed and eaten, ragged, filthy, smelly, verminous, illiterate, talking a couple of dozen different languages and dialects so that they can't understand each other, leave alone the Founders, you get the picture. And Salazar thinks to himself, looking down his nose, what's the point of trying to teach this lot the 9 uses of dragon's blood when they don't even know the 1 use of fleabane? Or what a toilet is for? It's all too much, I'm off with the _civilised_ students who at least know which end of a quill is which. Meanwhile Helga, who is a big bluffy motherly sort, gathers them all together, lines them up with buddies from the older students who can teach them the basics, takes them under her wing, and generally makes something of them... Who knows, who can tell? Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 18:28:06 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:28:06 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda In-Reply-To: <001f01c4943c$5b0ace80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > First, DuffyPoo wrote: > >"Mr Ollivander wrote to tell me you had bought the second wand, the moment > you left his shop four years ago." (GoF) >Why would he need to write and > tell DD something he would no doubt know if he set it up? > > Conversely, why would he _think_ to write and tell Dumbledore? Unless he'd > been primed to do so... Most likely because he knew that the Phoenix belonged to Dumbledore, he knew who bought the first wand, he knew that wand was used by him against Harry and he was an expert on wands and therefore knew the likely consequences of the brother wands' interaction. In fact, I bet he was the one who told DD what happens when two brother wands fight each other - after all he is the ultimate authority on the subject. All DD knows is that Harry is destined to fight LV. Once he heard about the wand, he could put two and two together but I doubt it was preordained. Salit From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 6 18:30:08 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:30:08 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <20040906044203.72426.qmail@web80807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112183 Theotokos: > > Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To be clever > and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning. > Potioncat: Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat and Gryffindors trick? If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad. From maritajan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 18:48:52 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:48:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040906184852.41127.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112184 --- Bex wrote: > So what do we learn from this? > > 1) Fudge became Minister at least a year after the Potters died, > maybe even two. Actually, there's canon against Fudge being MoM for that long. In Phoenix, one of the Articles that Harry reads in the Quibbler is about Fudge plotting to take over Gringotts. That article says: "Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, denied that he had any plans to take over the running of the Wizarding Bank, Gringotts, when he was elected Minister of Magic *FIVE* years ago...." (my emphasis) Now, granted, it's an article in the Quibbler, but even the National Enquirer doesn't play around with specific recorded facts, like dates of past events. What does this mean? Is it a mistake on JKR's part? If this timing is correct, Fudge was elected Minister about the time Harry started Hogwarts. Hagrid mentions Fudge "pelting DD with owls every morning" asking for advice (in SS). I don't read every interview JKR gives, so it's very possible she's said something that clears this up, but that's the information as I read it. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From persephone_kore at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 19:14:52 2004 From: persephone_kore at yahoo.com (persephone_kore) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:14:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Magda: > > Lately though I've been wondering about something: wouldn't it be a > > total kick if Harry has to time-turner 25 years into the past > > because it's actually Harry and not James who pulls Snape out of > > the tunnel and saves him from a werewolf? Because Snape is needed > > in the future for some potions work or something? > > > SSSusan: > I have *such* a hard time w/ time-turning, that I hesitate to even > ask this, but.... Is it the general consensus that a person can TT > to a moment *before* he was even born **and then perform some action > which changes events**? Not like in PoA, when H/H simply time-turn > to a point w/in the same day? Could Harry go back 25 years, to when > he was "minus-10"?? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Well, I don't see why, if you can go back in time at all, you'd be restricted to times you'd actually been to previously unless you were actually stuck sharing your own consciousness at the time -- which isn't the case. Whether he could perform an action which changes events is quite irrelevant, as if Harry saved Snape he would of course *always* have been the one who saved Snape, just as he was of course *always* the one who cast the Patronus that chased the Dementors away. JKR doesn't actually do the changing-events variety of time travel -- it might look that way, but only because the reader and characters didn't have all the facts the first time around. PK From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Sep 6 19:42:29 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:42:29 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: Naama: > Well, ok - I take the "everybody" back, but as regards Harry, we are > specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He imagines > torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does it to Bella. > There is also a description in OoP (I don't have the books with me) > where Harry says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and > feels satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint > that further. > > You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that for > JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, based on my > understanding of Harry as Everyboy). > Geoff: I think we all moments when we feel this way. I can remember when I was about 16-17 and got picked on by a guy about two years older than me who went out of his way to mess me about; he smashed some of my belongings and was a bit free with his fists on occasions. I was probably a bit wimpier then than I am now... I can recall imagining ways in which I could have him screaming for mercy while I got my own back and I certainly rejoiced when he got put away for rape a couple of years later. I can certainly empathise with Harry over Snape. And do you ever get the sort of day when you get out of bed the wrong side and /want/ to fall out with people and have a grumble or an argument? Move over Harry, I'm coming in to join you. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 20:18:30 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:18:30 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Theotokos: > > > > Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To > be clever > > and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning. > > > > Potioncat: > Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says > cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat > and Gryffindors trick? > > If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does > that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has > Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad. People are very complex. If you think about it, Hermione has traits of every single house. She is very loyal to HP and RW, which is a Hufflepuff trait. She is courageous (Gryffindor), cunning (Slytherin) and very smart (Ravenclaw). She could have been chosen for any house. She showed more Gryffindor traits than any other so she was put in that house. Diana From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 20:34:54 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040906203454.3318.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112188 > Justine: > We must remember that Snapes's existence includes an extremely > nasty > attitude, (at that point) a pureblood superiority mindset, and, > most > importantly, an obsession with the Dark Arts. James loathes the > Dark Arts, because they are what he views as evil, and > Snape "exists" with a love for and propensity toward them. Well, we don't know that really. Sirius Black said twice (OOTP and GOF) that Snape was into the Dark Arts but no one else has, and it's the kind of thing that Sirius might over-emphasize considering his own family background. It's worth noting that during the Pensieve Incident neither James nor Sirius mention this supposed obsession of Snape's although they comment frequently upon his physical appearance. And although Sirius mentions the DA during the fireplace conversation with Harry, Remus does not reinforce the claim even though he is just as determined to explain James' actions to Harry. So until we learn a little more about Snape's background or hear from an objective character that he was interested in the DA, I'm going to remain sceptical. What we do know - from the book - is that Snape knew more about DADA than a lot of the other students and wrote more on his exam in small cramped handwriting. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 20:41:06 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <002701c49378$b336d410$5dfae2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20040906204106.80486.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112189 --- Cathy Drolet wrote: > DufffyPoo: > I don't believe DD knew Sirius was innocent at the time of the > betrayal/Muggle-murders. I do believe he came to the knowledge > before the end of PoA and the questioning though, based on OotP, > "We entered your third year. I watched from afar as you struggled > to repel Dementors, as you *found Sirius, learned what he was* and > rescued him." Why would DD let HP get this close to someone he > believed to be a mass murderer, betrayer of HP's parents, and - > according to Fudge - someone who escaped Azkaban to kill HP? > Everyone else was trying to keep HP away from Sirius Black, but DD > let him go to him. Doesn't make sense unless DD found out Sirius > was innocent between the S-K switch and the Azkaban break-out. Magda: I'm confused by this paragraph. When Dumbledore is talking to Harry in OOTP, he's summarizing with the benefit of hindsight. He accepted Sirius' story when he talked to him in POA after they'd all been brought up to the castle by Snape. Not before. And he didn't let Harry get close to him. He tried all through POA to keep Harry (and all the other students) away from Sirius. And I'm not sure what is meant by "the Azkaban breakout". Sirius' escape? Or the ten DE's in OOTP? > Duffypoo: > I also have a problem with DD with the whole Time Turning Sirius > rescue thing. Yes, if he hadn't been rescued he would have been > soul-sucked. However, Hermione said "Don't you understand? We're > breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's > supposed to change time, nobody!.....Professor McGonagall told me > what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with > time...." And what happened here because wizards meddled with > time? Sirius and Buckbeak were rescued. Sirius and HP became > close enough that LV could use Sirius to bring HP to the ministry > which caused Sirius to go to the ministry and be killed. DD set > the whole thing in motion by messing with time, yet he doesn't > apologize for that in OotP, only for not telling HP about the > prophecy, and that LV would use him to get the prophecy, but IMO, > DD caused the whole mess by messing with time. Magda: I'm confused again. Hermoine's comment about messing with time is a good general principle when dealing with a time-turner and as a plot device helps establish the tension in the following scenes. Just because everything went right doesn't mean there wasn't the potential for things to go horribly wrong - includind a confused Harry or Hermione inadvertantly killing their future selves. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 21:04:15 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:04:15 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040906203454.3318.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: >> Well, we don't know that really. > > Sirius Black said twice (OOTP and GOF) that Snape was into the Dark > Arts but no one else has, and it's the kind of thing that Sirius > might over-emphasize considering his own family background. It's > worth noting that during the Pensieve Incident neither James nor > Sirius mention this supposed obsession of Snape's although they > comment frequently upon his physical appearance. Alla: Well, I happily concede that Sirius may not be the most objective witness as to Snape interesting past. But any canon testimony can be eventually proven wrong, right? Sirius is yet to be proven a liar in canon and till that I am going to credit his words with some credibility at least. Of course you are entitled not to do so. James does not mention Snape's obsession with DA, but his pureblood superiority mindset is clear, IMO. Magda > So until we learn a little more about Snape's background or hear from > an objective character that he was interested in the DA, I'm going to > remain sceptical. What we do know - from the book - is that Snape > knew more about DADA than a lot of the other students and wrote more > on his exam in small cramped handwriting. Alla: Oh, but how do we know which character is objective till the books end? In GoF despite all theit hatred Sirius is willing to defer to Dumbledore's judgement as to Snape working in Hogwarts, so I think he is capable of clear thinking when he is not locked up, depressed, whatever. :) I mean really unless the character name is Voldemort, they may6 be telling the truth. In addition, if the boy in Snape's memory is indeed Snape, he was shooting flies with Avada. Sounds to me as early enough interest in DA. I like your theory about Snape being Sirius half-brother. In general, I tend to think that they are related (or Snape and James are related). If this speculation is indeed true, I'd say Sirius may have had plenty of opportunity to see Snape's early interest in DA prior to them coming to Hogwarts. Besides, since Sirius was brought up in the family, involved with Dark Arts, I 'd say he knew what he was talking about, not overemphasised it, but recognised Dark Wizard, when he saw one. Just my opinion, of course. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 19:03:08 2004 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:03:08 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112191 Salit wrote: > There is no evidence that LV used torture on Bertha. The damage to her > was caused by the spell he used to break the memory charm that Crouch > Sr. placed on her: > > LV: "... for -- with a little persuasion -- she became a veritable > mine of information. [deleted] She told me many things... but the > means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerfull, and > when I extracted all usefull information from her, her mind and body > were damaged beyond repair." [ HB U.S. edition GoF, "The Death > Eaters", pp 655 ]. > > Torture is not nearly as effective - it was > after all useless when used against the Longbottoms - I think that LV > uses the Cruciatus curse as a means of punishment, not usually for > interrogation. I think that LV probably enjoys using the Cruciatus curse and uses it even though he can get the same results by another means...I read the quote cited above to mean that he tortured Bertha...which is what damaged her body beyond repair...and as for the Longbottoms, torture wasn't useless - it couldn't work on them, because they didn't actually know where LV was... carodave From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 6 21:43:30 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:43:30 -0400 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) Message-ID: <002c01c4945a$8db01070$81fbacce@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112192 theotokos "Hermione is not saving solely her own neck; there are other necks being saved as well. In CoS with the PP potion, is there canon for her *not* telling Mdm P? I had the impression she was in the hospital for so long because that was how long it took. I think someone made a comment in one of the early books about Mdm P being great and not asking too many questions. I know she wouldn't want to compromise RW or HP. But, since being a cat wasn't life threatening, why would she tell on her self? Is there any reason for it?" DuffyPoo: No, being a cat wasn't life threatening but it did add to the tension in the school and kept HG out of classes. This would not have compromised RW or HP if Hermione had simply said she'd made Polyjuice Potion and tried it but it apparently was a cat hair not a human hair that she used in the potion. She didn't have to say why she tried it or that Ron and Harry did as well. I'm sure lots of kids experiement with lots of potions (didn't Eloise Midgen curse off her own nose?). The problem was, this potion was 'illegal' (according to HP "he thought he might have got full marks on the question about Polyjuice Potion; he could describe its effects accurately, having taken it *illegally* in his second year." - OotP). Of course there's no canon for Hermione 'not' telling Madam Pomfrey, but the fact that she was in the hospital wing for so long speaks volumes to me. I think if HG had told Madam P what she had done, she would have been fixed up pronto as most people were. I haven't read the books in a couple of months but I only recall a few people being in the hospital wing for more than just a few days - apart from the petrified in CoS: Polyjuiced!Hermione, Vanished!Montague, Jinxed!Marietta and Centaured!Umbridge. In those cases Madam P didn't 'know' exactly what happened so she didn't 'know' how to fix it. Madam Pomfrey "never asks too many questions" comes from HP in CoS as they are taking Hermione to the hospital wing. At that point, HP had been in the hospital at the end of PS (four days - 3 of which unconscious) and after Lockhart 'fixed' his arm in CoS (overnight). Ron had been in for about five days for a dragon bite - whether she knew it was or not is questionable as we have no record of her saying anything. There was no need for Madam P to ask questions or she asked them of the people that knew the answers, not necessarily the injured. theotokos "As for Marietta, we are now in a period of pre-war. Her snitch was not some password to a game card club or something. *It matters,* and not just for O.W.Ls. If Hermione would have gone forward to save someone whom did not have the same concern for her, she would be putting in danger every other member of the D.A. Is that right, is that the just thing? They would most certainly be expelled, the rest of their lives compromised, and in possible danger on the outside from LV and the DE." DuffyPoo: As the DA was already outed by Marietta - Umbridge had Hermione's list of names after all - the only person this could have harmed was Hermione, IMO, so she wasn't putting anyone in danger. As she had a clean record to that point it may have been nothing or nothing more than a detention/suspension, but HG may not have realized or wanted even that on her record. Marietta would have been cleared up in a trice by Madam Pomfrey if she'd known what jinx had been used. IIRC there were no more DA meetings after the kids were caught. They could hardly risk another meeting now that Umbridge knew the group existed even if DD took the responsibility for its organization. Umbridge would still have her eye on the group, or at least those she thought were the ringleaders of the group. Umbridge may well have had some vindictive something planned for the kids on the list but after DD gave himself up and she "lost a knut and found a galleon" she let it go. Theotokos: > > Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To be clever > and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning. > Potioncat: "Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat and Gryffindors trick? If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad." DuffyPoo: And mine says cunning: 1. adj. crafty, full of deceit || skillful, ingenius || sweet, charming 2. n. guile, deceit || artfulness || skill, dexterity [O.E. cunnan, to know, be able] Lots of those apply to Hermione: crafty, skillful, ingenius, sweet, charming...... BTW, I didn't say Hermione would go into Slytherin just that she does have some of the traits (I think lots of kids have lots of traits of all the different houses). I think it would be an interesting twist to the story if she did go into Slytherin. Think of it, Slytherins think purity of blood is most important and here is a Muggle-born in their midst proving that she is just as good at magic as they are. Potioncat, was it you that said something about a Hermione/Theodore Nott SHIP? That could be interesting as well and probably not so long and difficult a storyline to add as the story winds down. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 19:20:37 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040906192037.71850.qmail@web80803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112193 Theotokos: > > Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey->nice. To be clever and strategic is not necessarily to be >cunning. > Potioncat: Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat and Gryffindors trick? If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad. Theotokos (again): I had the impression that posters on this list were using "cunning" in a poor light. Cunning, IMO, has a negative connotation. Cheating and trickery also have negative meanings. To cheat is to defraud, swindle, victimize. To trick is to deceive, mislead, dupe. Hermione is, IMO, is resourceful and clever. As for Slytherin's being always bad, I don't know. That seems to be what we are being presented with however. Has JKR shown us a good Slytherin? Maybe they exist but don't fit into the story. I do have a hard time believing there cannot be some good ones. Just like I don't think all Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs are good. Hermione says the sorting hat considered putting her in Ravenclaw. She doesn't tell us it wanted to put her in Slytherin. I think Hermione's choice to bend the rules comes out of the situation instead of an inborn willingness to cunningly break rules at will. Harry, however, was almost put in Slytherin. Is this just because he had the connection with LV or is he more willing to be devious? theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susanadacunha at gmx.net Mon Sep 6 22:00:47 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (susanadcunha) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:00:47 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112194 Theotokos: > Hermione is courageous. Courage isn't necessarily nicey-nice. To be clever and strategic is not necessarily to be cunning.< Potioncat: >Does that imply that to be cunning is bad? My dictionery says cunning: skillful in cheating or tricking. Ok, so Slytherins cheat and Gryffindors trick? If we agree that Hermione's treatment of Rita was justified, does that make it any less cunning? My point in saying Hermione has Slytherin traits is to say that Slytherin traits aren't always bad.< ------------------ I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits: Slytherin have a `thirst to prove themselves' and they believe in the supremacy of pure blood. IMO, those are the two required characteristics. The first ? ambition ? doesn't mean you're cunning (*good at* scheming). I'm sure DD is very good at scheming ? I agree that Hermione is ? but I don't feel either has a thirst to prove him/her self (they do pursuit their objectives relentlessly, but that's different). On the other hand, are Crab and Goyle good at scheming? As Angelina said they don't look smart enough to find the Quiddish pitch without post signs. Nevertheless, they are ambitious. And they are smart enough to hang out with someone who has the smarts to achieve power (who already got them on the Quiddish team?). I do agree, though, the Slytherin traits aren't all bad. Harry is ambitious. So are F&G, in their way. Ambition is not a bad thing. `Disproportionate ambition' on the other hand can be. The fact that Slytherins are picked out because they praise the achievement of power/respectability/influence over most things accounts for most (not all) Slytherins being insufferable deceitful egocentrics. It doesn't account for all (or any) Slytherins being *evil*! If it did, then wizards found a way of classifying ten-years- old as Evil! (Why not at birth and exterminate them all?) The supremacy of pure blood is a completely different thing. People believe those things due to their upbringing and personal experience. It's like believing that homosexuals are freaks of nature. I know a loving mother who believes society will be destroyed if homosexuals are aloud to be in it and a loving father who believes black people are genetically prone to felony. She's the kind that wouldn't hurt a fly (she would ask a friend to see a doctor on finding out he/she was a homosexual, but I don't believe she would stop speaking to him/her). He has black friends who he believes are the exception that confirm the rule (because they strived to behave as white and achieved it). Believing something like that doesn't make a person evil, just narrow-minded (ok, it's an understatement, but I didn't want to use foul language). So what I'm saying is that it makes no sense to assume all Slytherins are evil. To choose one's ambition doesn't mean one is not brave to stand by rightness. One can desire power/respectability/influence and still be on the good side. In contrast, one can choose to be on the good side and send innocent people to jail without a trial (Crouch). With all the grey in the HP series, the idea of marking ten-years- old for evilness doesn't appeal to me. People have all four houses in them. The difference between good and evil is not to choose between them, but to *know* the difference. And if you're narrow-minded enough to think your upbringing and personal experience is enough to learn that difference, you will *do* evil while *believing* you are good (Umbridge, IMO). It's never too late to open your mind and realise that you're not the one who draws the line; the others draw your line while you draw theirs. I'll be disappointed if there won't be a few unexpected good Slytherins at the end - I'm voting for DD, though I'm sure it will be Draco (Snape is expected, IMO). Susana Oh, to explain grey! From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Sep 6 21:11:37 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:11:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments Message-ID: <89.1448dfe1.2e6e2c89@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112195 Justine: We must remember that Snape's existence includes [snip] a pureblood superiority mindset, and, most importantly, an obsession with the Dark Arts.... Magda: Well, we don't know that really. Sirius Black said twice (OOTP and GOF) that Snape was into the DarkArts but no one else has.... Chancie: Acutally if I remember corectly, Sirius isn't the only one who claimes that Snape is in to the Dark Arts. In SS, when Harry first arrives at Hogwarts, he asks Percy who was Quirill talking to. Percy tells him that it's Snape, "he teaches potions, but everyone know's that it's the dark arts he fancys. He's been after Quirll's job for ages..." sorry if that's not an exact quote, I don't have my SS book with me, but I know it's at lest a very close quote. From this state ment it appears to me that Snapes infactuation with the Dark Arts is a fairly well known fact. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Sep 6 22:09:15 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:09:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) Message-ID: <1d3.2a60eed5.2e6e3a0b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112196 In a message dated 9/6/2004 6:02:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, susanadacunha at gmx.net writes: I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits: Slytherin have a `thirst to prove themselves' ============ Sherrie here: I'm sorry to disagree, but these two statements contradict themselves. IMHO, one of the defining characteristics of Hermione Jane Granger is her thirst to prove herself in this new world she's entered. Whether it's her hand waving high enough to dislocate her shoulder in her very first Potions class, or her 112% on her Charms test, or her three feet of extra essay - Hermione wants to be the best, and wants everyone to know it. No, I don't consider this a bad thing - not in the least. In fact, I was very much like Hermione in school. (Now I'm very much like Snape - just ask my nieces and nephews...) A thirst to prove herself, a cunning mind, and - while I can't say she's got a disregard for the rules, she certainly applies them...ah...selectively, and sometimes with a rather creative interpretation... Sherrie (whose second-favorite character is Hermione) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 22:48:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:48:02 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112197 > Terpnurse wrote: > Ya know, something else Harry learned in CoS (both in the book and > in the Forbidden Media - where it might easily have been cut) is the > fact the Lucius has other things hidden away at his house that once > belonged to Tom Riddle. That's such a vague clue - and one repeated > by three characters; DD, Draco, and Arthur Weasley - that we're > forced to wonder just *what* else the Malfoys have in their own > secret chamber. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm responded: > Same scene, different POV ? The Hand of Glory. It doesn't > add anything to the plot. > > The deleted version of the scene is much longer and includes Draco > almost finding Harry. IIRC, the part with the Malfoys coming into > the store was deleted, but the Hand was left in. I might be willing > to stake a couple of knuts on it ? any takers? Carol adds: The Malfoys do come into the store in the film (how much was cut I don't know as I don't own the DVD), but the hand of glory scene is much more developed in the film (theatrical version) than it is in the book, where Draco asks if his father will buy it but neither he nor Harry actually touches it. I do think (hope) we'll hear more of the goods Lucius has stashed away (why mention them so frequently if they're not important), but I also think we we were introduced to Nocturn Alley, and specifically to Borgin and Burkes, for a reason. I noted Mr. Borgin's muttered reference to "*Mr.* Malfoy" after Malfoy had left (will his dislike prove important?), and I also note that Borgin and Burkes has a recurring ad in the Daily News on JKR's website for exactly the sort of suspicious objects "to be found in the best families" (quoted from memory) that Malfoy is likely to be hiding. So my vote is either Borgin and Burkes or Malfoy's stash of contraband potions and artifacts or both. Carol From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 6 22:25:08 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <002c01c4945a$8db01070$81fbacce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20040906222508.36377.qmail@web80802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112198 DuffyPoo >Of course there's no canon for Hermione 'not' telling Madam >Pomfrey, but the fact that she was in the hospital wing for so >long speaks volumes to me. I think if HG had told Madam P what >she had done, she would have been fixed up pronto as most >people were. theotokos: I disagree. Remember in OotP when the 3 were in St. Mungos in the restricted ward they saw a lady with fur? She was in the long term ward. She answered in barks. Hermione's mishap with the PP could have been that serious. Maybe that is why it is 'illegal' to mess with, because messing up has a more drastic consequence than something Mdm P can just fix in a jiff. DuffyPoo: >Marietta would have been cleared up in a trice by Madam Pomfrey >if she'd known what jinx had been used. theotokos: But why should she be. She broke an oath! She made her bed, so to speak, and must lie in it. A punishment is pointless unless it is followed through. theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 23:17:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:17:35 -0000 Subject: Why is Tonks clumsy? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040830004025.01eaaec0@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112199 "Lindsay W." (Lawless) wrote: > Tonks. She's clumsy, we know this. In practically every scene where we see Tonks, she's clumsy. It's overly exagerrated, to a point. WHY is Tonks clumby? > > She's a Metamorphagus...in theory (it would seem obvious to me, at least) she should be able to change her body so that it "feels" right, > correct? The correct height, correct build...everything. So why doesn't she? Barring a "it just doesn't work like that" explaination. > > Maybe Tonks as we know her...is a disguise. OR...Tonks spends so much time > in disguise that she can't easily adjust to her "original" body. > > Bear with me, here, because I go out on a limb. Men and women have > different centers of balance. If you suddenly turned a man into a woman, > he would, theoretically, have to get used to the lower center of balance, > and vice-versa. Perhaps the reason for her clumbsiness is: > > A) She's "really" a he and has a hard time adjusting to the female center of balance. > > or > > B) She is a she, but spends a majority of her time as a he, so that when she finally becomes a female again, she has an extremely hard time getting used to it, again. Carol responds: The problem with this interesting theory, as I see it, is that on the only two occasions when Tonks "metamorphs" completely in OoP (as opposed to merely changing her hair or her nose), she transforms into an older woman. Whether this is by choice (because she has a female personality and is only comfortable in a female body) or because a metamorphmagus can't change his or her sex, I don't know, but note that the animagi retain their sex (and some personality traits) when they transform into animals, and maybe a metamorpmagus does, too. I also think it would be almost as difficult for a metamorphmagus to sustain the appearance and personality of another person for a school year as it must have been for Barty Jr. using the polyjuice potion. He had the advantage of being a fanatical lunatic--and of being able to adapt some of his own personality traits, such as a hatred of "Death Eaters who walked free," so that they appeared to be Alastor Moody's. Tonks would be unlikely to have such luck in whatever person she chose to impersonate. In fact, we don't even know whether she can transform herself into the likeness of some living person. Just being able to change your nose or hair or body build at will doesn't mean that you can exactly duplicate another person from memory or a photograph. I'm sure we'll see more metamorphasis on Tonks' part and that it will play a somewhat important role related to Order business, but I doubt very much that she'll change into anyone we know or become a teacher--unless she violates the unwritten "rule" of an unknown character becoming the new DADA teacher in each book and does so in her own person. If so, expect to see her dead or fired by the end of Book 6. Carol From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 6 22:28:53 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:28:53 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanadcunha" <> > >Susana wrote: > The fact that Slytherins are picked out because they praise the > achievement of power/respectability/influence over most things > accounts for most (not all) Slytherins being insufferable deceitful > egocentrics. It doesn't account for all (or any) Slytherins being > *evil*! If it did, then wizards found a way of classifying ten- years- > old as Evil! (Why not at birth and exterminate them all?) > > So what I'm saying is that it makes no sense to assume all > Slytherins are evil. To choose one's ambition doesn't mean > one is not brave to stand by rightness. One can desire > power/respectability/influence and still be on the good side. In > contrast, one can choose to be on the good side and send innocent > people to jail without a trial (Crouch). > > With all the grey in the HP series, the idea of marking ten-years- > old for evilness doesn't appeal to me. People have all four > houses in them. The difference between good and evil is not to > choose between them, but to *know* the difference. And if you're > narrow-minded enough to think your upbringing and personal > experience is enough to learn that difference, you will *do* evil > while *believing* you are good (Umbridge, IMO). It's never too > late to open your mind and realise that you're not the one who > draws the line; the others draw your line while you draw theirs. > > I'll be disappointed if there won't be a few unexpected good > Slytherins at the end - I'm voting for DD, though I'm sure it > will be Draco (Snape is expected, IMO). > > Susana > Oh, to explain grey! Hannah: I agree, Susana, I think you've 'explained grey' very well there! And I really hope we do encounter at least one Slytherin who's not in some way unpleasant! I think JKR said DD was a Gryffindor, but I may be wrong. I used to reckon Lily was definitely going to turn out Slytherin, and was very annoyed when JKR said she was Gryffindor (in one of the more recent web chats, don't know which). What about the removed Weasley cousin, Mafalda? JKR has said she might yet appear in book 6 or 7. She is in Slytherin, and interestingly her father is a squib (he is the accountant cousin). Maybe she won't be as pointlessly nasty as the rest. I'm certain JKR will put in at least one good Slytherin, or reform some of the existing ones. Hannah (who is a Snape fan and desperate for him to turn out to be a dear tormented soul, in love with Harry's dead mother, though sadly suspects this is too simple for the Potterverse.) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 23:40:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:40:18 -0000 Subject: Fabian & Gideon's namesakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112201 > Snow: > > So other than this instance in the first book, which could be > accepted, how do you explain Molly's behavior in OOP when she says > that's everyone in the family? How can you possibly explain this > blurted-out, caught-off-guard exclamation by Molly? Except that she > was caught off guard and merely blurted out "that's everyone in the > family". Doesn't Molly treat Harry like a surrogate son? Molly > truthfully cares for Harry; this isn't a fake response on Molly's > part. Molly is very companionate and mothering to those who are not > her own, even to the point of fighting Harry's true caretaker > (Sirius). I can see the possibility of Fred and George being adopted > at a young age by Molly (see post # 101911) I can also appreciate her > spontaneous response to Ron becoming a prefect. Slip of the tongue > under high pressure, sleepless, worrying over all her family > (including Harry) that they may die. You see how she worried about > Harry dieing along with her own family and he is not her son. Molly > is good but she is not flawless. I can defiantly see her making this > enormous mistake under the pressures she had been enduring. Carol: Although I was bothered by that comment the first time I read it (it ignores Ginny as well as Fred and George), I don't think it needs to be interpreted as meaning that Fred and George (about whom she's so worried after the Tri-Wizard tournament) are not her own children. They fit neatly into the male-child(ren)-every-two-years pattern (disrupted by Ginny) that we see if we accept JKR's statement that Charlie is two years older than Percy (she doesn't seem to understand the problems involved in reconciling that statement with Charlie's quidditch record and I don't want to get back into *that* discussion!) and, as others have pointed out, they physically resemble Charlie. I *do* think their initials are deliberately chosen to honor Molly's dead brothers, Fabian and Gideon, but there's no indication that either of the brothers was married, much less that he had twin sons who were motherless as well as fatherless and needed to be adopted by Molly. So here's my explanation of her remark, "That's everyone in the family!" She knows that Fred and George never wanted to become prefects (assuming that both of them could have done so) and that they consider prefects to be prats. She means everyone so far (not counting Ginny, who'll have her chance next year) who ever had any chance of becoming a prefect. Not very tactful, as George's "What are Fred and I? Next-door neighbors?" reminds her, but understandable regardless. She's proud of Ron for following (unexpectedly) in his older brothers' footsteps, she can't help thinking about Percy (for whom I think she still holds out hope), and the two prodigals momentarily slip from her mind. She's human, and the simplest explanation is probably the correct one here. Carol, who expects to see Ginny as prefect in the next book From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 00:18:42 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:18:42 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112202 I don't know if I should, as a lapsed catholic and probable present time agnostic/atheist, be starting (or more likely continuing) a thread on Christianity. Even if it's original (which I really doubt) I'm somewhat loath to (re-)start a posting topic that could generate controversy or else run and run for all the wrong reasons. Even so: How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = opponent of God the father of JC). Of course in HP hallow'een also looms large (how could it not for witches? - something significant always happens on Hallow'een (Harry and Nevilles's conception as I've noted before, '*that* night' at Godric's Hollow, NHN's bungled beheading, the troll in PS/SS, the basilisk's first strike in CoS, Sirius' 1st attack at Hogwart's in PoA, Harry's choosing by the GoF, though nothing obvious in OotP). Although halloween has older roots as a solstice than as all hallow's eve, the latter name definitely derives from the idea of saints and a Jesus-based religiosity. Is JKR trying to signify that Hogwarts works on 'good WASP traditions' like any English public school (where pupils, Christian or otherwise, have to sing hymns and celebrate Christian festivals like Easter, Xmas, Michaelmas etc, or that wizards aren't as dark as all that because they 'do' Xmas, or what? There is a recent thread on JKR's beliefs (based on a mysterious Canadian interview?) suggesting she is a Christian and that she said if she stated what she actually believes then we would all know too much about the ending. This is weighed against the attacks by deeply Christian folk (whatever you want to name them) suggesting HP is too wickedly heathen/dark and wizardry/magic generally is unchristian/unholy. Harry doesn't go to church that we see, nor Hermione nor anyone else in HP yet it just seems to be assumed that Christianity is a theme present but largely unspoken of/ignored - sad to say (for those who are wholeheartedly Christian) rather like the prevailing view of the majority of folk in the real world in the UK or much of the US at least. Many profess to be Christian but do little that is in any way religious in a Christian sense, like pray, attend mass, live their lives with Christian values, or otherwise express what are supposed to be firmly held and all pervasive beliefs (faith). Any comments? (and PLEASE keep these in relation to the books/JKR's WW and not about Christianity per se such as your own personal views, strongly held or otherwise e.g. Jesus being the sole salvation of humanity or entirely otherwise) I note in passing that from the J.K.Rowling.com Edinburgh 2004 interview transcript: Q: Does Harry have a godmother? If so, will she make an appearance in future books? A (by JKR): No, he doesn't. I have thought this through. If Sirius had married Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married. When Harry was born, it was at the very height of Voldemort fever last time so his christening was a very hurried, quiet affair with just Sirius, just the best friend. At that point it looked as if the Potters would have to go into hiding so obviously they could not do the big christening thing and invite lots of people. Sirius is the only one, unfortunately. I have got to be careful what I say there, haven't I? Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do with the veil). From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 7 00:18:03 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:18:03 +0100 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) References: <1d3.2a60eed5.2e6e3a0b@aol.com> Message-ID: <002501c49470$911f1d80$752f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112203 In a message dated 9/6/2004 6:02:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, susanadacunha at gmx.net writes: I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits: Slytherin have a `thirst to prove themselves' ============ Sherrie wrote: "I'm sorry to disagree, but these two statements contradict themselves. IMHO, one of the defining characteristics of Hermione Jane Granger is her thirst to prove herself in this new world she's entered. Whether it's her hand waving high enough to dislocate her shoulder in her very first Potions class, or her 112% on her Charms test, or her three feet of extra essay - Hermione wants to be the best, and wants everyone to know it." --------------- I'm sorry to disagree too, but I don't see her like that at all. It's late and I have to work in the morning, so I won't try to find a quote, but I'm sure JKR said (and it was my first assumption too) that Hermione has fear of failure and that's why she tries so hard to be perfect. I would add (on my own) that she wants recognition, as you said. Only not from being 'the best' but from being 'as good as she can be' - I don't think she would object if others were as good as she is. Actually, she shows sings of impatience when people don't keep up. Being an intelligent and practical girl, she would love to ban mediocrity from the world, but she also knows that would raise her standards for herself and she fears it. Susana who *acted* much like Hermione at her age but obviously for different reasons than Sherrie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 00:33:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:33:18 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112204 "zendemort" wrote: > > When Snape comes across the Marauder's Map, he tells the map "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, demands that you reveal the secrets you hide" (snip). But there is a little problem here. You see, Snape is not the master of Hogwarts! DD is the "master of this school"! So why does Snape call himself > > master of the school? > Zoe C responded: > In English public school, (private & fee paying) teachers are > referred to in the old fashioned way as a school master or mistress, > which is where the title head master or head mistress comes from > (now overtaken by the phrase head teacher). So Snape is just using > his proper title of school master or potions master, which is just > an older term for potions teacher or school teacher. > > This doesn't mean however that he hasn't got designs on DD's job! Carol adds: As a side note, the same term ("master" for "teacher") is used in LOTR, which doesn't even have formal schooling. The Elf Gildor Inglorion, complimenting Frodo on his Elvish, tells Frodo that he had a "good master," meaning that Bilbo (who of course was never Frodo's master in the usual sense) was a good teacher. So I agree with Zoe C: Snape is simply referring to himself as a Hogwarts teacher. But it *is* interesting, and perhaps significant, that he's referred to elsewhere (starting with SS/PS, chapter 8, which actually bears that title) as "the Potions Master." He's a master of his craft or art or science, or whatever you want to call it, and that mastery appears to be acknowledged in his title. He doesn't call himself "*head*master," which would be an obvious falsehood, or even "assistant headmaster" (McGonagall holds the feminine version of that title). And he doesn't say "*the* master of this school." There's no article ("a", "an," or "the") at all. (Not that "an" would work here, but I couldn't leave it out.) Read, "I, Severus Snape, Hogwarts teacher, demand . . ."--only he's stating the same fact in a more impressive but still perfectly truthful and legitmate way. Carol From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Sep 7 00:52:15 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:52:15 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112205 Salit There is no evidence that LV used torture on Bertha. The damage to her was caused by the spell he used to break the memory charm that Crouch Sr. placed on her: LV: "... for -- with a little persuasion -- she became a veritable mine of information. [deleted] She told me many things... but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were damaged beyond repair." [ HB U.S. edition GoF, "The Death Eaters", pp 655 ]. I don't think LV needed to resort to torture to extract information when he could use Veritaserum and legilimency (and possibly other sophisticated methods). Torture is not nearly as effective - it was after all useless when used against the Longbottoms - I think that LV uses the Cruciatus curse as a means of punishment, not usually for interrogation. Salit Becki; Actually there is evidence that LV tortured Bertha. Moody!Crouch says so in his confession under veritaserum. Page 687, GoF, AM ED says; "...He had captured Bertha Jorkins in Albania. He had tortured her. She told him a great deal...". I see LV's version as torture as well, only described sort of 'tongue and cheek'. And I don't know if he had access to ingredients to make veritaserum in the wilderness of Albania, and Legilimency is not really mind reading as much as the ability of being able to tell if someone is lying to you, so I don't think those were actually options for him. I suppose he could have used other means of torture then the Crucio, but that seems to be one of his favorites. It could have been easier for him (to get her info) because Barty Jr. also says that her memory had already been damaged due to the memory charm that Barty Sr. used in the first place. Not that it all really matters, just wondering...Becki (who is also wondering what IIRC means?) From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Sep 6 23:38:08 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:38:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum Message-ID: <20040906.200558.3960.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112206 Nora: > Studying art in the context of 'hey kids, draw this animal because > we're studying it in class' and, say, studying the aesthetics and > history and practice of drawing are profoundly different things. As I've said several times, the basis of my theory is that there is more to the class than we read. Maybe they do study theory and aestetics. > It is an interesting theory, but it doesn't address exactly what I was > lamenting the loss of. What I'm saying is that it's possible there isn't any loss to lament. The humanities may be taught in a *different* but still valid and effective way. When I was in school, two-a-week, one-half year music or art classes were treated as cake classes compared to the more demanding core classes. If Hogwarts does blend humantities in with the lessons in the core classes, perhaps Hogwarts kids emerge from school more appreciative of the arts than kids I went to school with, who viewed them as lesser disciplens than "real" classes. > Actually, it's a fairly canonical comment that most wizards have > absolutely no logic, at the end of SS/PS. I have no idea what you mean by that. >it's going to trip up your average student, > but not Muggle-raised Hermione. It's meant to trip up an adverage-intelligenced person (do we really think Quirrel or Voldemort are geniuses?) but not above-intelligence Hermione. Harry couldn't solve the puzzle, either. > Sure, people might be able to do that kind of big, flashy, ooh look > at that it's so COOL art. I just meant that a wizard artist can use magic in their art. It doesn't have to be flashy, just magic. > The argument is, perhaps, that in many cases, time-saving convenience > abilities do lead to a kind of laziness. Or it can free up your skills to create something better (or just *different*), because you don't have to spend so much time on the little details. It must take a different kind of photographic eye to, without notice, capture 5-10 seconds of a scene, getting subjects to show what you want the photo to be about, and not seem random or extraneous. > when you can get > that close to real life, why bother developing anything else? Muggle art can get close to real life, but they still develop other things. We don't know what other kinds of art exist in the Wizarding world except for the talking portraits. > isn't it interesting > from a literary perspective that, even if it's 'actually' there, we > don't get shown these art/music/drama classes? >From a literary perspective, the books are about the wizarding world. Throwing in random muggle things would muddle the world the author is constructing. It's a kids' book: some things have to be clear-cut, like the idea that the wizarding world is all-magic. It's more fun that way. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From karen at dacafe.com Tue Sep 7 01:14:07 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:14:07 -0000 Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: <1CFF2D19-FFFA-11D8-A579-0003930C168E@qwest.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steven Spencer" wrote: > womanofdunedain wrote: > > The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither > > lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he > > kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these > > might be. > > > > I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else > > agrees. > > > > > > Terpnurse: > It had always been my assumption that The Wealthy Man was Malfoy. That > would be consistent with his having his financial finger in almost > every major pie in the UK WW. Certainly, if he were close enough to LV > to have possession of his school belongings, why not hold the Riddle > House in trust for him as well? Karen adds: It would also explain why Voldemort treats Malfoy a little differently from the rest of the DE's in the circle. I wonder if Malfoy's basement/hiding place is where Peter has stored all those missing wands. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 01:38:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:38:43 -0000 Subject: Master of This School In-Reply-To: <001c01c48f5a$7c166e90$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112208 Sherry wrote: > > Actually, I believe that in England, it used to be common to call a teacher master. Even in the New Testament, when the disciples of Jesus refer to him as master, it means teacher. I don't know if it was ever done the same way in the US. I can't think of any literature right now with a teacher called Master. Carol: Ishmael in "Moby Dick" is a former schoolmaster--that was the usual term for a male teacher in America in the eighteenth century and at least part of the nineteenth century. It originated in England (according to Webster's 10th) in the thirteenth century. Ichabod Crane in Washington Irving's "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is also a schoolmaster. Carol From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Sep 7 01:43:10 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:43:10 -0000 Subject: When Fudge Became MoM (WAS: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: <20040906184852.41127.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Marita Jan wrote: > Actually, there's canon against Fudge being MoM for that long. In > Phoenix, one of the Articles that Harry reads in the Quibbler is about > Fudge plotting to take over Gringotts. That article says: "Cornelius > Fudge, the Minister of Magic, denied that he had any plans to take over > the running of the Wizarding Bank, Gringotts, when he was elected Minister > of Magic *FIVE* years ago...." (my emphasis) > [snip] > What does this mean? Is it a mistake on JKR's part? If this timing is > correct, Fudge was elected Minister about the time Harry started Hogwarts. > Hagrid mentions Fudge "pelting DD with owls every morning" asking for > advice (in SS). Though JKR is admittedly very poor with numbers, I don't think this is a mistake. As the quote indicates, Fudge acted like a very green MoM in PS/SS. As he got more comfortable with his power, he came to view Dumbledore's advice as interference. Nor do I think it's necessarily inconsistent with the story Sirius gives in GoF ch. 27 ("Padfoot Returns"). Sirius says in GoF that Crouch's "big drop in popularity" occurred after the staged death of Barty Jr. and the staged death of his wife, which occurred "shortly after" Barty Jr.'s staged death. Barty Crouch's death took place a year after he was convicted of the Longbottoms' torture. We know that the Longbottoms weren't tortured until some point after Voldemort fell, and that the Pensieve Four weren't captured right away. (Dumbledore says in the Pensieve scene that "the Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it.") And after their capture, some additional time must have elapsed before their trial. What all this means is that at least two years elapsed before the earliest possible time Fudge could have become MoM. However, the fact that Crouch's disgrace caused him to lose his position as heir apparent to the MoM job doesn't necessarily mean that Fudge replaced him right after Barty Jr. 'died'. That wouldn't happen until the existing Minister of Magic (who remains unidentified) retired, was sacked, or (if it is an elected post) failed to be reelected. We don't know when the position became available. Crouch might have waited several more years hoping that he could still get the job in spite of his waning popularity. Also, according to Fudge's own words in PoA ch. 10, "I was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes at the time, and I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all those people." It would seem very quick for a junior minister to rise to become MoM in just a year. Fudge would have needed to build his credentials on more than just the capture of Sirius Black. While pre-OOP I would have guessed that Fudge had been MoM for 2-3 years at the beginning of PS/SS, I don't think the date given in OOP is a flint. There's another apparent anomaly in the books. In PS/SS, Hagrid states, "They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o' course, but he'd never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job." This seems to imply that Crouch wasn't even under consideration when Fudge became MoM. This seems inconsistent with Sirius' statement, "Once the boy had died, people started feeling a bit more sympathetic toward the son . . . . The conclusion was that his father never cared much for him. So Cornelius Fudge got the top job, and Crouch was shunted sideways into the Department of International Magical Co-operation." On the other hand, perhaps the disgrace to his family left him unworthy of any consideration whatsoever by the time the MoM position became vacant, because I have no doubt that it was Fudge who shunted Crouch aside to the Department of International Magical Co-operation. This seems to be a move to get Crouch out of any possible "line of succession" (DMLE is the largest department and seems most concerned with what Hagrid told us in PS/SS was the main job of the MoM: "to keep it from the Muggles that there's still witches an' wizards up an' down the country." So it seems logical that MoM candidates would more likely have served in DMLE rather than one of the lesser departments.) Note that Sirius' statement implies that Fudge got the top job first and *then* Crouch was shunted aside. Debbie always ready to accuse Fudge obtaining and keeping his job using nefarious means From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 01:52:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:52:16 -0000 Subject: Nagging thoughts on Pheonixes & LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112210 Amy wrote: > I have a few questions about the Pheonix Dumbledore has (Fawkes); the feathers in the 2 wands (of HP & LV), and Dumbledore in general. > > 1. I have a feeling there is more to the Dumbledore/Fawkes > relationship than just owner & pet, and more than just the pheonix is > DD's patronus....Dumbledore possesses a lot of the qualities of the > pheonix himself. > 3. Could DD & Fawkes be one in the same? I mean maybe DD is an > animagus...he DID use to be the transfiguration teacher...and they > coexist due to time-turner overlaps; to DD's great & brilliant > stategy to keep on top of things? I like this idea because it means > DD is in essence a never ending story. > Carol: Sorry to snip, but a full answer to your post would require research that I don't have time for. I agree entirely with point 1--note also that Fawkes' colors (scarlet and gold) are the Gryffindor colors. I think the house colors may *originate* with Fawkes and tha DD is the ultimate Gryffindor (he even has a "griffin door" knocker). I don't want to speculate on when or how he acquired Fawkes, but I think it may well have belonged to him before he became headmaster and there's clearly a mental or spiritual link between the bird (phoenix) and the man (wizard), symbolized by DD's phoenix patronus. As for point 3, clearly they can't be one and the same because they appear together in several different scenes. In OoP, Fawkes saves DD's life, as he couldn't do if he were DD's animagus form. Unless, of course, you bring in time-turning (as you seem to want to but I don't). Carol, who hopes we've seen the last of time-turning and all other deus ex machinations (like my neologism, anybody?) From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 02:13:14 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 02:13:14 -0000 Subject: When Fudge Became MoM (WAS: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112211 Hi! Debbie, Great Post! I agree with everything you wrote. I just have one thing to throw in: Debbie: >That wouldn't happen until the existing Minister of Magic (who remains unidentified) retired, was sacked, or (if it is an elected post) failed to be reelected. We don't know when the position became available.< KathyK: We do know who was Minister before Fudge. Millicent Bagnold was Minister of Magic before Fudge got the position. She retired and Fudge got the job. And according to the _Quibbler_ article in Chapter 10 of OoP, Fudge was elected to the position. Arthur Weasley talking about Dumbledore and Fudge: (OoP Ch 5, US ed pg. 93) "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." KathyK From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 02:38:19 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:38:19 EDT Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? Message-ID: <105.500606fe.2e6e791b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112212 In a message dated 9/6/2004 11:24:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > > > womanofdunedain wrote: > >The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither > >lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he > >kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these > >might be. > > > >I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else > >agrees. > > > > > > Terpnurse: > It had always been my assumption that The Wealthy Man was Malfoy. That > would be consistent with his having his financial finger in almost > every major pie in the UK WW. Certainly, if he were close enough to LV > to have possession of his school belongings, why not hold the Riddle > House in trust for him as well? Juli says: That does seem to be a likely assumption. But likely assumptions often turn out to be wrong in JKR's world. It would be more interesting if the "wealthy man" turned out to be Dumbledore. Why he would be holding it, I don't know, but the reason would be fascinating I'm sure! The other likely possibility is that this was a throwaway line, there to explain why the house was vacant and available for Voldemort to use, and the wealthy man is some anonymous muggle we'll never hear referred to again. Juli [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 02:47:25 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:47:25 EDT Subject: Cruelty vs cruel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112213 In a message dated 9/6/2004 11:24:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > Naama wrote: > >Well, ok - I take the "everybody" back, but as regards Harry, > >we are specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He > >imagines torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does > >it to Bella. There is also a description in OoP where Harry > >says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and feels > >satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint > >that further. > > > >You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that > >for JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, > >based on my understanding of Harry as Everyboy). > > ---------- > Tonks here: > > I still disagree. Harry is not a cruel person. Yes he may have had > thoughts and feelings about hurting someone when he is angry, but > that is not the same as being cruel. Remember it is our actions.. > our choices .. even when he choices to respond to his feelings of > rage, the strongest feelings he has had in his life, he can't even > do a proper Cruciatus on Bella. Because he does not have it in him > to really hurt another person, even the evil Bella. But Bella can do > a Cruciatus because she IS cruel and sadistic. She ENJOYS hurting > others. > > Humans are basically kind/good, they are not basically cruel/evil. > So it follows that EVERYBODY does not have cruelness in them. > > Tonks_op I think everybody has the capacity to be cruel, and everybody has probably said or done something cruel at some point in their lives. If you have siblings, that alone just about assures that you've been cruel, since brothers and sisters often deliberately say unkind and cruel things to each other. (Fortunately they grow out of it as they get older, most of the time). We all give into our baser instincts at times, out of anger, or fear, or jealousy. Speaking or acting in a cruel manner does not make one a "cruel person," IMO. When we label someone by a behavioral quality-- a cruel person, a kind person, a funny person, etc--we are usually referring to a quality that is present in that person's everyday behavior, not a quality which that person exhibits infrequently. In that sense, Harry is not a cruel person. Nor is Hermoine. Bella is. Voldemort is. Snape...well, the jury's out on that one, though he certainly does push that "infrequently" envelope ;-) Juli [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Sep 7 03:11:32 2004 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:11:32 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112214 Carolyn wrote: > > Only two wands that we know of have phoenix cores, Voldemort's and > > Harry's [although I'd bet quite a bit that DD's wand does as > well]. I > > think it was inevitable that Harry's wand would choose him, > because, > > as you say, Harry has a power to equal Voldemort. DD already > guessed > > this would be the case from the prophecy, and from his knowledge > of > > Voldemort's powers; he didn't have to force or risk anything. And Jen replied: > The only thing that bothers me here is a point Hannah brought > up in post 112124. She said: > > "And he {Ollivander} makes Harry try lots of others first, which > seems a risky course of action. A wizard must suit more than one > wand, otherwise how do people ever manage when they break one. What > if another good wand had turned up? Why not just say; 'let's try > this one,' present the Fawkes-wand and save a lot of trouble. Harry > wouldn't have known any different!" > > Why bother with the pretense? As Hannah points out, the process is > completely new to Harry and he wouldn't question if the 1st, 5th or > 100th wand was the one! Jumping into the middle of this conversation (as always). But are we assuming Ollivander was in on this? Perhaps Dumbledore commissioned the wand without specifying who he planned it for. You ask why Ollivander would wait so long to present that wand. I agree, why did he wait so long? "...the more wands Mr. Ollivander pulled from shelves, the happier he seemed to become. 'Tricky customer, eh? Not to worry, we'll find the perfect match here somewhere-- I wonder, now-- yes, why not-- unusual combination-- holly and pheonix feather, eleven inches, nice and supple.'" I think this passage fits perfectly with the idea that Ollivander knows this wand is special, but isn't 100% sure for whom it is intended. Therefore he saves it for hard-to-fit customers. Hence, his excitement when Harry fails to fit any other wands. It would also explain his perplexity when he began to think about the situation after the wand chooses Harry. Perhaps trying to figure out exactly what Dumbledore might be planning by giving Harry the brother wand to Voldemort's. And it would certainly explain why he immediately contacted Dumbledore once the wand sold. -Corinth From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Tue Sep 7 03:17:05 2004 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (ivogun) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:17:05 -0000 Subject: Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112215 There was some discussion not too long ago about how Neville is hindered by= using his father's wand. And I began wondering again about other ways that Neville i= s disadvantaged. What if Neville's problems in potions is exacerbated, or ev= en caused, by the type of cauldron that he uses? No other student melts his /her cauldro= n, and they do concoct some horrid, stinky, smoky, off-colored potions, but no one else se= ems to melt the things. Not like Neville, anyway. I really wonder if Neville uses the= type of cheap cauldrons that is the subject of Percy's long government report and the kin= d that Mung illegally trades. There is a bit of a is a hint with his name "Longbottom."= In reality, Neville ought to be using well-built, thick cauldrons, but instead cheap. My theory is that thin cauldrons are a major plaque of the wizarding poor. = So much so that the working class ("tiny, grubby-looking") pub that Harry sees in the= first book is called "The Leaky Pub." The section of St. Mungos that deals with "Artifact= Accidents" (and lists "cauldron explosions" first) is located on the ground floor. There = must be a lot of problems with bad cauldrons. We don't see the problem at Hogwarts because = it is an elite school. Even many of the poorer students, such as the Weasleys, have paren= ts who in order to ensure the safety of their children they spend money they don't ha= ve to purchase proper equipment. (Well, there is the exception of Ron's broken wand in the= CoS, but Ron didn't go off to school with a broken wand either.) Neville is probably quite poor. Probably his uncle (or is it great uncle?)= is the only one in the family currently bringing in a salary. His Grandmother seems stern ma= triarchs who knows how to make do and how to put up a good front. I can almost her tell= ing Neville that this or that will do...when in reality it won't. How else can we expla= in Neville's toad? Even Hagrid, not exactly a fashion expert, tells Harry that toads "went out= ta fashion years ago." JKR does seem to have an interest with the poor. Her Web page's August "Wi= zard of the Month" featured a witch holding a flapping bat who was famous for her work= with helping to redeem hags. (It's gone, so I can't quote it, but it was something like = that.) And Snape who has all the bat imagery associated with him--does it mostly indicate th= at he comes not just from a poor family, but that he was born in the meanest of poor sl= ums complete with prostitutes and thieves? It does make one want to rethink Snape's relation with Neville in potion's = class. Ivogun (Barbara Roberts), who is glad to have electricity back after a near= miss from Hurricane Francis From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 03:36:01 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:36:01 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: <20040906.200558.3960.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > Nora: >> Studying art in the context of 'hey kids, draw this animal because >> we're studying it in class' and, say, studying the aesthetics and >> history and practice of drawing are profoundly different things. > > As I've said several times, the basis of my theory is that there is > more to the class than we read. Maybe they do study theory and > aesthetics. I'm trying to figure out how to functionally work in a discussion, a serious and non-trivial discussion, into any of these classes so far as they've been presented, and I just can't come up with any good concrete specifics on how this would be done. For example, methinks that Hagrid as CoMC teacher is not exactly going to be imparting a discussion of perspective, even if he asks the kids to draw one of the animals. That class is overwhelmingly hands-on. Potions is hands-on. Transfiguration is all about making things change so McGonagall won't yell at you. DADA is the one place I can see ethics coming up--Lupin is a good teacher, in part, because he actually makes them think through the process of dealing with a Boggart, and why it works to laugh at it, and what it means. He, however, seems to be a little more of an exception rather than the rule. We know what Ministry-mandated DADA is like, and it is the ultimate antithesis of critical thinking. >> It is an interesting theory, but it doesn't address exactly what >> I was lamenting the loss of. > > What I'm saying is that it's possible there isn't any loss to > lament. The humanities may be taught in a *different* but still > valid and effective way. > > When I was in school, two-a-week, one-half year music or art > classes were treated as cake classes compared to the more demanding > core classes. If Hogwarts does blend humantities in with the > lessons in the core classes, perhaps Hogwarts kids emerge from > school more appreciative of the arts than kids I went to school > with, who viewed them as lesser disciplines than "real" classes. When you treat them like that, they *are* cake classes. And I don't see any way that treatment of them at Hogwarts, if they're there, is any better, given the overwhelming emphasis on the practical side of education. Taking the 'we're going to slip some stuff in here so it might catch' approach doesn't seem to me like it would really work when all the kids are paying far more attention to trying to get that potion right, or come up with the One Right Answer to a question. >> Actually, it's a fairly canonical comment that most wizards have >> absolutely no logic, at the end of SS/PS. > > I have no idea what you mean by that. Sadly, I don't have the book at hand; let me see...okay, I am corrected--it's not most, but here you go: "This isn't magic-it's logic-a puzzle. A lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic, they'd be stuck in here forever." >> it's going to trip up your average student, but not Muggle-raised >> Hermione. > > It's meant to trip up an average-intelligenced person (do we really > think Quirrel or Voldemort are geniuses?) but not above-intelligence > Hermione. Harry couldn't solve the puzzle, either. It's not intelligence per se that's really the determinant on solving the puzzle, it's the knowledge of the methodology. Anyone can solve it, really, if you know how--it just takes a little time to work out. Hermione, being sharp, walks through it fairly quickly, but that's more because she knows how to think in the way that the puzzle demands. The different obstacles all test different ways of thinking and observing the world. >> when you can get that close to real life, why bother developing >> anything else? > > Muggle art can get close to real life, but they still develop other > things. We don't know what other kinds of art exist in the Wizarding > world except for the talking portraits. Generally, if one takes a short-fast-and-loose historical survey of aesthetics, it started from a groundpoint of 'art imitates life', and then expanded out from there. Given the very, very little that we've seen of wizarding art and ideas so far, I don't think they've gotten terribly far on the path of artistic development--but I could be completely wrong. They are, however, societally lacking a lot of things that do generate artistic progress. >> isn't it interesting from a literary perspective that, even if >> it's 'actually' there, we don't get shown these art/music/drama >> classes? > > From a literary perspective, the books are about the wizarding > world. Throwing in random muggle things would muddle the world the > author is constructing. It's a kids' book: some things have to be > clear-cut, like the idea that the wizarding world is all-magic. > It's more fun that way. But it still seems important that the all-magic wizarding world is lacking a hell of a lot of things--a serious concept of human rights is a good one, amongst other things. It is certainly far from a utopia (and, perhaps, getting worse every book), and one of the themes which seems to be growing is how magic has both positive and strongly detrimental affects on society and human relationships. The WW has worked out things that Muggles haven't, but Muggles have worked out a lot of things that the WW hasn't, and which are coming back to haunt them. It's the rare visionary like Dumbledore who appreciates what his society is lacking. -Nora thinks that what the WW needs is a good sociological study From catlady at wicca.net Tue Sep 7 03:40:50 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:40:50 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112217 Becki wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112205 : > (who is also wondering what IIRC means?) IIRC = If I Recall Correctly or If I Remember Correctly Btw I agree with Salit that: << The damage to [Bertha] was caused by the spell [LV] used to break the memory charm that Crouch Sr. placed on her: >> I don't think he needed to torture her to get her to tell what she again remembered -- surely Imperius would be more effective than torture for extracting information -- but he may well have tortured her with Cruciatis afterwards simply for his own amusement. Btw some time ago a listie pointed out something I hadn't noticed: where did LV's horrible-ugly-baby body come from? Well, he had a female captive and a male servant right there with him ... From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 03:58:13 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:58:13 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > I don't know if I should, as a lapsed catholic and probable present > time agnostic/atheist, be starting (or more likely continuing) a > thread on Christianity. Even if it's original (which I really doubt) > I'm somewhat loath to (re-)start a posting topic that could generate > controversy or else run and run for all the wrong reasons. Even so: > > How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also > http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews > don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when > historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = opponent > of God the father of JC). > > Of course in HP hallow'een also looms large (how could it not for > witches? - something significant always happens on Hallow'een (Harry > and Nevilles's conception as I've noted before, '*that* night' at > Godric's Hollow, NHN's bungled beheading, the troll in PS/SS, the > basilisk's first strike in CoS, Sirius' 1st attack at Hogwart's in > PoA, Harry's choosing by the GoF, though nothing obvious in OotP). > Although halloween has older roots as a solstice than as all > hallow's eve, the latter name definitely derives from the idea of > saints and a Jesus-based religiosity. Is JKR trying to signify that > Hogwarts works on 'good WASP traditions' like any English public > school (where pupils, Christian or otherwise, have to sing hymns and > celebrate Christian festivals like Easter, Xmas, Michaelmas etc, or > that wizards aren't as dark as all that because they 'do' Xmas, or > what? > > There is a recent thread on JKR's beliefs (based on a mysterious > Canadian interview?) suggesting she is a Christian and that she said > if she stated what she actually believes then we would all know too > much about the ending. This is weighed against the attacks by deeply > Christian folk (whatever you want to name them) suggesting HP is too > wickedly heathen/dark and wizardry/magic generally is > unchristian/unholy. > > Harry doesn't go to church that we see, nor Hermione nor anyone else > in HP yet it just seems to be assumed that Christianity is a theme > present but largely unspoken of/ignored - sad to say (for those who > are wholeheartedly Christian) rather like the prevailing view of the > majority of folk in the real world in the UK or much of the US at > least. Many profess to be Christian but do little that is in any way > religious in a Christian sense, like pray, attend mass, live their > lives with Christian values, or otherwise express what are supposed > to be firmly held and all pervasive beliefs (faith). > > Any comments? (and PLEASE keep these in relation to the books/JKR's > WW and not about Christianity per se such as your own personal > views, strongly held or otherwise e.g. Jesus being the sole > salvation of humanity or entirely otherwise) > > I note in passing that from the J.K.Rowling.com Edinburgh 2004 > interview transcript: > > Q: Does Harry have a godmother? If so, will she make an appearance > in future books? > > A (by JKR): No, he doesn't. I have thought this through. If Sirius > had married Sirius was too busy being a big rebel to get married. > When Harry was born, it was at the very height of Voldemort fever > last time so his christening was a very hurried, quiet affair with > just Sirius, just the best friend. At that point it looked as if the > Potters would have to go into hiding so obviously they could not do > the big christening thing and invite lots of people. Sirius is the > only one, unfortunately. I have got to be careful what I say there, > haven't I? > > Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't > supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do > with the veil). Snow: I believe that JKR's Christian parallels in HP are the simplicity of choice. It is always up to you to make the choice as to who you become under any given circumstance. There are no excuses as to why a person becomes bad or good except by choice. We have heard numerous personal accounts from people on this list that have overcome adversity to make the right choices in their lives. Although Harry has several people in his life that help him, when it comes down to facing the evil of Voldemort it is always left up to him, literally. This evil, as I see it, has actually attached itself to Harry mentally the night at GH. Harry has to not only fight the outward evil but the inward pain this evil causes. Such is the same with Christianity, you may have many a person in support but they cant save you only you can do that. Whatever Harry has to face whatever choices he has to make he must do it alone. This is the bible in its most condensed version; choices. As to why the HP books celebrate specific religious holidays but don't attend a full-blown, church going Christian behavior, my view is the same as in the real world, which is that people are celebrating the holiday as nothing more than the politically correct, Santa's coming, buying frenzy holiday and not for the actual religious reasons the holidays were meant to represent. Snow-loving your earlier find on the possible conception of both Harry and Neville on Halloween. I'm curious if JKR even noticed the implication. From catlady at wicca.net Tue Sep 7 04:08:17 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:08:17 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112219 macfotuk wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112151 : << Where are the 'games'/PE/sports? - PE is compulsory as far as know in muggle education worldwide. Hogwarts classes do one broom lesson (it would seem) and then never again - what DOES madame Hooch teach? Can Hermione fly a broom (as a complete one-time muggle before Hogwart's)? >> We saw Harry go to his first broomstick flying lesson and be plucked from it straight to the Varsity team. At my high school thirty years ago, a person being on a Varsity or JV team counted as their PE requirement: team practises and so on took more time and so on than the regular PE classes. So Harry isn't giving us much information about PE for kids not on the team. We didn't follow Harry's classmates' broomstick flying lessons ... I fantasize that students kept attending the class until they could pass the flying test, so perhaps there might be no one left in the class by Christmas break. If so, Hermione eventually learned to fly a broom, because there was no room for broom lessons in her third-year schedule, and I imagine even Neville eventually learned enough to pass the test. Well, I passed Driver Training but not the driver's license test... I think they should have JV teams and/or reserve players, but we haven't seen any reserve players on the Gryffindor team in Harry's time, and Ron's secret practising to try out for the Keeper vacancy suggests that there hadn't been any JV team for him to try out for. >From what we see of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, the captain coaches it, and there is no sign of Madam Hooch at practises. It seems to me that she should be the coach of all four House teams, or at least observe them and advise the captain/coach. She may be teaching a regular PE class in Quidditch for kids who didn't make the team. I'm sure the wizarding folk have other sports than Quidditch and broom racing, but the only one I've invented is not suitable for children: it's a form of hippogryff polo, named something like gryff-grab. Wandless, unarmoured (but covered in thick clothing!) players ride unarmored, unharnessed hippogryffs -- nothing but their feathers to hang onto. The players gather at a starting line ... the referree flies up in the center of the pitch and drops the 'prize' ... contestants try to catch the 'prize', take it away from each other, and the object of the game is fly around the pole at the 'finish line' with it. While players grab onto the 'prize' and have something like a tug-of-war and maybe tear the 'prize' in half, their mounts use beaks and claws to discourage the other mount's player, so loss of limbs is not uncommon. Oh, and I haven't mentioned yet that the 'prize' nowdays is a sheep or such, but back in the Good Old Days, it was a captured Muggle. From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 04:56:30 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:56:30 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112220 Susana wrote: >>I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits: Slytherin have a `thirst to prove themselves' and they believe in the supremacy of pure blood. IMO, those are the two required characteristics.<< HunterGreen: You might be missing a few things there. From what we've been told about Slytherins, they are ambitious, use any means to achieve their ends, given the choice will always save their own neck and come from a 'pure ancestory' (I take that to mean pureblood, or half-blood at the least). Slytherin does not *require* believing in pureblood supremacy, its just that many of the students in that house happen to. Of those requirements, I think Hermione fits two of them (she is ambitious and she uses any means to achieve her ends). Actually, I think Hermione fits in Slytherin almost as well as she does in Gryffindor...however she would never be placed there as she is a muggleborn. Speaking of using 'any means' to acheive her ends, am I the only one who's getting a little frightened of Hermione? Back when I was first reading the books she was my favorite character, but around the time she kidnapped Rita Skeeter in GoF she's worried me a little bit. Hermione is ruthless, strong-willed, and often dangerous. There's one other thing that we've been told about Slytherins, that being that they have a disregard for the rules, and on the surface that wouldn't fit Hermione at all. On the surface that is. Hermione obeys the rules when they work for her. However as early as PS/SS, she is already lying (the troll incident, which she *easily* comes up with a lie after a rather upsetting event and tells it believably to three adults), attacking a teacher, and sneaking out of the dorms at night. In CoS she convinces Harry and Ron to help her brew the polyjuice potion, which involved tricking a teacher (Lockhart) into signing a note to get a book from the forbidden section, stealing potion ingredients, brewing an owl-level potion when she was only 12 years old/convincing two other students to drink it with her when all three of them could have been poisoned, drugging two other students (Crabbe and Goyle) and sneaking into the Slytherin common room. Remember pretty much all of this plan came directly from her. In PoA, there's the whole time-turner incident, of course. And she went along with Harry to go through the whomping willow passageway instead of getting a teacher, but that was more Harry's decision than hers. In GoF of course there's the Rita Skeeter incident. Its not really the blackmail that bothers me, but the fact that she grabbed Rita and was keeping her in a jar for awhile. What if she had made a mistake taking care of her (she is in a jar after all), and Rita had died? In OotP, she spends a lot of the book trying to trick the house-elves into being freed against their will. There's the subject at hand, the continuation of the Rita blackmail, and of course the hex on the DA parchment (which she didn't warn anyone about). But the thing that concerns me most in OotP, is her leading Umbridge, herself and Harry into the woods. Of course *something* needed to be done at that point, but had her plan suceeded (without grawp's interference), what do you think the outcome would have been? Its rather amazing that Umbridge managed to live, isn't it? From Hermione's knowledge, when the three of them stepped into the forest, if the centuars found them, they would most likely kill Umbridge. Extreme situation, I know, but it begs the question: is doing good things evily good or evil? (the old question of 'do the ends justify the means?). In any case, if Hermione's ideals weren't so firmly planted in the side of good and light, I would worry that she would be an easy person to be enticed into the DE's. She certainly has no problem with using extreme measures. Susana: >>On the other hand, are Crab and Goyle good at scheming? As Angelina said they don't look smart enough to find the Quiddish pitch without post signs. Nevertheless, they are ambitious. And they are smart enough to hang out with someone who has the smarts to achieve power (who already got them on the Quiddish team?).<< HunterGreen: I wouldn't say they are ambitious. I think with them, their house was more a process of elimination. They aren't 'courageous' (as they always tag-team an opponete who is usually smaller than them), they aren't 'hard working' or believe in fair-play, and they certainly aren't clever. But they are purebloods (I assume), and given the choice I'm sure the two of them would save themselves if it came down to it. As for having Draco as a friend, Lucius is most likely friends with Crabbe Sr. and Goyle Sr., so they might have known Draco before coming to Hogwarts. Based on Draco's size, I'd say *he* picked them, not the other way around. He needs them more than they need him. They are more suited for the quidditch team (based on their size) than Draco is (since Draco is a lousey seeker). Diana wrote: >>People are very complex. If you think about it, Hermione has traits of every single house. She is very loyal to HP and RW, which is a Hufflepuff trait. She is courageous (Gryffindor), cunning (Slytherin) and very smart (Ravenclaw). She could have been chosen for any house. She showed more Gryffindor traits than any other so she was put in that house.<< HunterGreen: I agree that Hermione is a complex person, but I don't think she has enough Hufflepuff traits to have been picked for that house. The only one that she shows consitently is hard work. Hufflepuffs are 'just and loyal', hard working, and believe in fair play. Hermione is loyal most of the time, but when she has it in her to be disloyal. In PoA when Harry gets the firebolt she runs off and tells McGonnagal about it, without even warning Harry first. Don't get me wrong, I think that was the best decision (after all the firebolt was indeed from Sirius, even though it wasn't jinxed), but that would still be considered 'disloyalty', in the strict meaning of the word. Also, in OotP, she threatens to tell Molly on George and Fred, which is anything but loyal, but I suppose she isn't really expected to be loyal to the older brothers of one of her friends. Considering the way she runs S.P.E.W., she certainly doesn't believe in fair play either. Personally I think Hermione might have fit in Slytherin if she weren't a muggleborn (as would Percy if he didn't come from a "muggle- loving" family). But it was definitely for the best that she didn't end up there. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 07:18:58 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:18:58 -0000 Subject: Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112221 Hurricane Francis: > There was some discussion not too long ago about how Neville is hindered by= > using his > father's wand. And I began wondering again about other ways that Neville i= > s > disadvantaged. What if Neville's problems in potions is exacerbated, or ev= > en caused, by > the type of cauldron that he uses? No other student melts his /her cauldro= > n, and they do > concoct some horrid, stinky, smoky, off-colored potions, but no one else se= > ems to melt > the things. Not like Neville, anyway. I really wonder if Neville uses the= > type of cheap > cauldrons that is the subject of Percy's long government report and the kin= > d that Mung > illegally trades. There is a bit of a is a hint with his name "Longbottom."= > In reality, Neville > ought to be using well-built, thick cauldrons, but instead cheap. Finwitch: The Cauldron *melts*. It doesn't, exactly, explode. The school list says pewter. They ALL have cauldrons of pewter. (and, for a metal-mix, pewter *does* have a relatively low melting point. Maybe this is to keep the *potion* from getting too hot, no matter what?) Sure, the thickness of the bottom would say just how fast the bottom melts, but even with the thickest bottom, I'd except it to produce drops of pewter before melting trough... No mention of any other melting cauldron! Finwitch From sad1199 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 07:40:00 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:40:00 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: >> How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also > http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews > don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when > historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = opponent > of God the father of JC). > > Of course in HP hallow'een also looms large > > There is a recent thread on JKR's beliefs (based on a mysterious > Canadian interview?) suggesting she is a Christian and that she said > if she stated what she actually believes then we would all know too > much about the ending. This is weighed against the attacks by deeply > Christian folk (whatever you want to name them) suggesting HP is too > wickedly heathen/dark and wizardry/magic generally is > unchristian/unholy. > > Harry doesn't go to church that we see, nor Hermione nor anyone else > in HP yet it just seems to be assumed that Christianity is a theme > present but largely unspoken of/ignored - sad to say (for those who > are wholeheartedly Christian) rather like the prevailing view of the > majority of folk in the real world in the UK or much of the US at > least. Many profess to be Christian but do little that is in any way > religious in a Christian sense, like pray, attend mass, live their > lives with Christian values, or otherwise express what are supposed > to be firmly held and all pervasive beliefs (faith). > > Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't > supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do > with the veil). sad1199 here: They have Easter, too. I think that wizards like most of us celebrate the usual holidays because they are there and they can. Nowadays there are more mixed religion marriages and for some reason it seems that the "Christian" holidays are adopted because it is easier... Maybe the wizards from the past liked the muggle celebrations and just started observing them. And, why wouldn't you want to see JC or maybe, the wizard version of him behind 'that' door? I am of the opinion that behind 'that' door is sacrifice, compassion and unconditional love; all attributes of JC. Dumbledore seems to have these qualities, also...hmmm. ...happy, caring, loving... sad1199 From ABadgerFan2 at msn.com Mon Sep 6 23:52:25 2004 From: ABadgerFan2 at msn.com (abadgerfan2) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:52:25 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112223 Salit wrote: > Two other things that showed up in book 2 but not since: the Chamber > of Secrets itself - I find it hard to believe that the only secret > there was the hidden basilisk and entrance - and Harry's parceltongue I also suspect that there is more than just the basilisk secret involved in the Chamber -- hence, the use of the word in the plural in JKR's title (Chamber of Secrets); that would be unnecessary if the basilisk was the only secret hidden inside its walls. I throw out a theory for scrutiny. Late in Book 2, Dumbledore makes clear that Riddle "is" (emphasis in the book itself, Scholastic, bottom of p. 332) the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin ... could Harry turn out to be the last remaining ancestor of Godric Gryffindor, with his lineage to Gryffindor (the half-blood prince) disclosed in Book 6 as an added reason for the till-the-death rivalry between Voldemort and Potter? Perhaps the Chamber contains a record of a curse between Gryffindor and Slytherin connected with their parting of the ways, with the curse to be resolved by the eventual extinction of one of their lines of ancestry at the hands of the other! Jim From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 7 08:58:27 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 04:58:27 -0400 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? Message-ID: <000e01c494b8$d7c56df0$7bc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112224 Susana "I'm sure DD is very good at scheming - I agree that Hermione is - but I don't feel either has a thirst to prove him/her self " DuffyPoo: Hermione has no thirst to prove herself? I think I must disagree. PS: "I've learnt all our set books off by heart, of course, I just hope it will be enough." "What am I revising for? Are you mad? You realize we need to pass these exams to get into the second year? They're very important, I should have started studying a month ago [instead of 10 weeks before exams], I don't know what's got into me..." PoA "Hermione did everything perfectly until she reched the trunk with the Boggart in it. After about a minute inside it, she burst out again, screaming. 'Hermione!' said Lupin, startled. 'What's the matter?' 'P-P-Professor McGonagall!' Hermione gasped, pointing into the trunk. 'Sh-she said I'd failed everything!'" - this after taking at least three extra subjects during the year. I could go on, including a time when Hermione berated HP for losing the house points she'd gained from McGonagall, but I can't find the quote. Sherrie "A thirst to prove herself, a cunning mind, and - while I can't say she's got a disregard for the rules, she certainly applies them...ah...selectively, and sometimes with a rather creative interpretation..." DuffyPoo: I agree. In CoS "You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin pized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue....resourcefulness...determination...a certain disregard for the rules." This DD said to HP but there are a couple in there, as Sherrie said, that perhaps apply to Miss Granger as well: resourcefulness and determination....not to mention a certain disregard for the rules "Hermione had become a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved her from the mountain troll and she was much nicer for it." Sherrie: "or her 112% on her Charms test" DuffyPoo: Not to mention the 320% on her Muggle Studies exam! ;-) Susana: " that Hermione has fear of failure and that's why she tries so hard to be perfect." DuffyPoo: A 'fear of failure' and hence a thirst to prove herself. She's been thrust into a world she knows nothing of, fears failure, and so "Hermione Granger was on the edge of her seat and looked desperate to start proving that she wasn't a dunderhead." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 09:45:54 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:45:54 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: Carolyn wrote: > > Only two wands that we know of have phoenix cores, Voldemort's and Harry's (...) I think it was inevitable that Harry's wand would choose him, because,as you say, Harry has a power to equal Voldemort. DD already guessed this would be the case from the prophecy, and from his knowledge of Voldemort's powers; he didn't have to force or risk anything. And Jen replied: > The only thing that bothers me here is a point Hannah brought up in post 112124. She said: > > "And he {Ollivander} makes Harry try lots of others first, which seems a risky course of action. A wizard must suit more than one wand, otherwise how do people ever manage when they break one. What if another good wand had turned up? Why not just say; 'let's try this one,' present the Fawkes-wand and save a lot of trouble. Harry wouldn't have known any different!" > Catlady further pointed out in 112143: The wands Harry tried in Ollivander's shop included: ""Maple and phoenix feather. Seven inches. Quite whippy." Comparing Harry's with Tom's situation, Ffred said in post 112179: Putting yourself into the shoes of the young Tom Riddle (for whom all this was extremely new), then I think it would have been equally remarkable (and therefore equally _un_remarkable) no matter what his wand had been made of. Now Corinth says: Jumping into the middle of this conversation (as always). But are we assuming Ollivander was in on this? Perhaps Dumbledore commissioned the wand without specifying who he planned it for. You ask why Ollivander would wait so long to present that wand. I agree, why did he wait so long? (snip canon quotes) Perhaps trying to figure out exactly what Dumbledore might be planning by giving Harry the brother wand to Voldemort's. And it would certainly explain why he immediately contacted Dumbledore once the wand sold. Carolyn again: Perceptive comment Corinth , I think you are entirely right. It would be exactly like Dumbledore not to fully explain his plan to Ollivander. Remember, it is Ollivander who says 'After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great'. Many have speculated as to exactly which side Ollivander is on. Like many in the WW, he clearly admires magical power for its own sake. I think that, in effect, he is an arms dealer who takes no moral position as to whom he sells his weapons to, but instead maintains a keen professional interest in the technical capabilities of his creations. More greyness, more grit, more uncertainty ... He is also no fool and Dumbledore is a pretty important client. He would have been aware of the special powers inherent in Fawkes' feathers which Dumbledore had given him to create the wands, the significance of the wood he had been asked to use, and the special powers that the people who selected those wands must have. He also cannot be unaware that the two wands will not not work against each other. I think he offered Harry more and more wands (including others with different phoenix cores) because he was trying to test his own disbelief that this 'coincidence', 'act of fate','choice' etc could really be happening [and yet another reason to criticise that movie sequence..but I digress]. Incidentally, someone mentioned upthread (sorry, can't find exactly who) something along the lines of only people with a pure heart could choose a wand with a phoenix core, especially from Fawkes. Not only does this pose problems with Tom Riddle, but it also isn't exactly what FBWTFT says. It just says that phoenix *song* is magical and reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and strike fear into the hearts of the impure. Going back to where this thread started - DD's agenda. I think all this only reinforces my point that DD had a wand created from Fawkes' feather that initially was intended to help him select the next most powerful wizard/witch. Tom Riddle selected that wand, and DD gave him special attention when he arrived at Hogwarts, treated him as a potential protege. But it all went horribly wrong for some reason. Later, having heard the prophecy, DD had another wand created to double-check that Harry was the one who could help him defeat Voldemort, and also, at the same time, built in another safeguard (the wands couldn't work against each other), which might help the owner of that wand at some point in a future duel situation. However, in a sense, the whole point is now irrelevant, as having discovered their wands are no use, Harry and Voldemort are going to have to use their innate powers to slug it out some other way. Carolyn From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Sep 6 23:55:06 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:55:06 -0000 Subject: (Aside): Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112226 Out of interest, was anyone else surprised about Hermione liking Arithmancy? It is, actually, (despite not being in my Chambers English Dictionary) a real word. I have in front of me The Wordsworth Book of Intriguing Words, and in the chapter '-omancy fancy' (the literary forms of fortune-telling) it is listed under miscellaneous. After the way she disparaged Trelawney's classes are we to be led to believe that divination by numbers is more _accurate_ than other forms? - and is that why it appeals to Miss Granger? Why is Arithmancy not part of the divination syllabus? Why does it merit an entire subject on its own? I think we should be told! Dungrollin. (Just for fun, some of the more unusual ones are: Name Divination by... Rhapsodomancy Picking a passage of poetry at random Podomancy Signs derived from inspection of the feet Xenomancy Studying the first stranger that appears Omphalomancy The navel Dririmancy Dripping blood Cromnyomancy Onions (?!) Coscinomancy The turning of a sieve held on a pair of shears (whatever that's supposed to mean...) Ailuromancy The way a cat jumps Aichomancy Sharply pointed objects And my personal favourite (which _is_ in my Chambers English Dictionary): Tyromancy Watching cheese coagulate) From joseph at kirtland.com Tue Sep 7 00:43:06 2004 From: joseph at kirtland.com (Joe Bento) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:43:06 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112227 Perhaps I've been reading too much fan fiction in anticipation of HBP, but I've now began rereading the first five books (now for the third time) trying to pick up some additional clues. Several recent fan fiction stories by different authors have concentrated on Draco's abusive homelife, and I'm most curious if this stems from clues in the books. Though Draco is mostly portrayed as a bullying git in the books, I wonder if there's more to him than has been presented so far - or if there are clues in the books I've overlooked. Draco obviously has the highest respect for his father. Is this perhaps partially out of fear? Lucius has made it very well know to Draco whom he should choose for his friends, and his prejudices toward mudbloods, etc. Draco received a rather stern warning from his father while in Borgin and Burkes. What of Narcissa? What is her homelife like and her opinion of their son? Neither Lucius nor Narcissa seemed to think their son in any potential danger while they went off juggling muggles during the world cup - all while the dark mark was conjured. JKR's characters are obviously far more complex than what one would typically encounter in a "children's" book - complex enough that even we adults miss many subtle clues after multiple readings. "Joe Bento" From joseph at kirtland.com Tue Sep 7 00:56:57 2004 From: joseph at kirtland.com (Joe Bento) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:56:57 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > There is a recent thread on JKR's beliefs (based on a mysterious > Canadian interview?) suggesting she is a Christian and that she > said if she stated what she actually believes then we would all > know too much about the ending. This is weighed against the > attacks by deeply Christian folk (whatever you want to name them) > suggesting HP is too wickedly heathen/dark and wizardry/magic > generally is unchristian/unholy. You need to pick up a copy of the book, "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter." The author, John Granger, writes a rather lengthy book where the entire text claims that the HP books are definitely Christian in theme, and is quite convincing in his proof that Harry is as Christ himself. Granger also disputes in great detail the various other authors that have written that Potter is the work of the devil, teaches Wicca beliefs, etc. It's a good read, even if one does not subscribe entirely to the author's conclusions. "Joe Bento" From khinterberg at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 03:12:24 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:12:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112229 Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages doesn't seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here before about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? Thanks from the bottom of my HP-loving heart khinterberg From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Sep 7 07:59:45 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:59:45 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112230 [Snip discussion Snape/Sirius/DA] > Alla: > > > In addition, if the boy in Snape's memory is indeed Snape, he was > shooting flies with Avada. Sounds to me as early enough interest in > DA. > How do you know that it's AK? "A greasy-haired teenager sat alone ina dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies[...]" Could be the Petrificus Totalus, or something else yet. Even if we ignore the MOM interdiction, AK seems require a bit of power (if a class would have difficulty, one teen too), and a bit too much for just killing flies. If a wizard could shoot many AK one after an other, there should be have more dead in OOTP than Sirius. Christelle From katiefaye at comcast.net Tue Sep 7 09:58:50 2004 From: katiefaye at comcast.net (Kat) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:58:50 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112231 > Salit wrote: > Two other things that showed up in book 2 but not since: the > Chamber of Secrets itself - I find it hard to believe that the > only secret there was the hidden basilisk and entrance - and > Harry's parceltongue First of all, I agree with you about the Chamber of Secrets. There has to be more to it than just a diary and a snake. I don't believe Harry is the last descendant of Gryffindor, if he had been the Sorting Hat wouldn't have considered putting him in Slytherin. As for the half blood prince, here's my working theory. It's Salazar Slytherin. Why? Early in COS Prof. Binns explains that Godric and Salazar had a fight about whether or not to accept half- bloods and Muggles borns, and that's why Salazar left Hogwarts. Jim wrote: -snip- > Perhaps the Chamber contains a record of a curse between > Gryffindor and Slytherin connected with their parting of > the ways And as you pointed out, Dumbledore said Riddle was the last of Slytherin's bloodline. But he also goes on to say that Voldemort transferred a bit of himself into Harry. I believe Salazar was either muggle born, or half-blood, which is why (Like many-a Slytherin) he wanted only purebloods in the school. This would establish the connection between Harry and the HBP. JKR also points out on her site that the HBP has something to do with a discovery Harry made about himself in COS. What two things did he discover? Godric and Salazar fought, and Voldemort transferred a bit of his power to Harry. Make sense? Or is that a stretch? Kate From katiefaye at comcast.net Tue Sep 7 10:06:33 2004 From: katiefaye at comcast.net (Kat) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:06:33 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112232 "Joe Bento" wrote: > Draco obviously has the highest respect for his father. Is this > perhaps partially out of fear? Lucius has made it very well know > to Draco whom he should choose for his friends, and his prejudices > toward mudbloods, etc. Draco received a rather stern warning from > his father while in Borgin and Burkes. Neither Lucius nor Narcissa > seemed to think their son in any potential danger while they went > off juggling muggles during the world cup - all while the dark > mark was conjured. Hmm. Lucius beat and kicked Dobby, got in a brawl with Arthur, humiliated Draco for never beating Harry in Quidditch, sneers at, threatens and goes out of his way to impede Dumbledore, and is a known death eater. Yup. I think it would be safe to say he's abusive. Although I don't think Draco quite gets that. I do believe there's more to Draco than we know yet and any kind of fear or control Lucius has over his son is only phychological. I did hear a rumor that Draco and Harry will eventually work together, though JKR will neither confirm nor deny that. (I hate it when she does that!!!) Kate From klevasseur at earthlink.net Mon Sep 6 23:25:08 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:25:08 -0000 Subject: Cruelty vs. "cruel", Harry (Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112233 > Tonks wrote: > Harry is not a cruel person. Yes, he may have had thoughts and > feelings about hurting someone when he is angry, but that is > not the same as being cruel. Remember it is our actions.. > our choices .. even when he chooses to respond to his feelings > of rage, the strongest feelings he has had in his life, he can't > even do a proper Cruciatus on Bella. Karen L. here: Don't let us forget that Harry is a teenager, and as one, is very selfish and self centered--as I am sure we are were during that time in out lives. All those hormones running through the body makes one a little crazier than they normally would be. Although with everything he has been through, he may be "grumpier" than everyone else, and that may put a bigger "cruel streak" in him. But I feel he is not a cruel person. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 11:06:35 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:06:35 -0000 Subject: Cruelty vs. "cruel", Harry (Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "N. Tonks" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > Well, ok - I take the "everybody" back, but as regards Harry, > > we are specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him. He > > imagines torturing Snape with Cruciatus, and he actually does > > it to Bella. There is also a description in OoP where Harry > > says something to Hermione or Ron, or yells at them, and feels > > satisfaction at hurting them. Sorry not to be able to pinpoint > > that further. > > > > You know what? In light of this, I think that I would say that > > for JKR at least everybody does have cruelness in them (this, > > based on my understanding of Harry as Everyboy). > > ---------- > Tonks here: > > I still disagree. Harry is not a cruel person. Yes he may have had > thoughts and feelings about hurting someone when he is angry, but > that is not the same as being cruel. Remember it is our actions.. > our choices .. even when he choices to respond to his feelings of > rage, the strongest feelings he has had in his life, he can't even > do a proper Cruciatus on Bella. Because he does not have it in him > to really hurt another person, even the evil Bella. But Bella can >do a Cruciatus because she IS cruel and sadistic. She ENJOYS hurting > others. I completely agree that Harry is not a cruel person. See above from my original post: "as regards Harry, we are specifically shown that he does have cruelty in him." Which is very different from saying that he is cruel. Labels of this kind I think are always relative to some mean or average/normal behavior. So, Harry is exceptionally kind, because he is kinder than the average person. But that doesn't mean that he is one-dimensional - he has other impulses other than wanting to help people, including impulses of ambition, fear, anger, suspicion, revenge and hatred/cruelty. > > Humans are basically kind/good, they are not basically cruel/evil. > So it follows that EVERYBODY does not have cruelness in them. > My view of human nature is that it is more complex than that. I think that we have impulses to be kind, but also impulses to be cruel - basically switching from one mode to another according to the person (s) confronting us (friends/foes). However, as this isn't really relevant to HP, maybe we should take this specific discussion to OTC? Naama From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Tue Sep 7 11:12:48 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:12:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: > Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages doesn't > seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here before > about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if > someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? Thanks > from the bottom of my HP-loving heart > > khinterberg Sorry to contradict, but Lupin does touch Harry, for instance to prevent him jumping through the veil in OoP. He also shakes his hand when he meets him in Privet Drive. I am quite sure other cases could be found. For the sake of completeness, I must add that some (eg Pippin) have theorized that Lupin never touches Harry because he is a DE and is afraid of following the path of Quirell. That idea essentially stems (as far as I know) from a line in PoA where Lupin is reluctant to touch Harry. However, even in PoA, Lupin does "tapp hard on Harry's face" to wake him up. So that idea does not seem to fruitful Olivier From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 7 11:30:57 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 07:30:57 -0400 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! Message-ID: <000e01c494ce$25535a90$b9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112236 Kate "I don't believe Harry is the last descendant of Gryffindor, if he had been the Sorting Hat wouldn't have considered putting him in Slytherin." DuffyPoo: I've read this twice now, either both this morning, or once yesterday and again today. I don't think both postings were by Kate, though. However, I'm not convinced the Sorting Hat ever *considered* putting HP in Slytherin. "'Hmm, ' said a small voice in his ear. "Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind, either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting ... So where shall I put you?' Harry gripped the edges of the stool and thought, 'Not Slytherin, not Slytherin.' 'Not Slytherin, eh?' said the small voice. 'Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no? Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" The Sorting Hat was listing HP's ablities: courage (Gryffindor), a good mind (Ravenclaw), talent (Hufflepuff?), a thirst to prove oneself (Slytherin), then questioned into which house he should be placed. HP's thought "not Slytherin" caused the Sorting Hat to elaborate on Slytherin, but was only toying with HP on the matter because HP was so adamant about not going into Slytherin. JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Sep 7 12:04:32 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:04:32 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112237 Becki wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112205 : (who is also wondering what IIRC means?) catlady; IIRC = If I Recall Correctly or If I Remember Correctly Btw I agree with Salit that: The damage to [Bertha] was caused by the spell [LV] used to break the memory charm that Crouch Sr. placed on her: >> I don't think he needed to torture her to get her to tell what she again remembered -- surely Imperius would be more effective than torture for extracting information -- but he may well have tortured her with Cruciatis afterwards simply for his own amusement. Btw some time ago a listie pointed out something I hadn't noticed: where did LV's horrible-ugly-baby body come from? Well, he had a female captive and a male servant right there with him ... Becki Responds' Thanks for the info Catlady! That had been bothering me for a long time and I could not find it in a search ;} Now just where did that did LV's horrible-ugly-baby body come from? I guess I never thought of it as a real body, just something that developed from all the concoctions that gave him his strength. Lets see what Harry says on the matter; "It was as though Wormtail had flipped over a stone and revealed something ugly, slimy, and blind-but worse, a hundred times worse. The thing Wormtail had been carrying had the shape of a crouched human child, except that Harry had never seen anything less like a child. It was hairless and scaly-looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. It's arms and legs were thin and feeble, and its face- no child alive ever had a face like that- flat and snakelike, with gleaming red eyes". GoF, p640, AM ed. Pretty scary. The description of his face is similar to his present face with it being snake-like and red eyes. And that would be explainable due to the fact that he got some of the ingredients for his "elixir" from Nagani. Oh. (Becki hits herself upside the head). I get what your saying now. EEWWWWE! Thats all I have to say on *that* matter. Becki From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 7 12:10:04 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:10:04 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <89.1448dfe1.2e6e2c89@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > Justine: > We must remember that Snape's existence includes [snip] a pureblood superiority mindset, and, most importantly, an obsession with the Dark Arts.... > > Magda: > Well, we don't know that really. > Sirius Black said twice (OOTP and GOF) that Snape was into the DarkArts but no one else has.... > > Chancie: snip From this state ment it appears to me that Snapes infactuation with the Dark Arts is a fairly well known fact. Potioncat: Good memory, I remembered it differently, that he was interested in DADA, but here it is. Percy in SS/PS chpt 7, "He teaches Potions, but he doesn't want to--everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the dark arts, Snape." After all these years that suddenly struck me as odd. How do the students know this? Does Snape mutter it to his Slytherins? Have parents whispered it within earshot of kids? Has a teacher let it slip? Has it come up in NEWT classes when students study Dark Arts to learn how to fight them? (I'm referring to the restricted section of the library.) Is it true? For someone who is reported to dislike teaching Potions, he seems to enjoy potion making and is very good at it. It's very likely that Snape was well versed in Dark Arts. And it seems that's one of the reasons the Marauders didn't like him. I'm not sure that tells us that he's ever used them at school as a student or teacher. Or that he has an obsession with dark arts. Something about the way we've been told about his desire for DADA, and something about the way we were told about his Dark Arts reputation as a kid make me think we're being set up. Potioncat From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 12:21:59 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:21:59 -0000 Subject: Fabian & Gideon's namesakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112239 > > Carol: She means everyone so far (not counting > Ginny, who'll have her chance next year) who ever had any chance of > becoming a prefect. Not very tactful, as George's "What are Fred and > I? Next-door neighbors?" reminds her, but understandable regardless. > She's proud of Ron for following (unexpectedly) in his older brothers' > footsteps, she can't help thinking about Percy (for whom I think she > still holds out hope), and the two prodigals momentarily slip from her > mind. > > She's human, and the simplest explanation is probably the correct one > here. Finwitch: And I think Fred&George understand that, too - George is just kidding - of course. Making a joke out of *everything* possible. I wonder if they could device a way to make people laugh at Voldemort - thus getting rid of the fear for the name? (Remember, it's laughter that destroys the boggarts!) Finwitch From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 12:37:07 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 05:37:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907123707.33666.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112240 macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: I don't know if I should, as a lapsed catholic and probable present time agnostic/atheist, be starting (or more likely continuing) a thread on Christianity. Even if it's original (which I really doubt) I'm somewhat loath to (re-)start a posting topic that could generate controversy or else run and run for all the wrong reasons. Even so: How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = opponent of God the father of JC). Of course in HP hallow'een also looms large (how could it not for witches? Although halloween has older roots as a solstice than as all hallow's eve, the latter name definitely derives from the idea of saints and a Jesus-based religiosity. Is JKR trying to signify that Hogwarts works on 'good WASP traditions' like any English public school (where pupils, Christian or otherwise, have to sing hymns and celebrate Christian festivals like Easter, Xmas, Michaelmas etc, or that wizards aren't as dark as all that because they 'do' Xmas, or what? Any comments? (and PLEASE keep these in relation to the books/JKR's WW and not about Christianity per se such as your own personal views, strongly held or otherwise e.g. Jesus being the sole salvation of humanity or entirely otherwise) Looking at this from the perspective of a witch (wiccan) - many of the christian holidays are based around holidays and celebrations that were already in existance at the time christianity was being spread. They were just changed to suit the christians. Example - why is christmas celebrated (the birth of a baby in the desert in the summer being celebrated in the winter with holly and mistletoe)? It is a holiday that falls when an old pagan holiday fell - Yule. But as many children who read the books do not know of Yule, I am sure JKR used Christmas as a base of recognition. Halloween is also one of these holidays. In the pagan belief, this is a day to remember the dead and to honor the "crone" aspect - perverted to be the old witch with green skin and warts on her nose (which I look like when I get really mad!!! ;)) - where you should be honoring the elders of the family and community. I hope this answers the question without provoking too much debate. 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 Tue Sep 7 12:47:24 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 05:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907124724.35967.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112241 sad1199 here: They have Easter, too. I think that wizards like most of us celebrate the usual holidays because they are there and they can. Nowadays there are more mixed religion marriages and for some reason it seems that the "Christian" holidays are adopted because it is easier... Maybe the wizards from the past liked the muggle celebrations and just started observing them. IMHO this is another case of the christians taking a holiday/celebration and adapting it to their beliefs. This is spring solstice - Ostara (anyone notice the close pronunciation to Easter - also ask Neville about celebrating torture and murder with eggs and bunnies). I personally feel that not everything in life should be convoluted around to the christian ideal. Not everything nor everyone is christian based. Yes JKR has a christian base herself. Other religions - including paganism - have belief systems that include good and evil. Most are much more strict that christianity (mine would make a catholic priest in Boston shudder). I am sorry but this is simply a work of fiction based on witches and magic and spells, not a recounting of the bible. moonmyyst --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 13:11:47 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fabian & Gideon's namesakes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907131147.64475.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112242 >> Carol: >> Not very tactful, as George's "What are Fred and >> I? Next-door neighbors?" reminds her, but understandable >> regardless. > Finwitch: > > And I think Fred&George understand that, too - George is just > kidding > - of course. Making a joke out of *everything* possible. Actually, I don't think George (or Fred) did see it as a joke. That was really a take-your-breath-away insensitive comment of Molly's ("That's everyone in the family!"). George's response is a pretty restrained comment, IMO. At this early point in OOTP, Molly is still grappling with Percy's defection from the family. Her perfect son, the one she holds up for the younger ones to emulate, has turned on the family but in August she's still hanging onto his image as some kind of touchstone of good behaviour. The twins are still the antithesis of perfection, the ones who trash the rules and pursue activities she disapproves of (Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes). It's only as the year progresses that she starts to adjust her perspective and become more inclusive and less hectoring towards the twins and Ron. Now that Percy's not in the way, she can actually see them as individuals, not just as not-Percy's of various degrees. I predict in Book 6 that we'll see that Molly has managed to accept the joke shop and the twins' dreams with more enthusiasm than she's shown to date. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 7 13:28:36 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:28:36 -0400 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: <000e01c494de$95141b70$85c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112243 Kate "Hmm. Lucius beat and kicked Dobby," DuffyPoo: House-Elves are slaves and are treated as such. However, I only see two instances of Dobby being abused: beaten because he burned the Malfoy's dinner, and kicked through a doorway. Any other pain infliction was done at Dobby's own hands. "got in a brawl with Arthur," DuffyPoo: My dad did that, well, not with Arthur Weasley, but he did get into a brawl. Broke his own wrist and the other guy's nose, IIRC. Didn't make him an abusive father/husband. In fact, he was neither. Arthur Weasley was a thorn in LM's side. Champion of Muggles and we all know LM's opinion of anyone who isn't pure-blood. "humiliated Draco for never beating Harry in Quidditch," DuffyPoo: I don't know when this happened. Draco didn't play in PS, they played against each other in CoS but the tournament was cancelled before the end so HP only beat DM once, Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup in PoA, there was no Quidditch in GoF and HP was off the team after the first game in OotP so any beating after the first game would have been done by Ginny Weasley. The final that year was against Ravenclaw. "sneers at, threatens and goes out of his way to impede Dumbledore" DuffyPoo: Because Dumbledore is a friend of Muggles and "Mudbloods" and Malfoy thinks someone else should be in charge of the school. As above, we know LM's opinion of anyone who is not pure-blood, and even of those who are but have 'no wizard pride'. "and is a known death eater." DuffyPoo: So does this infer that all DEs are abusive to their children? "Yup. I think it would be safe to say he's abusive." DuffyPoo: Unfortunately, I cannot agree. I see absolutely no evidence that Draco is abused by his father or his mother. He's a loved, pampered little spoiled brat of a prince. LM gets sick of his whining from time to time but so do all parents. LM bought Draco a racing broom when he wasn't on the house team - in spite of DM's whining - and bought brooms for the rest of the team to get baby-Draco on the school team. LM used his influence to arrange the for the execution of Buckbeak for a mere scratch on his son's arm. I was physically abused by my grandfather. I was relieved, to say the least, when he died, although it had been some months since I had last suffered at his hands. Yet when Malfoy, Sr is slapped in prison, Draco is angrier than ever at HP, to the point of personal threats. I would think Draco would be relieved the old man is gone for a bit and that he'll be master of the roost at home, but he's not. Not that I would expect him to walk up to HP and thank him.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweetface531 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 13:43:34 2004 From: sweetface531 at yahoo.com (Justine) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:43:34 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <89.1448dfe1.2e6e2c89@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112244 Justine: We must remember that Snape's existence includes [snip] a pureblood superiority mindset, and, most importantly, an obsession with the Dark Arts.... Magda: Well, we don't know that really. Sirius Black said twice (OOTP and GOF) that Snape was into the DarkArts but no one else has.... Chancie: Acutally if I remember corectly, Sirius isn't the only one who claimes that Snape is in to the Dark Arts. Justine: And we mustn't forget this: JL: Prof Snape has always wanted to be the defence against the dark arts teacher. In book 5 he still doesn't get the job Why does Professor Dumbledore not allow him to be the defence against the dark arts teacher? SF: There JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defence against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape Somewhat http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall- fry.htm And while Remus doesn't confirm Snape's predilection for the Dark Arts when Sirius mentions it, he certainly doesn't argue the point. Justine From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 13:58:54 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907135854.17336.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112245 I think Lucius can be physically abusive to "lesser" beings and certainly has no problems with the torturing requirements of being a DE. But I don't think he hits Narcissa or Draco. Draco's whinging in Mr. Borgin's shop while Harry watches reminds me more of a spoiled brat than an abused one. He's not physically afraid of his father but is concerned to have his father's good opinion. And Lucius strikes me as a dad who's heard all the complaining before and knows just how to shoot Draco down in mid-whine. I think Lucius has a pretty clear-eyed view of Draco's character ("my son the cowardly wimp") and he takes steps to make sure that Draco doesn't know more than he has to, such as the whole Heir of Slytherin thing in COS. So - abusive? Only in fanfiction. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 14:33:48 2004 From: fakeplastikcynic at hotmail.com (Lady Martha) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:33:48 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112246 > How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also > http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews > don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when > historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = opponent > of God the father of JC). [Snip] > Although halloween has older roots as a solstice than as all > hallow's eve, the latter name definitely derives from the idea of > saints and a Jesus-based religiosity. Is JKR trying to signify that > Hogwarts works on 'good WASP traditions' like any English public > school (where pupils, Christian or otherwise, have to sing hymns and > celebrate Christian festivals like Easter, Xmas, Michaelmas etc, or > that wizards aren't as dark as all that because they 'do' Xmas, or > what? [Snip] Martha: Just a few thoughts to add to what's already been said. In the UK, the 2-week (school) holiday in winter is known as the "Christmas" holiday, and the 2-week holiday in spring as the "Easter" holiday, despite the fact that most schools are pretty secular. This is based around the fact that Christianity (C of E, to be specific) was the major religion in the UK for a long time - it still officially is as far as I'm aware, although the majority of people I know would probably not self-define as such. In addition, most people celebrate something around Christmas time, and many people label this celebration as "Christmas" regardless of actual religion or lack thereof. Cases in point: my partner's Buddhist mother celebrates Christmas, as do my atheist parents and my Jewish landlady. :-) This involves giving presents, putting up a tree with fairy lights on it, eating nice food, and having a few days off from work. At school there might be a disco, and teachers might put up tinsel; workplaces often have a party where everyone gets drunk. What I'm getting at here is that I don't think JKR is trying to signify much at all by the inclusion of these holidays, other than the fact that the wizarding world is really not that much different from the rest of British society. > Harry doesn't go to church that we see, nor Hermione nor anyone else > in HP yet it just seems to be assumed that Christianity is a theme > present but largely unspoken of/ignored - sad to say (for those who > are wholeheartedly Christian) rather like the prevailing view of the > majority of folk in the real world in the UK or much of the US at > least. Many profess to be Christian but do little that is in any way > religious in a Christian sense, like pray, attend mass, live their > lives with Christian values, or otherwise express what are supposed > to be firmly held and all pervasive beliefs (faith). [More snipping] Martha again: I think whether "Christianity is a theme present but largely unspoken of/ignored" may be a matter of opinion. You read the books that way, but I don't. This, to me, is further evidence of the universal appeal of these books - they are not written with a particular portion of society in mind, and are the better for it, since anyone can enjoy them without feeling excluded. Just a thought. :-) A final point to make is that wizardry in JKR's world may not be a religion - we see no evidence of worship of any kind of deity or similar practices. It's not the same thing as what we might refer to as witchcraft or paganism. Wizardry seems, IMO, to more of a way of life, a science, or a practice - to give an analogy, you can be an accountant and also be a Christian, but that doesn't mean all accountants are Christian or that all Christians are accountants. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We are aware that Hogwarts is a fairly multicultural school (compared to many British schools, at least those that I and most of my friends attended) and it's likely that this encompasses religion as well - so perhaps Anthony Goldstein floo-powders home on a Friday evening for Shabbat, or the Patil twins celebrate Diwali at the appropriate time of year, or Blaise Zabini carries a rosary - but as the books are told from Harry's point of view, and those things aren't particularly important to the story, we don't see them going on. I think the key point here is that wizarding practice and religious beliefs are two separate things. Just my two knuts' worth, anyway. :-) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 7 14:56:26 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:56:26 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112247 Carolyn, you made a nice summation of this thread. I just wanted to clarify one point made by me. You said: > Incidentally, someone mentioned upthread (sorry, can't find exactly > who) something along the lines of only people with a pure heart could > choose a wand with a phoenix core, especially from Fawkes. Not only > does this pose problems with Tom Riddle, but it also isn't exactly > what FBWTFT says. It just says that phoenix *song* is magical and > reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and strike fear > into the hearts of the impure. Jen: I think you were referring to something I said in post #112154, which was a slightly different from your statement. I said: "So since the Phoenix song inspires courage in the pure of heart & has tears with magical healing powers, you could extrapolate out to say the Phoenix would only be loyal to a person of purity and integrity. So Fawkes would *not* grant Dumbledore something for personal gain or impure motives. So, I'd say Fawkes gave the feather willingly based on his loyalty to Dumbledore, a person Fawkes deems to have integrity." I was just referring to Fawkes giving the feather willingly to Dumbledore, not that a Phoenix-feather wand would choose only those who are pure of heart. And my point *is* an extrapolation of Phoenix characteristics beyond what is actually stated in FBAWTFT. But I think it's a sound idea, given all we know of Fawkes ;). Jen Reese From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 15:00:38 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:00:38 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, message 112202,macfotuk at y... wrote: >Even if it's original (which I really doubt) I'm somewhat loath >to (re-)start a posting topic that could generate > controversy or else run and run for all the wrong reasons. "K": >From past experience I can assure you a topic such as this only genereates controversy. macfotuk: >Even so: > > How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? "K": It's just part of the story. ^-^ macfotuk: > Any comments? (and PLEASE keep these in relation to the books/JKR's > WW and not about Christianity per se such as your own personal > views, strongly held or otherwise e.g. Jesus being the sole > salvation of humanity or entirely otherwise) "K": It's a bit hard not to give my own personal views when discussing such a subject. Others have already made reference to their own personal views in regards to your post. JKR has said she believes in God. That is as much as she has ever stated about her beliefs as far as I know. I personally don't believe she is making any sort of statement when she mentions Christmas (or Xmas - same thing - Christ is still in both). I'm a theory freak but I believe there are certain things in the books that are just there for the fun of it and it means nothing more. :-) "K" ~~"X" (as in chi) was used as an abbreviation for Christ from early times, perhaps initially as a camouflage for the religion. It was the first letter of the word Christos (meaning "the anointed one," e.g., the Messiah) and fortuitously was cross-shaped, so there seemed to be some symbolism or double meaning. It's been used as a scholarly and not-so-scholarly abbreviation since. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 15:42:37 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907154237.61991.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112249 Holidays like Christmas and Hallowe'en and Easter and Valentine's Day and fill-in-the-blank-day have all moved into the vernacular, everyday culture of most Western countries. There's no indication in the books that they're important except for the opportunity for time off classes or special feasts or embarassingly syrupy poems delivered by surly goblins. Looking for signs of religious themes based on these holidays being present in the books is a dead-end task, I'm afraid. Also: some people have seen JKR's comments about Harry's non-existent godmother and the "ceremony" that attended Sirius being the godfather as some kind of proof of religion being present. Again, I think it reflects that fact that there are some ceremonies and events in peoples lives that are special and that therefore take place in a church. Many people today never set foot inside a church unless they're attending a wedding, a funeral or a baptism. I suspect the wizarding world is the same, which is what gives the series that "real" feeling. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From maritajan at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 15:57:10 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907155710.92204.qmail@web12106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112250 > macfotuk: > >Even so: > > > > How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? > > "K": I think that holidays are celebrated at Hogwarts in the spirit of a special day, and that's pretty much it. I have Jewish friends who celebrate Christmas as a day when Santa brings gifts. No problem. It's never bothered me that Christmas and Easter were celebrated (at Hogwarts) as days to exchange gifts and have a big feast. I don't see any overtly religious overtones in the books; in fact, I think JKR has done a great job steering clear of references to any one specific religion. There's nothing overtly occult about Hogwarts or the WW, either. Even the 'dark arts' are about power and getting more of it, not about anything Satanic, and evil (i.e., Voldy) doesn't necessarily equal Satanic. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 7 10:42:19 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:42:19 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112251 Joe wrote: > Perhaps I've been reading too much fan fiction in anticipation of > HBP, but I've now began rereading the first five books (now for the third time) trying to pick up some additional clues. Several recent > fan fiction stories by different authors have concentrated on > Draco's abusive homelife, and I'm most curious if this stems from > clues in the books. > > Though Draco is mostly portrayed as a bullying git in the books, I > wonder if there's more to him than has been presented so far - or if > there are clues in the books I've overlooked. > > Draco obviously has the highest respect for his father. Is this > perhaps partially out of fear? Lucius has made it very well know to > Draco whom he should choose for his friends, and his prejudices > toward mudbloods, etc. Draco received a rather stern warning from > his father while in Borgin and Burkes. What of Narcissa? What is > her homelife like and her opinion of their son? Neither Lucius nor > Narcissa seemed to think their son in any potential danger while > they went off juggling muggles during the world cup - all while the > dark mark was conjured. > > JKR's characters are obviously far more complex than what one would > typically encounter in a "children's" book - complex enough that > even we adults miss many subtle clues after multiple readings. Hannah now: I've often wondered this. In PS/SS Malfoy tells Harry he hopes to 'bully his father' into buying him a racing broom. This could just be bravado or a figure of speech; I can't see even a non- abusive Lucius letting anyone bully him into anything he doesn't want to do. On the other hand, if Draco was living in fear of his father, would he have spoken so casually about him? Narcissa Malfoy cares enough about Draco to have objected to his being sent away to Durmstrang, as it was too far away (GoF). She clearly managed to override Lucius on this point. She also sends Draco daily packages of sweets from home (or at least, she does in PS/SS). Draco is an only child (JKR in one of the web chats) and certainly behaves as though he has been spoilt rotten, at least by his doting mother. I think Lucius views Draco more as a fashion accessory than anything else. He is able to say; 'look, I'm so rich and magnanimous, I've bought brooms for my son's entire Quidditch team.' I'm sure he would like to brag about his son's prowess in academic studies and quidditch as well, and is very annoyed that a muggle-born prevents him from doing this. Although Lucius is undoubtably a very nasty piece of work, IMO he doesn't extend this towards his own son. He might whack him occasionally for a punishment, but a lot of parents do this, without it being full blown abuse. The wizarding world is a bit behind the times, and it wasn't that long ago in the real world UK that it was not only socially acceptable, but the 'proper' thing, for parents to hit their children as a punishment (I'm not saying that makes it OK). Lucius is grooming Draco up to carry on the fine family tradition of being a bastard. He has schooled him in his own pureblood-supremacy beliefs, and seems to share quite a bit of sensitive information with his son. He isn't worried about having Draco accompany him to Borgin and Burkes, and Malfoy Jr. even knows where the rest of the stash is hidden. I think it is too easy to say 'oh, Lucius is abusive, that's why Draco's the way he is.' Especially since we've had a strong hint that Snape's father was. I don't think it will turn out that *both* have abusive home lives, JKR is too subtle to use the same thing twice. I wonder how Dobby feels about Draco? He never mentions that he wants to/ has been to see him. You'd think that if Draco had also been mistreated by Lucius, then Dobby would have had some kind of sympathy towards him. On the other hand, this might all be a lot of hot air. I'll admit that there are aspects of Draco's behaviour and character that could be explained by cruel treatment by his father. I just think it's a bit too simple for Potterverse. Hannah, agreeing there's *got* to be more to Draco and looking forward to finding out more about him and Narcissa in book 6. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 7 11:04:18 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:04:18 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: > Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages doesn't > seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here before > about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if > someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? Thanks > from the bottom of my HP-loving heart > > khinterberg Hannah: I don't know about any other posts, I have trouble finding them myself! Lupin does touch Harry, in the DoM battle, he physically restrains him to prevent him diving through the veil after Sirius. And he shakes his hand at the beginning of OotP when he collects Harry from the Dursley's. I assume the reason he doesn't touch Harry too often is because, in PoA he is Harry's teacher, and fondling pupils isn't a good idea when you're a teacher, especailly when you're also a werewolf (I imagine!). Also, Harry is a teenage male, and so probably prefers not being touched, especially by another male (he's not very keen on a lot of Mrs. Weasley's hugs either). Lupin doesn't touch Harry except when necessary because he doesn't want to make Harry uncomfortable, and probably because he would feel uncomfortable himself. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Sep 7 11:44:08 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:44:08 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112253 > > Ravenclaw Bookworm responded: > > Same scene, different POV ? The Hand of Glory. It doesn't > > add anything to the plot. > > > > The deleted version of the scene is much longer and includes Draco > > almost finding Harry. IIRC, the part with the Malfoys coming into > > the store was deleted, but the Hand was left in. I might be willing > > to stake a couple of knuts on it ? any takers? > JKR has actually referenced the 'Hand of Glory' in an interview before. 'Did you ever make a study of herbs and other Hogwarts subjects, or did you create all those classes from inspiration? Most of the magic is made up. Occasionally I will use something that people used to believe was true - for example, the "Hand of Glory" which Draco gets from Borgin and Burkes in Chamber of Secrets.' >From Scolastic.com 2000. I did a little searching for the 'Hand of Glory' and this is what I found. The hand of a man that has been hanged, when dried and prepared with certain weird unguents and set on fire, is known as the Hand of Glory; and as it not only bursts open all safe-locks, but also lulls to sleep all persons within the circle of its influence, it is of course invaluable to thieves and burglars. Sounds like a very handy tool. I did wonder whether this might have been what Quirrell-Mort used to break into Gringott's!! From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 7 11:56:23 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:56:23 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112254 > HunterGreen: .... Hermione is loyal most of the time, but when she has it in her to be > disloyal. In PoA when Harry gets the firebolt she runs off and tells > McGonnagal about it, without even warning Harry first. Don't get me > wrong, I think that was the best decision (after all the firebolt was > indeed from Sirius, even though it wasn't jinxed), but that would > still be considered 'disloyalty', in the strict meaning of the word. I disagree that going to McGonagall was disloyal to Harry. She was concerned with his safety and was willing to make him very upset with her in order to protect him. That is true loyalty. I could see how a 13 year old Harry might see it as disloyal (not to mention Ron's POV) especially without a 'heads up.' But on the outside we should be able to see that it was very loyal to be willing to make your friends angry (in the short term) to protect them (in the long term). ~tina From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Tue Sep 7 16:15:52 2004 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:15:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112255 In a message dated 9/7/04 7:41:37 AM Mountain Daylight Time, cldrolet at sympatico.ca writes: > I was physically abused by my grandfather. I was relieved, to say the > least, when he died, although it had been some months since I had last suffered > at his hands. Yet when Malfoy, Sr is slapped in prison, Draco is angrier than > ever at HP, to the point of personal threats. I would think Draco would be > relieved the old man is gone for a bit and that he'll be master of the roost > at home, but he's not. Not that I would expect him to walk up to HP and > thank him.... > Not all abused children are relieved when the abuser is out of the way. Some lie to have them back in their lives. Some don't even think of it as abuse. But short of verbal abuse I don't LM is physically abusing Draco. Danielle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From orly_w at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 13:28:14 2004 From: orly_w at hotmail.com (grebniew2004) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:28:14 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112256 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > How is it that Hogwarts always celebrates Xmas? (see also > > http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/apr2002p10_969.html) Jews > > don't. Muslims don't. Why should wizards? especially when > > historically the church saw wizardry as devilish? (Satan = > > opponent of God the father of JC). > Snow: > As to why the HP books celebrate specific religious holidays but > don't attend a full-blown, church going Christian behavior, my view > is the same as in the real world, which is that people are > celebrating the holiday as nothing more than the politically correct, > Santa's coming, buying frenzy holiday and not for the actual > religious reasons the holidays were meant to represent. Moonmyyst: Looking at this from the perspective of a witch (wiccan) - many of the christian holidays are based around holidays and celebrations that were already in existance at the time christianity was being spread...... IMHO this is another case of the christians taking a holiday/celebration and adapting it to their beliefs. Me: I believe we often adapt our traditions -- if not our beliefs -- to those of society around us. For instance, when children are exposed to Hannukah in public school, they sometimes take to lighting candles with non-Jewish families at home (in a couple of cases I know of). As a Jew, I notice that many, many North American Jews give gifts at Hannukah; originally, the Jewish tradition was to give a few coins or "gelt" to the children -- the giving of gifts, or even setting up "Hannukah bushes", comes directly from the proximity of this holiday to Christmas. My daughter's best-friend is Muslim, and she loves putting henna-designs on her hands during Eid al-Fitr. In HP novels, JKR writes from her own cultural background. As well, it makes sense that Christmas -- which has a date relating it to earlier pagan beliefs -- is adopted as a convenient and fun celebration by the WW. With inter-marriage between wizards and muggles, this holiday makes perfect sense in England. It would be interesting to know what holidays wizards from other countries -- such as those from Africa who we saw at the Quidditch World Cup -- celebrate. No doubt they would represent the different cultural milieu in which these wizards are immersed.... Orly, who is already cooking for the Jewish High Holidays From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 16:29:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:29:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112257 Magda: >>> Lately though I've been wondering about something: wouldn't it be a total kick if Harry has to time-turner 25 years into the past because it's actually Harry and not James who pulls Snape out of the tunnel and saves him from a werewolf? Because Snape is needed in the future for some potions work or something?<<< SSSusan asked: >> I have *such* a hard time w/ time-turning, that I hesitate to even ask this, but.... Is it the general consensus that a person can TT to a moment *before* he was even born **and then perform some action which changes events**? Not like in PoA, when H/H simply time-turn to a point w/in the same day? Could Harry go back 25 years, to when he was "minus-10"?? PK responded: > Well, I don't see why, if you can go back in time at all, you'd be > restricted to times you'd actually been to previously unless you > were actually stuck sharing your own consciousness at the time -- > which isn't the case. > > Whether he could perform an action which changes events is quite > irrelevant, as if Harry saved Snape he would of course *always* have > been the one who saved Snape, just as he was of course *always* the > one who cast the Patronus that chased the Dementors away. JKR > doesn't actually do the changing-events variety of time travel -- > it might look that way, but only because the reader and characters > didn't have all the facts the first time around. SSSusan again: Hey, PK, thanks for answering this. But, see? I just DON'T get it! If a person wasn't alive in, say, 1800, then why *should* he be able to go to 1800, do something which impacted the course of events, then return to the present? It seems like such a cop-out in telling a story! If a person was born in 1970 and returned from 2004 to 1974, then I could see that happening--he really WAS alive in 1974, so it makes "sense" that he could *always* have been the one to have done X or Y. But if he travels back to 1800, it *doesn't* make sense to me that he was *always* the one to have done X or Y. Or maybe you're actually saying that JKR really *doesn't* do this. So far in the series, as far as we can tell, the time-turning HAS been to points w/in one's own lifetime, right? If that's what you're saying, then I can "agree" with it. [Can't think of a better word than "agree" just now.] Siriusly Snapey Susan From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 17:04:04 2004 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:04:04 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Any theories on why Voldemort was willing to spare Lily? Harry > remembers hearing Voldemort telling Lily she needn't die, or words to > that effect. If Voldemort had killed so many with no compunction, > and was obviously willing to kill an infant, why spare Lily? > > Angie Miz Storge replies: Harry heard a voice - or voices - we don't know for sure it was Voldemort speaking. I think it is a real possibility that there were more people at the Potter's in Godric's Hollow that night than Voldemort. Also, previous posts (you'd have to do a search) have speculated that Lily with her green eyes is somehow related to Salazar Slytherin. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 17:12:42 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:12:42 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112259 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Carolyn, you made a nice summation of this thread. I just wanted to > clarify one point made by me. You said: > (snip snip..) > I was just referring to Fawkes giving the feather willingly to > Dumbledore, not that a Phoenix-feather wand would choose only those > who are pure of heart. And my point *is* an extrapolation of Phoenix > characteristics beyond what is actually stated in FBAWTFT. But I > think it's a sound idea, given all we know of Fawkes ;). > > Carolyn: Fair point Jen, and probably true, since I am not actually arguing ESE!Dumbledore, or suggesting that he is acting for private, selfish motives. However, I do think that he has a significant strategic role in the tale, perhaps better described as a fairly heavy burden, and this drives all his actions, including some pretty devious and complex planning. There is also undoubtedly an element of the ends justify the means where he is concerned (remember him 'persuading' Kreacher to tell what he had done? And what about his cold decision on where it was best to have Harry brought up?). I think Fawkes is his utterly loyal ally in all these undertakings, especially as one of the objectives is to make good their joint mistake over Riddle ;). Carolyn Wondering if Ollivander blurted out to Tom the truth about his wand the same way as he did to Harry, and thus gave Tom, aged 11 and already bitter about his upbringing, his first proper hint of the power that he could command if he chose. Telling the truth and its consequences, huh? From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 7 16:34:38 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:34:38 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20040907135854.17336.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112260 wrote: > I think Lucius can be physically abusive to "lesser" beings and > certainly has no problems with the torturing requirements of being > a DE. But I don't think he hits Narcissa or Draco. > Draco's whinging in Mr. Borgin's shop while Harry watches reminds > me more of a spoiled brat than an abused one. He's not physically > afraid of his father but is concerned to have his father's good > opinion. And Lucius strikes me as a dad who's heard all the > complaining before and knows just how to shoot Draco down in > mid-whine. Yes, I think you've got it right. As I was reading this thread I was reminded of a Jason Isaacs interview that I had read at TLC (found in the Archives section) and wondered if it hadn't contaminated the Canon (ical?) waters. Here's a quotation from Jason Isaacs: "I watched the first film for some inspiration, what is this world I'm entering. I looked at this horrible little git who was my son. When I arrived and we played the first scene, we went straight into the first scene, and I just grabbed him by the ear, and then I rapped him on the knuckles, and he looked up at me really hurt. I didn't know if it was Tom or Draco that was looking so hurt, because **I just thought** it was right that Lucius I a really horrible Dad, really abusive Dad. And I could see generations of Malfoys stretching back into time where the fathers have been cold and brutal and hideous to their kids and that's what turns the kids into that. And for me it makes it far more understandable why Draco's like that at school. He gets no love at home, it's a horrible loveless place, and suddenly he' at school and he's not going to let anyone else enjoy themselves, he's resentful of real friendships for instance, and so I think I get him the compassionate vote, which you wouldn't have thought Draco would ever get from anybody." Emphasis mine. ~tina From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Sep 7 16:42:05 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:42:05 EDT Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <105.5013808e.2e6f3edd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112261 SSSusan asked: > Is it the general consensus that a person can TT to a moment > *before* he was even born **and then perform some action which > changes events**? Not like in PoA, when H/H simply time-turn > to a point w/in the same day? Could Harry go back 25 years, to > when he was "minus-10"?? PK responded: > Well, I don't see why, if you can go back in time at all, you'd be > restricted to times you'd actually been to previously unless you > were actually stuck sharing your own consciousness at the time -- > which isn't the case. Chancie: It doesn't really make since to me that there would be time limits on the TT, but the only thing about not having limits is, why don't they just use it to kill Tom Riddle when he's a baby so that no one has to suffer from the things that he will do if given the chance. It would seem like the easiest fix for the whole situation. Harry's parent's would still be alive, Hagrid wouldn't have been framed, and expelled. Cedric wouldn't have been Killed. Neville's parent's would still be sane. Sirius would still be alive....well I think I've made my point. But then again if none of these things happened then there wouldn't be much of a story either huh.... The only thing I guess that can solve this is JKR answering it for us. But then maybe something like this will happen in the end. When asked in a chat if the TT will be back her answer was "NOT TELLING!" Just a thought Chancie From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 7 16:48:47 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:48:47 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112262 > Martha: > > We are aware that Hogwarts is a fairly multicultural school (compared > to many British schools, at least those that I and most of my friends > attended) and it's likely that this encompasses religion as well - so > perhaps Anthony Goldstein floo-powders home on a Friday evening for > Shabbat, or the Patil twins celebrate Diwali at the appropriate time > of year, or Blaise Zabini carries a rosary - but as the books are > told from Harry's point of view, and those things aren't particularly > important to the story, we don't see them going on.> I think this is very well put and I personally like the idea of each person's religion having a role in their lives despite/in addition to their being witches or wizards. One thing that may or may not be appropriate for this discussion is: At Voldemort's rebirth he is explaining the series of events to his DE's and says (GoF/The Death Eaters p 655 Am PB) 'Now see the way that fate favors Lord Voldemort....' Not sure if this indicates a religious reference or just a common saying. ~tina From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 7 17:22:06 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:22:06 -0000 Subject: (Aside): Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > (Just for fun, some of the more unusual ones are: > > Name Divination by... > Rhapsodomancy Picking a passage of poetry at random > Podomancy Signs derived from inspection of the feet > Xenomancy Studying the first stranger that appears > Omphalomancy The navel > Dririmancy Dripping blood > Cromnyomancy Onions (?!) > Coscinomancy The turning of a sieve held on a pair of > shears (whatever that's supposed to mean...) > Ailuromancy The way a cat jumps > Aichomancy Sharply pointed objects > And my personal favourite (which _is_ in my Chambers English > Dictionary): > Tyromancy Watching cheese coagulate) And, of course, strictly speaking necromancy is prophecying by summoning the dead. Which is what Harry will be performing if he glues that magic mirror together. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 7 17:29:09 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:29:09 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > It's very likely that Snape was well versed in Dark Arts. And it > seems that's one of the reasons the Marauders didn't like him. I'm > not sure that tells us that he's ever used them at school as a > student or teacher. Or that he has an obsession with dark arts. > > Something about the way we've been told about his desire for DADA, > and something about the way we were told about his Dark Arts > reputation as a kid make me think we're being set up. > Don't forget, it's two different Snapes we're talking about here - the schoolboy who the Marauders don't like and the adult who has spent years as a DE. The level of knowlege/expertise in the Dark Arts would differ enormously between the two. Kneasy From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 17:36:35 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:36:35 -0000 Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112265 > womanofdunedain wrote: The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these might be. I just thought I would throw it up here and see if anyone else agrees. > Terpnurse agreed: It had always been my assumption that The Wealthy Man was Malfoy. That would be consistent with his having his financial finger in almost every major pie in the UK WW. Certainly, if he were close enough to LV to have possession of his school belongings, why not hold the Riddle House in trust for him as well? > Karen added: It would also explain why Voldemort treats Malfoy a little differently from the rest of the DE's in the circle. I wonder if Malfoy's basement/hiding place is where Peter has stored all those missing wands. Kemper now: If Malfoy is The Wealthy Man, then he could know of LV's bloodline. I don't think LV would have been willing to risk that. I think DD is the Wealthy Man. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 7 17:44:11 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:44:11 -0400 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: <001201c49502$495a62b0$9cfbe2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112266 Magda "I think Lucius has a pretty clear-eyed view of Draco's character ("my son the cowardly wimp") and he takes steps to make sure that Draco doesn't know more than he has to, such as the whole Heir of Slytherin thing in COS. So - abusive? Only in fanfiction." DuffyPoo: "My son the cowardly wimp" what a laugh I had over that, Magda, thank you! :-) It is exactly what I think. As long as he's sliding along on daddy's robe-tail he's fine but I don't expect any greatness from him on his own accord. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 17:49:34 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:49:34 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112267 Martha: > I think whether "Christianity is a theme present but largely > unspoken of/ignored" may be a matter of opinion. You read the books > that way, but I don't. This, to me, is further evidence of the > universal appeal of these books - they are not written with a > particular portion of society in mind, and are the better for it, > since anyone can enjoy them without feeling excluded. Just a > thought. :-) SSSusan: Martha, I couldn't agree with you more. I am a Christian who loves these books, married to a Christian who struggles to think they're "okay." I've had discussions on this topic before--mostly at that friendly pub down the road, the Hog's Head [hey, everyone!]--and I'd like to say that what you've pointed to about the universal appeal of the books is one of the things I love most about the HPs & JKR's writing. John Granger's book has been brought up before, and I've read & enjoyed it. Yes, I agree that there is a LOT in the books which can be seen as uplifting or edifying to a Christian...and those Christians who *want* to can point to all kinds of symbols & themes and say, "See? They're Christian." But *I* think JKR is "smarter than that." That is, I think she intentionally leaves overt references to religion out of it precisely because it DOES leave the books open to people of all kinds of belief systems. Thus, the precise thing which ticks off some Christians--that JKR isn't making the books "Christian enough"/isn't making overt references to the Christian God--makes *this* Christian happy. I love that she hasn't slammed the door on Jews, Muslims, agnostics, wiccans, or any other group, and that anyone in ANY of those groups [or no group at all] can find positive, uplifting messages and a certain "morality" that speaks to loyalty, bravery, friendship, love for others, looking out for the greater good, making the "right" choices, etc. Being inclusive in that way is wonderful, imo. After all, Christians do NOT have a corner on the market when it comes to moral code! If I'm not mistaken, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, et al. have expectations, laws and/or mores, too, concerning right behavior. Martha: > A final point to make is that wizardry in JKR's world may not be a > religion - we see no evidence of worship of any kind of deity or > similar practices. It's not the same thing as what we might refer > to as witchcraft or paganism. Wizardry seems, IMO, to more of a way > of life, a science, or a practice - to give an analogy, you can be > an accountant and also be a Christian, but that doesn't mean all > accountants are Christian or that all Christians are accountants. > The two aren't mutually exclusive. SSSusan: Again, I think you're right. JKR gives no indication, imho, that she sees or is presenting "wizardry" as a religion. It has been mostly those who object to witchcraft or wizardry **in general** who've made that claim (and, from what I've read, most of the complainers haven't read the books). Someone on another list helped me with this by describing magical ability as just a talent, like being a fast runner or being artistic. It's an integral part of who they are, but it's not the be- all, end-all of the witch or wizard in the sense that it's the "god" they "serve". It's not that they're worshipping a god of magic or worshipping powers they possess; it's rather that they UTILIZE the talent they have, and there isn't necessarily any WORSHIPPING of anything going on. Which brings up another point. As Jen R. (I believe it was) said once, if Harry had just knelt and prayed to God for help before he stabbed the basilisk, Christians would be happy. Come on, now, isn't that true?? It would appease the vast majority of the "Christian complainers" out there. But I think it's sad that those folks don't appreciate *subtlety.* It's really only people who think it's a Christian's "job" to convert non- believers to Christianity who think it's wrong that JKR hasn't bashed everyone over the head with that kind of overt message, isn't it?? Well, *this* Christian much prefers her having left it more open, just as Martha has said. Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping I've not royally ticked anyone off. From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 17:49:47 2004 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:49:47 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112268 Christmas has largely become a secular holiday. I worked at a doctor's office jointly owned by Jews and atheists. We had an annual Christmas party with gifts, and got Jewish holidays off paid. The doctors all knew I was heathen, and we not only had interesting discussions about religion, we all gave and received Christmas gifts. In the Western world, Christmas has become the beginning of the big year-end party season, an excuse to give gifts and send greetings to friends, acquaintances and relatives. Even carols can be sung without a whole lot of religious feeling. Well, okay, even pagans enjoy the songs about the baby being born at the Solstice:/). Halloween is also a secular holiday with very old British origins. Loads of history there. I think JKR uses it so prominently because it's become a night of fun most kids look forward to, but for poor Harry it brings nothing good. Maybe the last battle will be fought on Halloween with a promising outcome to break the cycle. As for Easter, even my atheist co-workers enjoy chocolate bunnies and Peeps. Now for godparents in the modern world. This too is becomming secular. My husband and I were asked by friends to be 'godparents' for their children ages 7, 9 and 12. We were a bit surprised, since they were (nominally at least) Christian and so we asked for clarification. They didn't want us to be present at a baptism or to promise to assist with the children's religious education, what they wanted for us to adopt the children should the parents predecease them. It was meant a a totally secular decision, one they wanted to put in thier wills and they meant it as a compliment for our rapport with the kids. In fact they said because we were so open about discussing religion they knew we would make sure the kids got any kind of religious information they wanted, regardless of our beliefs. Some non-Christians find the secularization of Christmas and Easter to be just an ingrained part of Western culture, or view with amusement the changes Time has wrought upon ancient festivals. Some Christians go to church only at Christmas and Easter, or don't attend church at all but celebrate the two big holidays with gifts. I've been amazed to find non-Christian visitors from other countries getting into the whole idea, and mailing 'Christmas" gifts to their relatives back home! We have to wait for JKR to tell us how important Christianity is to the WW. IMHO, she's going to let the reader decide on their own rather than spoon-feed us. Going on a tangent, Miz Storge' From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 17:36:22 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907173622.30682.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112269 macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do with the veil). Karyn here: Yes, but you don't have to be an active Christian to be christened, right? Me and everyone in my family for that matter, are christened, but I've never been to church (except for weddings, funerals, etc). Personally I hope there's NOT gonna be a religious/Christian theme/explanation of everything, because I'm agnostic/atheist myself, and that would ruin the whole experience of the books for me. Besides, it would feel really strange if JKR threw in some Christian values somewhere because a lot of the books are built upon the difference of the Wizard World vs Muggle World. There are lots of people who celebrate Christmas of other reasons than it being a big Christian holiday. Maybe that's the case here too? --Karyn... From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 18:06:58 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:06:58 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: <001201c49502$495a62b0$9cfbe2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112270 In my two-cents, the Malfoys are the parallels of the Dursleys, so if you count Dudley as abused, if you consider over-indulgence and witnessing of abusive behavior as abuse... I doubt Draco is abused in any criminally actionable sense, but he's definitely being raised with a warped sense of values and I can easily imagine Lucius being an aloof, manipulative father. Actually, I suspect the Malfoys might be a bit worse as parents, than the Dursleys (to Dudley) in that the Dursleys actually seem... warm toward Dudley. I can't imagine either Lucius or Narcissa hugging on little Dracikins. "frugalarugala" From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 20:29:13 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:29:13 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <20040906222508.36377.qmail@web80802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112271 DuffyPoo wrote : "Marietta would have been cleared up in a trice by Madam Pomfrey if she'd known what jinx had been used. " theotokos replied: " But why should she be. She broke an oath! She made her bed, so to speak, and must lie in it. A punishment is pointless unless it is followed through." Del replies : Sure ! And why not reinstate the Red Letter for adulterous women while we're at it ?! Marrietta, a 15-year-old girl, has had to keep those monstruous pustules for more than 2 full months !! And the worst of it is that it is completely useless anyway, since she doesn't *remember* WHY she is being punished, now that Shacklebolt erased her memory ! If anything, the punishment could actually backfire, by definitely convincing Marrietta that the Trio are cruel. I mean, honestly, it would have been pure *compassion* for Hermione to help her get cured ! And I notice that neither Ron nor Harry cared about it either... Del, incensed that anyone could consider such a CRUEL treatment of a 15-year-old girl as acceptable. From flamingstarchows at att.net Tue Sep 7 20:42:13 2004 From: flamingstarchows at att.net (texaschow) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:42:13 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: <105.5013808e.2e6f3edd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112272 > Chancie wrote: > It doesn't really make since to me that there would be time limits on the TT, but the only thing about not having limits is, why don't they just use it to kill Tom Riddle when he's a baby so that no one has to suffer from the things that he will do if given the chance. It would seem like the easiest fix for the whole situation. Harry's parent's would still be alive, Hagrid wouldn't have been framed, and expelled. Cedric wouldn't have been Killed. Neville's parent's would still be sane. Sirius would still be alive....well I think I've made my point. ~~me~~ I think that, if possible, your solution would solve all of their problems (though it is unknown what others it might create), the only persons I believe who would be willing to go to such lengths (i.e. kill a defenseless baby/child) would be those of the nature of Voldemort and his followers. I just can't see any of the "good" guys stooping to such measures. While Voldemort was certainly willing to kill Harry while an infant (that backfired, didn't it?), I just can't see Dumbledore or any of the others aligned with him ever doing anything of the like. Fight an adult who can defend him/herself, yes, but not go after an innocent child. ~Cathy~ From jlawlor at gmail.com Tue Sep 7 21:18:45 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:18:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96773c880409071418c860399@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112273 > Kemper now: > If Malfoy is The Wealthy Man, then he could know of LV's bloodline. > I don't think LV would have been willing to risk that. I think DD is > the Wealthy Man. James: I think Malfoy already does know of LV's bloodline, having been in possession of Tom Riddle's diary for so long. At the very least he would have noticed that it was a "muggle artifact" and therby not something a "respectable pureblood wizard" is going to use, and researching the name would have been easy enough. Lucius doesn't strike me as the type to care about LV's bloodline - he's not obsessively worshiping LV like other Death Eaters (Bellatrix, for example). The theories that Malfoy is trying to set himself up as LV's successor and such similar ideas make a lot of sense to me - he's not in this because of LV, he's in it for his own gain, even if it requires some groveling in the process. I seriously doubt Dumbledore is the Wealthy Man. If DD bought the house he would have done so because he expected it to be important in the future - perhaps somewhere LV would go when he needed somewhere to hide. If that was the case, he would have been keeping some sort of watch over it, and ought to have realized that LV and Wormtail were hiding out there. I seriously don't expect that DD would sit by if he had the opportunity to capture or destory LV nor sit by and let LV kill Bertha and plot against Harry. As for Dumbledore owning the house and not watching it... Well Dumbledore's smarter than that, isn't he? - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Sep 7 21:41:01 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:41:01 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112274 DuffyPoo wrote : >> "Marietta would have been cleared up in a trice by Madam Pomfrey >> if she'd known what jinx had been used. " > > Del replies : > Marietta has had to keep those monstruous pustules for more than > 2 full months !! And the worst of it is that it is completely > useless anyway, since she doesn't *remember* WHY she is being > punished, now that Shacklebolt erased her memory! Yb thinks: Well, Marietta doesn't remember any meetings other than that first one, when she signed the paper, and she'd probably remember Hermione saying "So if you're signing, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge -- or anyone else -- what we're up to." Shacklebolt simply "deleted" the meeting memories, though we can't be for sure, of course. Plus, did Harry ever tell anyone that Marietta's memory was "adjusted?" If Hermione knew Marietta didn't know why she had SNEAK written across her face, I'm sure she'd feel less justified. Of course, I wouldn't doubt someone has refreshed her memory if she needed it. On a different pitch (same note): How can you "decide" what memories to erase? "Obliviate" seems to take care of everything, even how to write your own name in joined- up writing, as evidenced by Lockhart, but there must be varying degrees of Memory Charms, otherwise Marietta wouldn't have had much use for Hogwarts after this little encounter. So to erase 6 months of meetings, how would you go about just getting the ones you want? Any thoughts? ~Yb From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Sep 7 21:42:14 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:42:14 -0000 Subject: Screams of Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > I don't think he needed to torture her to get her to tell what she > again remembered -- surely Imperius would be more effective than > torture for extracting information -- but he may well have tortured > her with Cruciatis afterwards simply for his own amusement. > > Btw some time ago a listie pointed out something I hadn't noticed: > where did LV's horrible-ugly-baby body come from? Well, he had a > female captive and a male servant right there with him ... AmanitaMuscaria now : URGGH! Interesting, isn't it, how JKR can put in very subtle hints about pretty gruesome things - thinking about Umbridge and the Centaurs now - without any problem? I'm assuming it is deliberate, and we're just slow in picking up the implications. Perhaps we've all been lulled into the 'children's book' false sense of security. Or maybe it's just me? Eeech - I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight ... Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 7 21:48:21 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:48:21 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040907173622.30682.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112276 Having read this thread, I would like to add a few thoughts of my own drawn from various of the replies. Let me say to start with that, as regular members of the group may well know [to their cost :-)], I am a practising evangelical Christian. Regarding the Christian reaction to Harry Potter, I have said previously that I was silly enough at the beginning to allow myself to be influenced by some members of my church who raised their hands in horror and proclaimed "Harry Potter is a bad thing". I then saw the second film to start with and having read all the books and seen all the films, I am a convinced HP fan and have discovered many other folk in my church who share my views - so not all real Christians are anti-Potter. I have found many of the themes useful with the young people's group within my church to point up certain facets of Christ's teaching. Jo Rowling worships at a Church of Scotland church and is on record as saying she is a Christian so this is going have some influence on her approach. However, like Tolkien, who was also a Christian, her world is not overtly Christian but is you look around you, there are evidences of subliminal Christian influence. Both she and Tolkien have written books in which Christian values and ideals can be seen if you look for them in contrast to C.S.Lewis whose "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" is openly intended to introduce children to the ideas of Christianity. Various books have been mentioned. May I add to the list "The Gospel according to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the stories of the world's favourite Seeker" by Connie Neal. A very interesting read. We can see how many of the driving themes of the books such as "choices" can be linked to Christian teaching. Someone raised the point that festivals such as Christmas were taken over from other groups. Remember that in the early church, Christians could not take time out to hold special services ad lib - especially if they were slaves - and had to hold them at the times of the Romans festivals so that the dates of these celebrations came to coincide with non-Christian dates. It wasn't a Christian hi-jack, it was the only way to get time together. Just a few (probably disjointed) thoughts. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 22:40:21 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:40:21 -0000 Subject: Does Malfoy own the Riddle House? In-Reply-To: <96773c880409071418c860399@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112277 > Kemper wrote: If Malfoy is The Wealthy Man, then he could know of LV's bloodline. I don't think LV would have been willing to risk that. I think DD is the Wealthy Man. > James argued well: I think Malfoy already does know of LV's bloodline, having been in possession of Tom Riddle's diary for so long. At the very least he would have noticed that it was a "muggle artifact" and therby not something a "respectable pureblood wizard" is going to use, and researching the name would have been easy enough. Lucius doesn't strike me as the type to care about LV's bloodline - he's not obsessively worshiping LV like other Death Eaters (Bellatrix, for example). The theories that Malfoy is trying to set himself up as LV's successor and such similar ideas make a lot of sense to me - he's not in this because of LV, he's in it for his own gain, even if it requires some groveling in the process. I seriously doubt Dumbledore is the Wealthy Man. If DD bought the house he would have done so because he expected it to be important in the future - perhaps somewhere LV would go when he needed somewhere to hide. If that was the case, he would have been keeping some sort of watch over it, and ought to have realized that LV and Wormtail were hiding out there. I seriously don't expect that DD would sit by if he had the opportunity to capture or destory LV nor sit by and let LV kill Bertha and plot against Harry. As for Dumbledore owning the house and not watching it... Well Dumbledore's smarter than that, isn't he? Kemper again: Regarding Tom's Diary: Where in canon does it mention diaries being muggle artifacts? The diary is sneaky and tells lies. Why wouldn't it lie to LM? Regarding LM lack of bloodline fanaticism: I agree that LM is more for himself than he is for his Dark Lord. But as Draco yells 'your next Mudbloods!' (or something close to that) to the students gathered near Mrs. Norris, it seems as Draco may have picked up a little W-Power/W-Pride from his dad. Regarding the Riddle House: What if LV placed a fidelius charm on himself & Wormtail? That way they could stay in the Riddle House even after the townfolks realized Frank Bryce was missing. DD would also never know that they were still there plotting against Harry. DD is "smarter than that", as you say, but DD also describes TR as 'probably the most brilliant student Hogwarts has ever seen.' I'm assuming DD is including himself in that category. (On a side note, Bertha was killed before they were at the Riddle House) Tom, after killing his muggle father and grandparents, took nothing from the house. He didn't want anything to do with his muggle heritage. In fact, the house was sold to various families until the Wealthy Man purchased it and still paid Frank Bryce to do the gardening. Was TR/LV waiting until he was rich enough to make a down payment? I believe that the Riddle house was purchased by DD during the first war or afterwards when it was known that LV was actually Tom M. Riddle, a fact that very few in the wizrding world know. Why he would do so is open to debate (as is DD purchasing it at all ;p ) But I can't see LM paying for a Muggle gardener. He would have had Doby magic it up a bit every so often. Cheers! From terpnurse at qwest.net Tue Sep 7 22:48:37 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:48:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040907173622.30682.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040907173622.30682.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0E08468F-0120-11D9-A579-0003930C168E@qwest.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112278 Mac wrote: > Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't > supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do > with the veil). > > And Terpnurse replies, being flippant just for the sake of being flippant: JC? Why shouldn't Johnny Carson be behind that door? Oh wait, you meant Jane Curtain, didn't you? Yeah, I sure wouldn't want to find her behind a secret door! :) From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 22:58:25 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:58:25 -0000 Subject: Sword and Shield Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112279 GG owned/had made the Sword. Did SS have the Shield that LV used dueling DD? The shield pictured at the begining of "The Only One He Ever Feared" in OoP (hardback US edition)has a snake on the shield though there is no physical description of the shield in the chapter except to say that it's silver (one of Slytherin's house colors but not exactly an uncommon color for a shield) Canon says the shield was conjured, but there are different conjectures as to what that means. Did the shield already exist and was merely teleported to LV, or did LV merely change thin air into a shield? Could LV/TR have found and taken the shield from the Chamber of Secrets? Apologies if this has been discussed. Somebody please direct me to a message post number. Thanks. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 23:13:06 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:13:06 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda (was LV's survival ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Carolyn, you made a nice summation of this thread. I just wanted to > clarify one point made by me. You said: > > > Incidentally, someone mentioned upthread (sorry, can't find > exactly > > who) something along the lines of only people with a pure heart > could > > choose a wand with a phoenix core, especially from Fawkes. Not > only > > does this pose problems with Tom Riddle, but it also isn't exactly > > what FBWTFT says. It just says that phoenix *song* is magical and > > reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and strike > fear > > into the hearts of the impure. > > Jen: I think you were referring to something I said in post #112154, > which was a slightly different from your statement. I said: > > "So since the Phoenix song inspires courage in the pure of heart & > has tears with magical healing powers, you could extrapolate out to > say the Phoenix would only be loyal to a person of purity and > integrity. So Fawkes would *not* grant Dumbledore something for > personal gain or impure motives. So, I'd say Fawkes gave the feather > willingly based on his loyalty to Dumbledore, a person Fawkes deems > to have integrity." > > I was just referring to Fawkes giving the feather willingly to > Dumbledore, not that a Phoenix-feather wand would choose only those > who are pure of heart. And my point *is* an extrapolation of Phoenix > characteristics beyond what is actually stated in FBAWTFT. But I > think it's a sound idea, given all we know of Fawkes ;). > > > Jen Reese Mac now: Don't ask me how/why, but suddenly this post makes me ask the question that if a pheonix feather from *Fawkes* is as special as we all seem to think it IS, then how is it that Tom Riddle was given the first wand in the first case? Is it that the SECOND feather became important only once the 1st wand had turned out to be in the wrong hands or was it that somehow Tom Riddle was selected to receive this wand because he was a fantasticly promising student and/or had a terribly sad and 'deserving' background before Hogwart's? The latter would be really interesting. I am also reminded, because wandwoods are mentioned, of the discussion about Harry's scar (shape of a lightning bolt i.e. the rune eihwaz, associated with yew trees - a dark magical wandwood and the one used for the 1st wand - LV's). Harry's is made of Holly which is associated with good (redemption?) - worth reading at the link below (Warning - long!) if you haven't encountered these ideas (scar/runes/wandwoods, LV/Harry connection) and lots of other good things besides such as Hermione's frustration at her mistake on runes exam (ehwaz vs eihwaz - GoF or OotP - can't recall which) - http://www.cosforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16412.html From averyhaze at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 23:41:32 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:41:32 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: <000e01c494de$95141b70$85c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112281 Kate wrote: >> "Hmm. Lucius beat and kicked Dobby," DuffyPoo: >House-Elves are slaves and are treated as such. However, I only see two instances of Dobby being abused: beaten because he burned the Malfoy's dinner, and kicked through a doorway. Any other pain infliction was done at Dobby's own hands. Dharma replies: Beating and kicking sentient beings as punishment, particularly for something as minor as burning food, is being abusive. House Elves may very well have their free will suppressed, but that does not justify wizards physically assaulting them. Lucius is being abusive to another being in this context. Kate wrote: >> "got in a brawl with Arthur," > DuffyPoo: Arthur Weasley was a thorn in LM's side. Champion of Muggles and we all know LM's opinion of anyone who isn't pure-blood. Dharma replies: It was Lucius who approached Arthur's children and insulted them. It was Lucius who implied that the Grangers were less than socially acceptable. It was Lucius who insulted Arthur's work. An adult belittling children in public, because the children's parents refuse to hold the same prejudice, is not particularly justifiable in my opinion. It is, however, cruel. Kate wrote: >> "humiliated Draco for never beating Harry in Quidditch," DuffyPoo: >I don't know when this happened. Draco didn't play in PS, they played against each other in CoS but the tournament was cancelled before the end so HP only beat DM once, Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup in PoA, there was no Quidditch in GoF and HP was off the team after the first game in OotP so any beating after the first game would have been done by Ginny Weasley. The final that year was against Ravenclaw. Dharma replies; I don't know think Lucius has ever had public words with Draco about Quidditch, but he did have a problem with Hermione out-performing Draco academically. He did publicly discuss his displeasure with Draco's performance very curtly with Mr. Borgin, who does not seem to be a friend or close companion of any member of the Malfoy family. Kate: >> "sneers at, threatens and goes out of his way to impede Dumbledore" DuffyPoo: >Because Dumbledore is a friend of Muggles and "Mudbloods" and Malfoy thinks someone else should be in charge of the school. As above, we know LM's opinion of anyone who is not pure-blood, and even of those who are but have 'no wizard pride'. Dharma replies: This does not justify threatening to curse the school governors' families to get Dumbledore. In fact it reinforces the idea that Lucius will abuse is power to further his ends. There is also the issue of him giving an eleven-year-old a dangerous object in order to cause mayhem, fear and potential deaths. Kate wrote: >> "and is a known death eater." DuffyPoo: > So does this infer that all DEs are abusive to their children? Dharma replies: We have no evidence one way or the other to determine if the Death Eaters abuse their children. It's not an unreasonable implication. Why would people who have little problem killing other have a problem abusing others? >> "Yup. I think it would be safe to say he's abusive." DuffyPoo: >Unfortunately, I cannot agree. I see absolutely no evidence that Draco is abused by his father or his mother. He's a loved, pampered little spoiled brat of a prince. LM gets sick of his whining from time to time but so do all parents. LM bought Draco a racing broom when he wasn't on the house team - in spite of DM's whining - and bought brooms for the rest of the team to get baby- Draco on the school team. LM used his influence to arrange the for the execution of Buckbeak for a mere scratch on his son's arm. Dharma replies: There is ample evidence that *Lucius is an abusive person*. Just because Lucius has the economic power to lavish gifts on Draco or to manipulate circumstance to favor Draco, it does not follow that Lucius is not abusive to his son. The extent to which Draco is the subject of his abusive behavior is questionable, as we only know what Harry knows. From persephone_kore at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 23:44:17 2004 From: persephone_kore at yahoo.com (persephone_kore) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:44:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112282 > PK responded: > > Well, I don't see why, if you can go back in time at all, you'd be > > restricted to times you'd actually been to previously unless you > > were actually stuck sharing your own consciousness at the time -- > > which isn't the case. > > > > Whether he could perform an action which changes events is quite > > irrelevant, as if Harry saved Snape he would of course *always* have > > been the one who saved Snape, just as he was of course *always* the > > one who cast the Patronus that chased the Dementors away. JKR > > doesn't actually do the changing-events variety of time travel -- > > it might look that way, but only because the reader and characters > > didn't have all the facts the first time around. > > > SSSusan again: > Hey, PK, thanks for answering this. But, see? I just DON'T get it! > If a person wasn't alive in, say, 1800, then why *should* he be able > to go to 1800, do something which impacted the course of events, then > return to the present? It seems like such a cop-out in telling a > story! > > If a person was born in 1970 and returned from 2004 to 1974, then I > could see that happening--he really WAS alive in 1974, so it > makes "sense" that he could *always* have been the one to have done > X or Y. But if he travels back to 1800, it *doesn't* make sense to > me that he was *always* the one to have done X or Y. PK: I think time travel just isn't your thing, is it? The thing is, why should it make a difference? Take your "If a person was born in 1970 and returned from 2004 to 1974" scenario. If X or Y is something he did *at the age of four*, there's no need for time travel. If it's something he went back in time to do at the age of 34, I can't see why having his four-year-old self existing simultaneously would somehow make this more possible. If you don't like the idea of time travel at all, then I rather doubt I can convince you it's a cop-out. But I don't think it's any more of one than any other plot device, and it can be worked into things quite intricately. Perhaps you can think of it this way. Picture a timeline. Mark off, in your mind, the years, centuries, even go down to hours, minutes, and seconds. Well, don't really go to all that trouble; just take it that you have a line, or a ribbon, and as you go along it in one direction you are looking at earlier or later times. Now picture each individual person as having a thread of their own, starting at the point on the overall timeline when they come into existence and ending at their death. I think you should be fine so far. Something kind of like the Fates and their life-threads, perhaps. All right. In order to perform time travel, there has to be some means -- technological, magical, mental, whatever -- that can take an individual's *personal* timeline and rearrange it with respect to the main one. So, for example, when your hypothetical person reaches 2004 and goes back in time, it might look as if their thread has been severed and the end just "later" than the cut slid back to 1974 -- or 1800. In either case, it will proceed normally from there until the individual dies or moves in time again. Keep in mind that to the *person*, however, their own thread is continuous. Subjectively, they are going through 1974 or 1800 *after* they went through 2004. If they go to 1974, their thread will be running temporarily alongside itself, but the two sections will still be independent. If they go to 1800, the 34-year-old no more requires another section of their life to be taking place simultaneously than if they'd stayed put and continued proceeding through 2004, 2005, etc. If you step back and look at the overall timeline, assuming you're using the single-timeline theory, you see that as of 2004, whatever the time-traveling person did in 1974 (or 1800) *had already happened in 2004*. The individual simply had not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it yet. (Keep in mind that as an alternative, you can look at the individual's personal timeline -- which is not actually *broken*, just displaced with respect to the main one -- and see things go 1974, 1975, 1976... 2004, 1974.... and so on.) The things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, which is why I say they "had always done them" and that they are not actually going back and doing things that change events. But if they go back at age 34 to a time in which they were also four years old, what they do depends on the four-year-old's existence only to the degree that if they go back to a time before they were born, what they do depends on the existence of the atoms that eventually make them up. Now, if you take the theory that going back in time DOES change things, producing alternate timelines, you would have one ribbon going along normally, and then when someone went back in time to do something that *had not been done*, the ribbon would split in two. One would be the timeline he came from, where the thing had not happened. The new one would be the same up to the point he did it, and then it would branch off. (Then there are further concerns such as whether or not you can actually get back to your 'home' timeline -- which, it should be noted, you have not altered.) There is the third possibility, employed in "Back to the Future," in which you go back in time and actually do change your own past, which is what leads to such paradoxes as "I went back in time... and corrected this problem... so I never had occasion to go back in time..." etc. JKR, perhaps realizing that her audience would not necessarily be familiar with the conventions of time travel or perhaps simply preferring this version, chose the option where if you go back in time, whatever you do there (or then) has already been taken into account in your own past. This is made clear by the fact that Harry and Hermione go through a particular time period twice, and the second time through, several different things they noticed during the first time are specifically referred to -- they just know what those things mean this time, whereas before they didn't, or misinterpreted them. But the same things happened in that time period. They just lived it twice. This is why I think the people who say "But why don't they use a Time Turner to go back and rescue Sirius?" and other such things do not make sense. JKR does not appear to be writing a universe in which you can actually change the past. PK From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 23:52:10 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:52:10 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > ~Yb: > How can you "decide" what memories to erase? "Obliviate" seems to > take care of everything, even how to write your own name in joined- > up writing, as evidenced by Lockhart, but there must be varying > degrees of Memory Charms, otherwise Marietta wouldn't have had much > use for Hogwarts after this little encounter. So to erase 6 months > of meetings, how would you go about just getting the ones you want? > > Any thoughts? > I think this accuracy should just be ascribed to "magic". "Obliviate!" pronounced with the proper emphasis, wand movements, and **intention** to erase DA meetings, activities, and personnel does the trick. No worrying about how the biological brain stores memories. No worrying about how many DA meetings there were. Just the intent and training and power. Kingsley should have the talent and ability to accomplish it. I don't think the wizarding world understands how reality works on a lot of levels, b/c they have never needed to know it. Pomfey doesn't need to know about anti-biotics or how bones really knit together. She doesn't need to know about stem cells to re-grow Harry's arm. I think we muggles have questions that would never occur to a wizard. I see the following "Who's on First?" type conversation: Muggle: How did Kingsley just erase the DA meetings? Wizard: He Obliviated them. M: But how did he know how to get the RIGHT memories? W: He OBLIVIATED them. M: But HOW did he just erase THOSE memories and not any OTHER memories? W: He ***OBLIVIATED*** them!!! As for Gilderoy and the joined-up (cursive) writing--Magic seems to be a force wizards can use to make their dreams reality. The more complex the dream or desire, the more complex spell required. I don't mean lots of words or hard to remember lines, but even Hermione needs to practice in Charms and Transfiguration. It's not just pronunciation and wand movement--I think it's intention and concentration--like I'd imagine telepathy/telekinesis would take. Complex magic seems to require tools--for the most part wands--to focus the intent. Wands all seem to have magical creatures' essences at their core, again, negating any possible scientific explanations for their workings. That given (my opinion, that is) Gilderoy ended up in such a mess b/c he was really intending to wipe out huge parts of the boys' memories. He's not a nice man at all, and I think he deserves to be in St. Mungo's or worse. Gilderoy didn't know when or how the boys had figured out the secret of the Chamber, so he was going to take it all away--can't leave any straggling memory that might have contributed to the discovery. Gilderoy wasn't going to take a chance of them remembering anything at all that might expose him. Any loose ends might undo the spell and reveal Lockhart's perfidy. At the very least, he was going to remove the entire year(wish I could quote here, but I don't have my books (GRRR!)) Luckily, Ron's wand misfired--so we have intent, power (Gilderoy's special talent), but mussed up wand-work (with that Unicorn hair not transmuting the magical power correctly). If it'd been a decent wand, Ron and Harry would be in St. Mungo's working on their joined-up writing again. We see intention affecting spellwork again in OotP, when Harry couldn't properly Crucio Bella. He knew the spell, it'd been used on him. But he didn't have the intent, which I believe must include some sadism--not just wanting to cause pain, but a perverse enjoyment in the pain of another. Simply feeling pain and rage and wanting/needing revenge weren't enough to get the full effect. For me, I see the need for sadism in intent as the reason why Crucio is an unforgivable curse. There are undoubtedly lesser spells that cause pain--but they're called "hexes" and "jinxes" b/c even if the intent is to cause pain, it's not sadism, i.e., the spellcaster is not enjoying the pain of another simply because s/he is hurting them. Like a hand-buzzer shock for a joke. Or a slap across the face in anger. Or tripping someone. Like when Fred, George, Hermione, Ron, and Harry sling random hexes/jinxes at Draco & Co. on the Hogwarts Express. Not nice, but not unforgivable. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 7 19:21:29 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:21:29 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: <105.5013808e.2e6f3edd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112284 > Chancie wrote: > It doesn't really make since to me that there would be time limits on the TT, > but the only thing about not having limits is, why don't they just use it to > kill Tom Riddle when he's a baby so that no one has to suffer from the things > that he will do if given the chance. It would seem like the easiest fix for > the whole situation. Harry's parent's would still be alive, Hagrid wouldn't > have been framed, and expelled. Cedric wouldn't have been Killed. Neville's > parent's would still be sane. Sirius would still be alive....well I think > I've made my point. But then again if none of these things happened then > there wouldn't be much of a story either huh.... The only thing I guess that can solve this is JKR answering it for us. But then maybe something like this will happen in the end. When asked in a chat if the TT will be back her answer was "NOT TELLING!" Hannah now: Time travel is very complicated to get my head round, and worse so to try and explain in words, so sorry if this doesn't make much (or any) sense. I think the reason they can't kill baby Riddle is because all those things *have already happened*. If, say, DD went back in time and killed Riddle, then the future from then on would be different, but since the future from then on (i.e. the sixty odd years leading up to the stories) happened as it did, Riddle obviously wasn't killed. When Harry and Hermione went back in time in PoA, they didn't *change* anything. The actions of time-travelled H and H occurred parallel to those of first-time-round H and H. For instance, they hear the sound of themselves in the wood, Harry sees himself across the lake (but luckily thinks its his Dad). So when H and H left the hospital wing, Buckbeak had already been saved. DD knew this, although they didn't, and perhaps that helped him allow H and H to do something so dangerous, since he knew they had *already* sucessfully done it. Harry is able to produce the patronus because he knows he has already done it. At the time he thought his Dad had saved him, but that was because he was interpreting events wrongly. Once he had time travelled and was standing on the other side of the lake watching his past self get dementored, he then realised that the spell he had witnessed was actually one his present self had cast. Killing baby Riddle wouldn't work. If one of the characters time- travelled now to do it, we know they wouldn't succeed. Because if they did, they wouldn't have known to go and do it in the first place, since adult Riddle would never have existed. I think the difficult thing in changing the past is actually making sure the *change* that is being made is actually something that happened - no wonder it's so difficult! Hannah, who feels more confused than when she started. From persephone_kore at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 23:52:44 2004 From: persephone_kore at yahoo.com (persephone_kore) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:52:44 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "texaschow" wrote: > > Chancie wrote: > > It doesn't really make since to me that there would be time limits > on the TT, but the only thing about not having limits is, why don't > they just use it to kill Tom Riddle when he's a baby so that no one > has to suffer from the things that he will do if given the chance. > It would seem like the easiest fix for the whole situation. Harry's > parent's would still be alive, Hagrid wouldn't have been framed, and > expelled. Cedric wouldn't have been Killed. Neville's parent's > would still be sane. Sirius would still be alive....well I think > I've made my point. > > ~~me~~ > I think that, if possible, your solution would solve all of their > problems (though it is unknown what others it might create), the only > persons I believe who would be willing to go to such lengths (i.e. > kill a defenseless baby/child) would be those of the nature of > Voldemort and his followers. I just can't see any of the "good" guys > stooping to such measures. While Voldemort was certainly willing to > kill Harry while an infant (that backfired, didn't it?), I just can't > see Dumbledore or any of the others aligned with him ever doing > anything of the like. Fight an adult who can defend him/herself, > yes, but not go after an innocent child. > > ~Cathy~ As I just said in another response (unfortunately I forgot to change the subject line), there is another problem here that isn't moral at all: JKR does not seem to be writing a universe in which one can actually change the past. She took considerable pains in PoA to make it clear that everything Harry and Hermione did after they went back in time *had in fact already been happening while they lived through that period for the first time*. The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and wizards killing their past and future selves, does seem to confuse the issue -- killing one's future self shouldn't actually present a problem of feasibility in itself, but killing one's past self should be impossible. Still, the *actual* use of time travel in PoA supports the idea that you don't actually change anything when you go back in time. Aside from the fact that Harry and Hermione *don't*, there's the moment where Hermione realizes she missed Charms because people have already observed her not being there -- and therefore she *wasn't* there and can't fix it. You could argue with *that* one on the grounds that Hermione doesn't always think of the creative solution, but combined with the way the more plot-critical time-travel works out, I think I'm going with the idea they can't change it. PK From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 23:55:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:55:53 -0000 Subject: More COS clues: Dobby related In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112286 sad1199 wrote: > > I have already said in post #107071 that I > think somewhere in Lily's heritage there is elvin blood. She who is > a mere witch stopped Voldemort from killing Harry by sacrificing > herself? I just don't buy it. Now, if she had some sort of stronger > powers that were not widely known-such as elvin powers, I could see > her stopping the strongest wizard ever (next to Dumbldore, of > course). Maybe because she did not have full elvin capabilities she > could not stop Voldemort from killing her but she was able to > deflect or counter Voldemort's curse on Harry back to himself. > I also think Dobby will have more to do in the last two books. He > seems to be a small character that has been growing into a larger > character throughout the books we have so far. Especially, if it > comes out that Lily/Harry are related to him in some way. As was > said before it is VERY unusual for a house elf to go directly > against his wizard family and Dobby obviously chose to help Harry > and go against years(?) of tradition. > > ...happy, caring, loving... sad1199 Carol responds: I agree with you that self-sacrifice by itself is an inadequate explanation for the "ancient magic" that protected baby Harry from Voldemort. Surely many parents sacrificed themselves to protect their children and many husbands and wives sacrificed themselves to protect each other, but *none* succeeded in deflecting a completed avada kedavra curse except Lily. I disagree, though, that the reason her self-sacrifice succeeds in saving Harry is that she has House Elf blood. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, there's no canon support for Lily having any ancestors other than Muggles (though there could conceivably be a distant witch, wizard, or Squib a few centuries back). There is, however, evidence that she's skilled at Charms, presented to us in the first book when Ollivander tells Harry that Lily's first wand was "nice . . . for Charm work" while James's was excellent for Transfiguration. The James reference foreshadows his skill as an animagus, an advanced form of Transfiguration; the Lily reference almost certainly foreshadows an important role for her skill with Charms. There are hints, too, that she was a powerful witch. Note the respect that Hagrid and McGonagall have for her and James's wariness in the Pensieve scene, almost as if he's afraid she'll hex him. For this reason, I think that Lily placed the Fidelius Charm on Peter Pettigrew (who else could have done it? Dumbledore didn't) and that she placed some other protective charm involving "ancient magic" (and her own self-sacrifice) on baby Harry to protect him from Voldemort and/or the avada kedavra curse. (Possibly she consulted with Dumbledore before doing this, which would account for his apparent foreknowledge of the events at Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore then built on Lily's foundation with the blood protection involving Petunia Dursley.) Carol From sagelyone at hotmail.com Tue Sep 7 20:33:58 2004 From: sagelyone at hotmail.com (K.Johnson) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:33:58 -0400 Subject: Fudge & Umbridge believing in Voldy's return Message-ID: <1094589238.8138.203878480@webmail.messagingengine.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112287 Hi all, I've been a luker on the board for a few years now. Something about OOTP has been bugging me for ages and I don't know if it's been discussed before. I'm listening to the book on CD (over and over again) in my car... not in order, but mixed up... you can concentrate on certain parts that way. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, if so, please point me to the post. If Umbridge doesn't believe LV is back, why would she insist that Harry knows where Sirius is? (Especially that whole scene with the Veritserum) Is Umbridge dumb enough to think that Harry would be speaking to Sirius --someone who was trying to kill him and betrayed his parents? Why would she think Harry is on the DE's side? Why does she think that Harry, Dumbledore and Sirius have "been in on this whole thing together from the start?" Yes, I know that deep down Umbridge and Fudge know that Dumbledore is right and that LV has returned. But how many people (outside the Order) know the truth about Sirius, Peter and the whole secret-keeper thing? In order to believe that Harry and Sirius are in cahoots, you have to know the whole Sirius story, the whole POA story. That raises another issue. Did Dumbledore tell Fudge the truth (everything about Sirius, the time turner, etc) between POA and GOF? Or was that part of what Dumbledore was explaining to Fudge at the end of GOF? During Harry's hearing, Fudge bumbles on about "are you going to tell me some story involving a time turner, etc..." (sorry I don't have my book in front of me.) Seems like Fudge has heard the real story, but chooses not to believe any of it. I've always thought of it as a stretch not to believe DD and HP, AND to assume that Sirius and Harry are in cahoots. But if you didn't want anyone to know that LV has returned, wouldn't you keep your paranoia to yourself? It's one thing to say that DD is old and off his rocker, but I wouldn't go around saying that Harry is crazy and that he's communicating with Sirius Black. To the average wizard, that would have them scratching their heads, based on the knowledge that the "public" has. The MoM behavior in OOTP has always baffled me. If you're Fudge, you can't go around telling your employees, "uh, well, we have good reason to believe that Sirius isn't a death eater and that he's communicating with Harry Potter, but let's try to supress it all and keep it hush-hush. Oh yea, let's not forget that Harry Potter is also deranged." That just doesn't compute. Granted, Fudge and Umbridge do a good deal of BSing during Harry's 5th year, because they're silly, ignorant gits. Umbridge's quest to make Harry's life miserable shouldn't really make sense to the Wizarding World and Hogwarts students considering they don't know the real story. Yes, I know DD spoke at the end of term feast, but it doesn't seem to get through to anyone, or shall I say that no one has put all the pieces together. And of course there's the Daily Prophet. As a journalist myself, I can't say enough about how crappy that paper is. Well, if anyone can shed some light on all of this, that would be great. I'd love a discussion on this. Am I the only one thinking (and being frustrated) by this? Kim -who's next question will revolve around how several MoM officials don't appear to be good wizards. (Umbridge being unable to do spells to get rid of F&G pranks, Fudge not knowing if Squibs can see dementors, etc...) From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 7 23:57:10 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:57:10 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > ~Yb: > How can you "decide" what memories to erase? "Obliviate" seems to > take care of everything, even how to write your own name in joined- > up writing, as evidenced by Lockhart, but there must be varying > degrees of Memory Charms, otherwise Marietta wouldn't have had much > use for Hogwarts after this little encounter. So to erase 6 months > of meetings, how would you go about just getting the ones you want? > > Any thoughts? > I think this accuracy should just be ascribed to "magic". "Obliviate!" pronounced with the proper emphasis, wand movements, and **intention** to erase DA meetings, activities, and personnel does the trick. No worrying about how the biological brain stores memories. No worrying about how many DA meetings there were. Just the intent and training and power. Kingsley should have the talent and ability to accomplish it. I don't think the wizarding world understands how reality works on a lot of levels, b/c they have never needed to know it. Pomfey doesn't need to know about anti-biotics or how bones really knit together. She doesn't need to know about stem cells to re-grow Harry's arm. I think we muggles have questions that would never occur to a wizard. I see the following "Who's on First?" type conversation: Muggle: How did Kingsley just erase the DA meetings? Wizard: He Obliviated them. M: But how did he know how to get the RIGHT memories? W: He OBLIVIATED them. M: But HOW did he just erase THOSE memories and not any OTHER memories? W: He ***OBLIVIATED*** them!!! As for Gilderoy and the joined-up (cursive) writing--Magic seems to be a force wizards can use to make their dreams reality. The more complex the dream or desire, the more complex spell required. I don't mean lots of words or hard to remember lines, but even Hermione needs to practice in Charms and Transfiguration. It's not just pronunciation and wand movement--I think it's intention and concentration--like I'd imagine telepathy/telekinesis would take. Complex magic seems to require tools--for the most part wands--to focus the intent. Wands all seem to have magical creatures' essences at their core, again, negating any possible scientific explanations for their workings. That given (my opinion, that is) Gilderoy ended up in such a mess b/c he was really intending to wipe out huge parts of the boys' memories. He's not a nice man at all, and I think he deserves to be in St. Mungo's or worse. Gilderoy didn't know when or how the boys had figured out the secret of the Chamber, so he was going to take it all away--can't leave any straggling memory that might have contributed to the discovery. Gilderoy wasn't going to take a chance of them remembering anything at all that might expose him. Any loose ends might undo the spell and reveal Lockhart's perfidy. At the very least, he was going to remove the entire year(wish I could quote here, but I don't have my books (GRRR!)) Luckily, Ron's wand misfired--so we have intent, power (Gilderoy's special talent), but mussed up wand-work (with that Unicorn hair not transmuting the magical power correctly). If it'd been a decent wand, Ron and Harry would be in St. Mungo's working on their joined-up writing again. We see intention affecting spellwork again in OotP, when Harry couldn't properly Crucio Bella. He knew the spell, it'd been used on him. But he didn't have the intent, which I believe must include some sadism--not just wanting to cause pain, but a perverse enjoyment in the pain of another. Simply feeling pain and rage and wanting/needing revenge weren't enough to get the full effect. For me, I see the need for sadism in intent as the reason why Crucio is an unforgivable curse. There are undoubtedly lesser spells that cause pain--but they're called "hexes" and "jinxes" b/c even if the intent is to cause pain, it's not sadism, i.e., the spellcaster is not enjoying the pain of another simply because s/he is hurting them. Like a hand-buzzer shock for a joke. Or a slap across the face in anger. Or tripping someone. Like when Fred, George, Hermione, Ron, and Harry sling random hexes/jinxes at Draco & Co. on the Hogwarts Express. Not nice, but not unforgivable. -TL From n.crins at planet.nl Tue Sep 7 20:51:28 2004 From: n.crins at planet.nl (niekycrins) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:51:28 -0000 Subject: LV and HP wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112289 The wand chooses the wizard, according to Ollivander. So the wand with the first Fawkes feather chose LV (TR), the second wand chose HP. What exactly does this mean? When did LV get the Fawkes wand? Why did the priori incantatem in GOF only go back to the murder of James and Lily, LV surely murdered/tortured more people before that.. Nieky From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 7 21:01:57 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:01:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: <20040907.170847.1196.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112290 Joe Bento said: > fan fiction stories by different authors have concentrated on > Draco's abusive homelife, and I'm most curious if this stems from > clues in the books. Aura now: I have no doubt that Lucius is at least verbally abusive and emotionally screwed up. Anything physical? I don't know, maybe; I wouldn't expect anything extreme, but I wouldn't be surprised by it, either. In the CoS DVD extras, the guy who plays Lucius says that he wanted to give the audience some explanation for why Draco is such a little bastard, so he play Lucius as "bullying" Draco quite a bit. And it isn't just coming from the actor; obviously the character is written that way in the movie. > Draco obviously has the highest respect for his father. Is this > perhaps partially out of fear? I think it's mostly out of control. Draco has been raised to respect his father and not question his father's beliefs or behavior. Squashing your kid's inner spirit is at least bad parenting, and it's a question of methods and degree as to whether or not it's abuse. As for canon proof? The scene in the beginning of CoS at Nocturne Ally does show Lucius ridiculing Draco, and you get the sense that Draco knows that he'd better toe the line or else. Aside from that, we only see things from Harry's POV, but I think anyone -- including JKR -- would recognize that a kid with as much anger as Draco has to be in quite a bit of pain himself. And anyone who has the kind of hatred Lucius does that would make him an active and *ambitious* Death Eater has got to have some issues himself. So, yes, I think there's issues of control, some sort of verbal or emotional abuse, and a generally unpleasant emotional climate between father and son. But I don't think it's as simple as Draco being a jackass because he fears his father will strike him if he isn't. Because abuse is never as simple as that. Magda said: >Draco's whinging in Mr. Borgin's shop while Harry watches reminds me >more of a spoiled brat than an abused one. I don't see that those have to be mutually exclusive; or, as someone else said, that buying brooms for the Slytherin team means that Lucius is a saint. Abusers don't abuse b/c they hate their child, they do it because they have issues with anger, control, and other emotional stuff. Abuse isn't just a matter of getting hit, either; the undercurrents of control, fear of anger/confrontation, and issues of self esteem and insecurity (from both abuser and abused) are complicated and are more damaging than just being hit from time to time (and I do believe that Draco is probably only hit once in a while, when his father is most angry, if even that often). Draco and Lucius display the typical abusive parent dynamic: having extreme control over the child, Draco being exactly like his father in all the bad ways, Draco being such an ass in so many ways. Individiually, these things don't mean much, but if you look at the Draco-Lucius relationship as a whole, it seems strange to me to *not* suspect abuse. On a somewhat related note, of all the "evil " characters in the books, Draco is the only one I'd like to see reformed, or at least become self-aware. Not because I like him (I hate the little bastard), but because it would resolve his character arc nicely. I see him as a kid who's had some bad influences (his parents, Snape) but he's still just a *kid*. People can and do grow beyond their childhoods. At some point -- maybe in a final battle -- I'd like Draco to see his father do something so heinous, that even Draco can't stand by it, resulting in a big father-son blowup and parting of the ways. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Sep 7 21:26:43 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 17:26:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <7d.579892de.2e6f8193@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112291 flamingstarchows at att.net writes: > I just can't see Dumbledore or any of the others aligned with > him ever doing anything of the like. Fight an adult who can > defend him/herself, yes, but not go after an innocent child. Yes I agree with you! I also thought about the fact that they could go back just as far as Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for opening the Chamber of Secrets. They could then try to send him to Azkaban (I don't know how old you have to be in order to be punished there I would think it's probably older than 16) or just duel him then. He definatly wouldn't be considered an inocent child then seeing as how he caused Moning Murtle's death. This would solve the "guilty concence" factor, but still produce the same result. What do you think? Chancie From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Sep 8 00:05:21 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:05:21 -0000 Subject: Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112292 --- "ivogun" (barbara roberts) wrote: > There was some discussion not too long ago about how > Neville is hindered by using his father's wand. And > I began wondering again about other ways that Neville > is disadvantaged. [Discussion of melting cauldrons.] > > My theory is that thin cauldrons are a major plague > of the wizarding poor. So much so that the working > class ("tiny, grubby-looking") pub that Harry sees in > the first book is called "The Leaky [Cauldron]." ... > > Neville is probably quite poor. Probably his uncle > (or is it great uncle?) is the only one in the family > currently bringing in a salary. His Grandmother seems > stern matriarchs who knows how to make do and how to > put up a good front. I can almost her telling Neville > that this or that will do...when in reality it won't. > How else can we explain Neville's toad? Even Hagrid, > not exactly a fashion expert, tells Harry that toads > "went outta fashion years ago." > > JKR does seem to have an interest with the poor.... > And Snape who has all the bat imagery associated with > him--does it mostly indicate that he comes not just > from a poor family, but that he was born in the meanest > of poor slums complete with prostitutes and thieves? > > It does make one want to rethink Snape's relation with > Neville in potion's class. Interesting theory. Rowling surely does show an interest in class issues. I'm a bit suspicious, however, of straining to find such issues under the surface when Rowling has shown no hesitation in addressing them openly. Examples: * the recurrent poverty theme involving the Weasleys; * the excesses of the Dursleys; * Harry's discomfort with the issue around Ron and his family, and his consciousness of the contrast between his social standing and access to wealth in the Muggle world and the Wizarding world; * the Malfoys' constant focus on wealth and how to use it to get what they want; * the subtheme on wealth and the Black family; * the status and forced poverty of the house elves I agree that Hogwarts (like most RW private schools) is a rather privileged place, but I have trouble reaching any conclusion one way or the other about Neville. I don't think much of an inference can be drawn from his choice of pet: Trevor was a gift from his uncle Algie, who may well have been out of touch with the "fashion." -- Matt From susanadacunha at gmx.net Wed Sep 8 00:03:27 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:03:27 +0100 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? References: <000e01c494b8$d7c56df0$7bc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <003301c49538$717ed060$2f2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112293 Sherrie: "or her 112% on her Charms test" DuffyPoo: >Not to mention the 320% on her Muggle Studies exam! ;-)< Susana: " that Hermione has fear of failure and that's why she tries so hard to be perfect." DuffyPoo: >A 'fear of failure' and hence a thirst to prove herself. She's been thrust into a world she knows nothing of, fears failure, and so "Hermione Granger was on the edge of her seat and looked desperate to start proving that she wasn't a dunderhead."< -------------------------- Ok, I wasn't sure I should go further on this. I spent most of my school years trying and failing to convince my friends that the fact that I was disappointed with 90% in a test was not a thirst to prove myself. I'm not expecting to convince you but I thought I should add my view to the discussion. A very intelligent person (I'm not half as intelligent as Hermione) rarely has the *need* to prove one self, less even a *thirst* to prove one self. IMO, in Hermione's case, fear of failure has *nothing* to do with wanting to prove herself. She fears failure not because other people will think she's dumb; but because *she* will know she has limits. When I found out what my limits were I had an acute depression (and I'm not half as intelligent as Hermione). She fears failure because she fears her limitations and what will be impossible for her due to those limitations. I doubt she's concern about disappointing others (half of what she is would be good enough) or even herself. I remember your quote vaguely but I don't know where it's from (please inform). Nevertheless, the quote doesn't state she *wanted* to prove herself; is states she *looked* like she wanted to prove herself. The fact that I never convinced my friends that I had no wish to prove myself makes me assume that I *looked* like that. Susana who identifies more with Hermione than she did at the beginning of this thread. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 7 22:57:06 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:57:06 +0100 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) References: Message-ID: <003201c49538$6fe9d880$2f2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112294 Susana wrote: >>I disagree that Hermione has *any* Slytherin traits: Slytherin have a 'thirst to prove themselves' and they believe in the supremacy of pure blood. IMO, those are the two required characteristics.<< HunterGreen wrote: "You might be missing a few things there. From what we've been told about Slytherins, they are ambitious, use any means to achieve their ends, given the choice will always save their own neck and come from a 'pure ancestory' (I take that to mean pureblood, or half-blood at the least). Slytherin does not *require* believing in pureblood supremacy, its just that many of the students in that house happen to." ------------- Well, there's where we disagree. I don't think Slytherin requires 'pure ancestry' - half-blood is hardly considered 'pure ancestry'. Tom Riddle was half blooded but he believed in the supremacy of pure blood. I always assumed the requirement was that believe and not the pure blood ancestry (though I agree that a muggleborn wouldn't be sorted in to Slytherin - it would be strange if he/she *believed*). ------------- HunterGreen wrote: "Of those requirements, I think Hermione fits two of them (she is ambitious and she uses any means to achieve her ends). Actually, I think Hermione fits in Slytherin almost as well as she does in Gryffindor...however she would never be placed there as she is a muggleborn. Speaking of using 'any means' to acheive her ends, am I the only one who's getting a little frightened of Hermione? Back when I was first reading the books she was my favorite character, but around the time she kidnapped Rita Skeeter in GoF she's worried me a little bit. Hermione is ruthless, strong-willed, and often dangerous." ------------- I can see I'm alone on this. There's a difference between pursuing ones objective and doing it at all costs. I don't think Hermione would use *all* means to achieve her ends - only those she thinks are justifiable. One may argue that her means are *not* justifiable, but I'm arguing that *she* believes they are. You seem to be implying that she draws no line; I'm saying she draws a line that some people consider excessive. Personally I think it's a very courageous line because she's aware of how close to 'wrong' she is and how easily she can cross it by mistake. When telling Harry and Ron about Rita in GoF, she shows signs of being nervous (guilt?) to find out her friends reaction to what she's done. My interpretation was that she's not sure if she crossed the limit. Is she dangerous? Oh, yes. Along with DD she's one of the most dangerous characters in Potterverse. People who fight for a cause that transcend their own welfare (house elves rights/muggle rights/etc.) are often a lot more dangerous than people who 'just' seek power - who are 'just' ambitious. Ambitious people tend to draw a completely different line that has nothing to do with 'justifiable': How much will they sacrifice *their* present welfare for their goals. That line usually makes them predictable and even controllable. But the right/wrong line is completely unpredictable. So unpredictable that people have suggested in another tread that DD knew Sirius was innocent and let him rot in Azkaban so Harry could be miserable with the Dursleys - all in the name of a good cause. Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because it's too flexible. I said she doesn't have a 'thirst to prove herself' - 'thirst' being the key word here. While Percy clearly wants to be an important person; Hermione wants to "do something worth while" (OotP). And I never met someone who says that and is after recognition. People who use that expression regarding their aim in life usually spent their lives fighting for a nearly lost cause. You can say that's 'ambitious' but that is the reason I didn't use that word - it's not a thirst for recognition. ---------------- HunterGreen wrote: "There's one other thing that we've been told about Slytherins, that being that they have a disregard for the rules, and on the surface that wouldn't fit Hermione at all. On the surface that is. Hermione obeys the rules when they work for her." ------------------- Ok, I overlooked that as a Slytherin trait. You are right, of course. A certain disregard for the rules is definitely Slytherin, and Hermione has it. But then again, she's a teenager. Even Percy could be found with a girl in an empty classroom late at night. Braking rules is part of growing up. --------------------- HunterGreen wrote: "Personally I think Hermione might have fit in Slytherin if she weren't a muggleborn (as would Percy if he didn't come from a "muggle- loving" family). But it was definitely for the best that she didn't end up there." --------------------- I shall quote DD in CoS: "It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Are you implying (again) that the sorting is based on ones family? - Even if you mean that it's so only for the Slytherin House, do you mean Percy chose his ambition over the rest but Salazar-Slytherin-in-the-hat refused him because *his family* loves muggles? This is the same discussion as above: is it *pure blood* or *belief in pure blood supremacy*? I chose the later because our believes are our choice; our ancestry is not. Hermione and Percy are in Gryfindor because they *chose* to; Not because they were rejected by the other houses! At the risk of repeating myself I clarify what I meant: we all have a bit of the four houses in us. Our choices sow how we weight different values. Susana PS - Why do you say Draco is not a good seeker? Harry is better than Draco because he's *very* good but the Slytherin always seem to be a strong candidate to the Quidditch cup. And I recall that Draco knew how to fly before entering Hogwarts. I know he bought his place on the team, but that doesn't mean his lousy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:13:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:13:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > . > > > > Dumbledore could have interviewed Sirius, but I can think of a > > good reason why he didn't. We know that before the attack on > > the Potters, Dumbledore already suspected that Sirius might be > > the traitor. > > Marianne: > > Granted I haven't reread any of the books in over a year, but I don't recall Dumbledore saying that he suspected Sirius was the traitor. Carol: He did, however, offer to be the Secret Keeper, suggesting that he had some doubts about Sirius (and presumably Lupin and Peter). He knew it was one of them but didn't know which. (Yes, he's a Legilimens, but presumably, a Legilimens doesn't just invade the mind of everyone he's conversing with, and he may not have had much one-on-one contact with any of James's and Lily's friends. Certainly he wouldn't just confront them with his suspicions.) I think he simply didn't know who the traitor was, but he did know that Sirius was capable of great rashness and that he had once placed Severus Snape *and* Remus Lupin in great danger. We know that he testified that Sirius had been made Secret Keeper. He must have believed that, and that Sirius had murdered Peter Pettigrew and twelve Muggles, and he would have seen no reason to visit him. He almost certainly would not have let him suffer in Azkaban for twelve years without visiting him if he had any doubt whatever of Sirius's guilt. He "knew" that Peter Pettigrew was dead and therefore Sirius, who was also present, must have killed him. But the strongest evidence that he believed Sirius guilty, IMO, is his allowing the Dementors--whom we know he detested--to guard the Hogwarts grounds. Surely if he'd had any doubt he would have stepped forward with the suggestion that Sirius might not be guilty to prevent the Dementors from sucking the soul of a possibly innocent man--and endangering his own students as well. But he didn't. Like Lupin (who nevertheless withheld useful information from Dumbledore), he believed that Sirius was guilty. IMO, there can be no other explanation for his reluctant decision to allow the Dementors to guard the school. Carol From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:21:35 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:21:35 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112296 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > > Ravenclaw Bookworm responded: > > > Same scene, different POV ? The Hand of Glory. It doesn't > > > add anything to the plot. > > > > > > The deleted version of the scene is much longer and includes > Draco > > > almost finding Harry. IIRC, the part with the Malfoys coming > into > > > the store was deleted, but the Hand was left in. I might be > willing > > > to stake a couple of knuts on it ? any takers? Mac interjects: leaving the hand in the medium that must not be named added a moment of suspense early on that otherwise isn't there for many more minutes. It certainly caught my kids' attention (film- maker's desired affect I suspect). > JKR has actually referenced the 'Hand of Glory' in an interview > before. > > 'Did you ever make a study of herbs and other Hogwarts subjects, or > did you create all those classes from inspiration? > > Most of the magic is made up. Occasionally I will use something that > people used to believe was true - for example, the "Hand of Glory" > which Draco gets from Borgin and Burkes in Chamber of Secrets.' > > From Scolastic.com 2000. > > I did a little searching for the 'Hand of Glory' and this is what I > found. > > The hand of a man that has been hanged, when dried and prepared with > certain weird unguents and set on fire, is known as the Hand of > Glory; and as it not only bursts open all safe-locks, but also lulls > to sleep all persons within the circle of its influence, it is of > course invaluable to thieves and burglars. > > Sounds like a very handy tool. I did wonder whether this might have > been what Quirrell-Mort used to break into Gringott's!! What is REALLY interesting is that JKR says Draco 'got' it (I take this to mean took it home with him) - this is NOT what it suggests in either the film or the book. Does Draco have it or not and if so what would its importance be later? There HAS to be a reason this scene is in the book (let alone again in the film) and I can only see a few things about why. 1. Harry makes a mistake travelling by floo powder 2. Knockturn Alley (nocturnally harhar) is introduced and maybe it's located diagonally from DIAGON ALLEY (though in fact is described as being 'off' it). Could it be that diagonally when uttered in the Floo network gives you the opposite/reverse/antithesis of what you wanted? (e.g. butchers instead of greengrocers). 3. A variety of darkly magical objects is introduced, not least the hand of glory 4. Lucius' holding of 'suspicious' poisons (and other dark objects) in a secret cache at Malfoy Manor (whatever) is revealed 5. Harry encounters a hag (?) with what looks like a tray of human fingernails 6. Harry catches Hagrid where one might not expect him to be 7. We learn that Knockturn Alley is a BAD place From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:24:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:24:31 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Title -- Hyphen? In-Reply-To: <20040902022446.41610.qmail@web12310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112297 bamf wrote: > > Alas, I have found the hyphen usage on the website. > My reasoning for not using the hyphen, though, was if > an object (statue, painting) of a Blood Prince had > been halved, or broken, then the part that remains > could be called the half blood prince. Like a > reference point, or landmark, in the school (like the > statue of Uric the Oddball? and others that are > referenced every now and again). > > That was why I was waiting to see what it was actually > called. But it does look like I have to stick the > hyphen in. Drat... ;) > > Carol: I don't know what the British rules are regarding hyphen usage, but in American English, a temporary compound (i.e., one that's not in the dictionary) consisting of an adjective plus a noun or participle is hyphenated if it precedes the noun it modifies. Since "half" is an adjective and "blood" is a noun and they both precede "prince," the compound adjective is hyphenated. (Source: "The Chicago Manual of Style," 14th edition, p. 221) Carol, who as an American editor would have dutifully inserted the hyphen along with a query to the author, "OK, per CMS?" to which JKR would no doubt have responded, "What?" From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:26:30 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:26:30 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: > Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages doesn't > seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here before > about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if > someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? Thanks > from the bottom of my HP-loving heart > > khinterberg mhbobbin writes: I totally agree that there is something going on with Lupin, and that it manifests itself in the strangeness around whether or not Lupin should touch Harry. Unfortunately I can only reference my own post a couple weeks ago--110297--and some response around it. It's not much and there were no theories in that exchange. I was hoping that some other poster would know where other discussions on this are becuz there's got to be some. There are examples of Lupin touching other students so the strangeness doesn't just happen around students. In PoA we find Lupin going to touch Harry and then thinking better of it. Okay, not something that leaps off the page as strange. Yet. And he does tap Harry on the face after one of Harry's boggart fainting spells. Taps with his wand or with his hand? Didn't say. Hardly leaps off the page as a clue. Wouldn't look at it twice if it weren't for all of Lupin's emotional reactions to things Harry says. Shiver. But it gets weird in OotP. There are three episodes where Lupin shakes hands. First at Privet Drive, he shakes Harry's hand. Next, at the train station, he shakes hands all round and claps Harry on the shoulder. And third, after Christmas when they get off the Knight Bus, Lupin AGAIN shakes hands all round, but "reaches" Harry. The only time he actually shakes Harry's hand is in the one location that we learn has special protections--is that an exception that underlines that something strange is going on? Yes, Lupin grabs Harry round the chest to prevent him from following Sirius into the Veil. That is an emergency but nothing odd happens. hmmm. But the strangest part to me is Lupin's parting words to Harry at the end of OotP; "Keep in touch." IMO, that looks like a JKR signpost, pointing at something. Don't know what is going on. I think Lupin holds at least one important secret that may not be revealed until the end. But I don't know yet what it is. But as many Posters do not buy into anything going on here, I wanted to reply to khinterberg and say, YES! I thinks something is going on and if you figure it out, let me know. mhbobbin From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 00:33:34 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:33:34 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112299 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: > > Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages doesn't > > seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here before > > about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if > > someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? Thanks > > from the bottom of my HP-loving heart > > > > khinterberg > As other's have stated, Lupin touches Harry after their relationship develops. In POA when Lupin reaches toward Harry, Harry has no knowledge of the previous friendship between James, Lily and Lupin. This incident occurred before Christmas. It was during the first Patronus lesson that Harry learned that Lupin was a friend of James. Lupin did not have a "okay to touch" relationship with Harry at the time he learned Harry heard Lily's voice when the dementors were near. Harry's and Lupin's relationship developed after Christmas and the first Patronus lesson. Lupin allows Harry to develop the friendship and does not force himself on Harry as "friend of your father therefore friend to you". Lupin behaved as a responsible adult who knows how to relate to teenagers. - Karen From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:39:53 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:39:53 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > > Ravenclaw Bookworm responded: > > > Same scene, different POV ? The Hand of Glory. It doesn't > > > add anything to the plot. snip snip > > > > Sounds like a very handy tool. I did wonder whether this might have > been what Quirrell-Mort used to break into Gringott's!! mhbobbin: Interesting theory! Wonder if it's just coincidental that Dean Thomas' boggart is a severed hand in PoA? Wonder if we get to see that interesting hand again. mhbobbin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 00:43:49 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:43:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" > wrote: > > > Sorry to be a bother but the yahoo search engine for messages > doesn't > > > seem to be very useful. I am sure people have wondered on here > before > > > about why Lupin never touches Harry, and I was just wondering if > > > someone could point me in the right direction of those posts? > Thanks > > > from the bottom of my HP-loving heart > > > > > > khinterberg > > > As other's have stated, Lupin touches Harry after their relationship > develops. In POA when Lupin reaches toward Harry, Harry has no > knowledge of the previous friendship between James, Lily and Lupin. > This incident occurred before Christmas. It was during the first > Patronus lesson that Harry learned that Lupin was a friend of James. > > Lupin did not have a "okay to touch" relationship with Harry at the > time he learned Harry heard Lily's voice when the dementors were > near. Harry's and Lupin's relationship developed after Christmas and > the first Patronus lesson. Lupin allows Harry to develop the > friendship and does not force himself on Harry as "friend of your > father therefore friend to you". > > Lupin behaved as a responsible adult who knows how to relate to > teenagers. > > - Karen mhbobbin: That is not my impression at all. Maybe you could convince me of this in PoA but not in OotP. What I see is JKR drawing more attention not less to the strangeness around Lupin and Harry. (I won't repeat my whole post as it was posted about the same time as this one.) And then there are Lupin's parting words to Harry. mhbobbin From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 00:04:58 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:04:58 EDT Subject: Time Turning was (Re: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112302 PK writes: > JKR does not appear to be writing a universe in which you > can actually change the past. The only problem I can see with these type of theories is if Harry and Hermione didn't go back in time, then Buckbeak would be dead, Sirius would have been *kissed* by the dementors as well as Harry. But since they could go back in time and change events, Harry saved himself, Sirius, and Buckbeak. Also if you can't change anything then TT would not be possible! I say that because Hermione couldn't have been able to attend 2 classes at once without it. That way she would only be attending *1* class. In my opinion that *IS* changing the future. But that's just my opinion. Chancie From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 00:54:03 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:54:03 -0000 Subject: LV and HP wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112303 Nieky wrote: > The wand chooses the wizard, according to Ollivander. So the wand > with the first Fawkes feather chose LV (TR), the second wand chose > HP. What exactly does this mean? When did LV get the Fawkes wand? > Why did the priori incantatem in GOF only go back to the murder of > James and Lily, LV surely murdered/tortured more people before that.. > The Priori Incantatem stopped because Harry broke the connection that was forcing Voldemorts wand to reveal past spells. A paraphrase of the section chapter 34 (Priori Incantatem): The jet's of light, green from Voldemort's and red from Harry's, from the wands met in midair...the beam of light was bright deep gold...both wands were vibrating .... Harry and Voldemort were lifted from the circle of DEs and a gold "dome" surrounded them ... Harry saw Voldemort trying to break the thread of light connecting the wands ... the phoenix song fills the air... the connection between the wands changed and large beads of lights were sliding on the beam.. a bead almost connects with Harry's wand... Harry concentrated on forcing the beads toward Voldemort's wand..Harry focused on forcing the bead to connect with Voldemort's wand" It is at this point the Priori Incantatem began with the wand that the bead connected. James tells Harry what to do when the connection is broken. "'NOW!' Harry yelled" "He pulled his wand upward with an almight wrench". DD confirms, in Chapter 36, that had the wands stayed connected more victims would have emerged. Hope this answers your question, Karen From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 01:11:37 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:11:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112304 > mhbobbin writes: > > That is not my impression at all. Maybe you could convince me of > this in PoA but not in OotP. What I see is JKR drawing more > attention not less to the strangeness around Lupin and Harry. (I > won't repeat my whole post as it was posted about the same time as > this one.) And then there are Lupin's parting words to Harry. > Karen writes: Harry had just lost Sirius the person he wrote to and relied on for advice over the summer. Plus the threat of Sirius coming to Privet Drive allowed Harry to have his books and go to the Quidditch Cup. Lupin's keep in touch is a reminder to Harry that he has an adult in the WW who knew his parents ready to step into Sirius' role of psuedo- parent. IMO Lupin did not continue his friendship with Harry to allow Sirius the chance to become Harry's mentor. I don't think DD and Harry were the only penpals Sirius had in hiding. I don't believe in the ese! Lupin. I see a very lonely man, partly because of his condition, partly because of the loss of 4 school friends at age 21. After all, Sirius knew where Lupin's place was at the end of GOF. In OotP, we see Lupin at 12 Grimmauld Place, numerous times in the book. Was Lupin living there at the time? If I had a friend (Please do not read a SHIP in this - I don't care if there was or wasn't since I don't think it matters) who could not work, and an empty house I hated and could not leave, I think I would want a roommate for company. Lupin's parting comment to Harry was just that "Keep in touch". Let me know if anything happens. Write a letter. - Karen From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 01:25:58 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:25:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > mhbobbin writes: > > > > That is not my impression at all. Maybe you could convince me of > > this in PoA but not in OotP. What I see is JKR drawing more > > attention not less to the strangeness around Lupin and Harry. (I > > won't repeat my whole post as it was posted about the same time as > > this one.) And then there are Lupin's parting words to Harry. > > > Karen writes: > Harry had just lost Sirius the person he wrote to and relied on for > advice over the summer. Plus the threat of Sirius coming to Privet > Drive allowed Harry to have his books and go to the Quidditch Cup. > Lupin's keep in touch is a reminder to Harry that he has an adult in > the WW who knew his parents ready to step into Sirius' role of psuedo- > parent. > > IMO Lupin did not continue his friendship with Harry to allow Sirius > the chance to become Harry's mentor. I don't think DD and Harry were > the only penpals Sirius had in hiding. I don't believe in the ese! > Lupin. I see a very lonely man, partly because of his condition, > partly because of the loss of 4 school friends at age 21. After all, > Sirius knew where Lupin's place was at the end of GOF. In OotP, we > see Lupin at 12 Grimmauld Place, numerous times in the book. Was > Lupin living there at the time? If I had a friend (Please do not > read a SHIP in this - I don't care if there was or wasn't since I > don't think it matters) who could not work, and an empty house I > hated and could not leave, I think I would want a roommate for > company. > > Lupin's parting comment to Harry was just that "Keep in touch". Let > me know if anything happens. Write a letter. > > - Karen mhbobbin: In OotP, Lupin lives at Grimmauld Place. He is away for long periods on undisclosed Order business. He even has a key of sorts in that his wand opens Grimmauld Place whereas all others ring the bell. But that, to me, is besides the point of this discussion of Lupin's relationship with Harry. I don't buy into ESE!Lupin and I don't care about SHIPS. But I do think there is some secret that Lupin is keeping and he is one of the characters whom I believe should be watched carefully for clues. I suspect Lupin of holding many keys to the puzzle, the mystery of the whole series. You may read "Keep in touch" literally. That would be consistent with many of JKR's clues, cleverly stuck in a context where it's appropriate. And if there wasn't something odd about Lupin's touch, I wouldn't notice those words. Interesting that she gives those words to Lupin whereas anyone else could have said them in that context. mhbobbin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 01:36:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:36:09 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112306 -> Del replies : > Sure ! And why not reinstate the Red Letter for adulterous women while > we're at it ?! Marrietta, a 15-year-old girl, has had to keep those > monstruous pustules for more than 2 full months !! And the worst of it > is that it is completely useless anyway, since she doesn't *remember* > WHY she is being punished, now that Shacklebolt erased her memory ! If > anything, the punishment could actually backfire, by definitely > convincing Marrietta that the Trio are cruel. > > I mean, honestly, it would have been pure *compassion* for Hermione to > help her get cured ! And I notice that neither Ron nor Harry cared > about it either... > > Del, incensed that anyone could consider such a CRUEL treatment of a > 15-year-old girl as acceptable. Alla: I really do not want to get into the debate over Marietta's behaviour again, but just had to make a breif comment on this one. Absolutely, the punishment was cruel and I hope the readers recognise that. But I also will not judge Harry and Co compassion based on their reaction to Marietta. I would imagine that they think that Marietta's behaviour could have lead to the same cruel consequences to all DA members as what was done to Marietta. You know, being expelled, probably questioned by Umbridge, etc. They are of the same age as Marietta (on the equal footing so to speak) and do not have to make allowances to Marietta's young age. I definitely agree with you that erasing Marietta's memories made punishment useless, but I also think that Trio will not want to socialise with Marietta much next book, therefore not caring much whether Marietta will consider them cruel or not. On the other hand, as I said earlier, I tend to think that Harry may show true compassion to Marietta in next book and may allow her to attend DA lessons, if she will ask. Alla From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 01:44:53 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:44:53 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112307 Neha wrote: > Hi, > I have been wondering about this ever since I've read the > fifth book. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't get what. > > In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors > and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard > James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, > according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side > after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the > death of James and Lily > Potter? > Neha. Karen asks: "Where does it say that the dementors were on LV's side during the first war? GOF only has LV say "The dementors will join us...they are our natural allies". The giants were banished because they sided with LV during the first war. We have cannon that the dementors were in control of Azkaban and under the MoM soon after the first war by the pensive scenes in GOF. And via Petunia, during the first war. -Karen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 01:51:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:51:56 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112308 mhbobbin: > > In OotP, Lupin lives at Grimmauld Place. He is away for long periods > on undisclosed Order business. He even has a key of sorts in that > his wand opens Grimmauld Place whereas all others ring the bell. But > that, to me, is besides the point of this discussion of Lupin's > relationship with Harry. I don't buy into ESE!Lupin and I don't care > about SHIPS. But I do think there is some secret that Lupin is > keeping and he is one of the characters whom I believe should be > watched carefully for clues. I suspect Lupin of holding many keys to > the puzzle, the mystery of the whole series. > > You may read "Keep in touch" literally. That would be consistent > with many of JKR's clues, cleverly stuck in a context where it's > appropriate. And if there wasn't something odd about Lupin's touch, > I wouldn't notice those words. Interesting that she gives those > words to Lupin whereas anyone else could have said them in that > context. > Alla: OK, I most certainly need clarification at this point, because I am very interested. See, for the longest time I found Pippin's theory to be VERY believable. I abandoned that ship at some point after movie came out, BUT it is so well argued that it does keep me on my toes and makes me nervous sometimes. :o) So, I definitely agree with you that Remus is a little reluctant to touch Harry and when he does (when Sirius falls) I have to wonder why? NO, I don't find strange that Remus wants to save Harry from falling too. What I do find strange is how did he know that Veil is deadly that FAST? Was Remus working in the Department of Mysteries for some time before he came to teach? Is that how he spend the twelve years? BUT, wasn't your original point that Lupin never touched Harry? So, what are you arguing now? I am not being sarcastic, I just want you to clarify your theory. How do you read "keep in touch"? Do you read it as some kind of hidden warning to Harry? From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 01:52:58 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:52:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112309 > mhbobbin writes: > > In OotP, Lupin lives at Grimmauld Place. He is away for long periods > on undisclosed Order business. He even has a key of sorts in that > his wand opens Grimmauld Place whereas all others ring the bell. But > that, to me, is besides the point of this discussion of Lupin's > relationship with Harry. I don't buy into ESE!Lupin and I don't care > about SHIPS. But I do think there is some secret that Lupin is > keeping and he is one of the characters whom I believe should be > watched carefully for clues. I suspect Lupin of holding many keys to > the puzzle, the mystery of the whole series. > > You may read "Keep in touch" literally. That would be consistent > with many of JKR's clues, cleverly stuck in a context where it's > appropriate. And if there wasn't something odd about Lupin's touch, > I wouldn't notice those words. Interesting that she gives those > words to Lupin whereas anyone else could have said them in that > context. > > mhbobbin I don't see JKR repeating herself. I think she is much more creative than using the same character twice to have something that is a secret. Lupin's big secret was at the core of POA. Now he is the memory of the MWPP days. He and Snape can combine to give Harry the information about what happen before GH. In fact, Lupin appears to be the one who knew the MWPP gang were unfair to Snape so Lupin's memory of events may be the closest to the truth than either Snape or Sirius would be able to reveal due to their hatred of each other. IMO Lupin's role is as historian. Karen From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 01:54:11 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:54:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112310 SSSusan earlier: > > Hey, PK, thanks for answering this. But, see? I just DON'T get > > it! If a person wasn't alive in, say, 1800, then why *should* > > he be able to go to 1800, do something which impacted the course > > of events, then return to the present? It seems like such a cop- > > out in telling a story! PK replied: > I think time travel just isn't your thing, is it? SSSusan [puts on DD voice and says]: Alas. So it would seem. PK: > If you step back and look at the overall timeline, assuming you're > using the single-timeline theory, you see that as of 2004, whatever > the time-traveling person did in 1974 (or 1800) *had already > happened in 2004*. The individual simply had not, from their own > personal, subjective point of view, *done* it yet. The > things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, > which is why I say they "had always done them" and that they are > not actually going back and doing things that change events. SSSusan now: Okay. Now THAT'S where I lose it. How could time [1800, 1974, whatever] already have happened **and** this individual "simply had not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it yet" *if* they did something important in 1800 or 1974?? How could they have done it and also not yet know that they'd done it? [I'm sure many of you are just shaking your heads at me, saying, "Nope, there's no hope for THAT one." But surely there's at least one other person out there who can't quite grasp this!? Damn-- I'm Phi Beta Kappa, but I can't "get" time travel!!!] PK: > Now, if you take the theory that going back in time DOES change > things, producing alternate timelines, you would have one ribbon > going along normally, and then when someone went back in time to do > something that *had not been done*, the ribbon would split in two. > The things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, which > is why I say they "had always done them" and that they are not > actually going back and doing things that change events. The > things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, which is > why I say they "had always done them" and that they are not > actually going back and doing things that change events. > One would be the timeline he came from, where the thing had not > happened. The new one would be the same up to the point he did > it, and then it would branch off. (Then there are further concerns > such as whether or not you can actually get back to your 'home' > timeline -- which, it should be noted, you have not altered.) > > There is the third possibility, employed in "Back to the Future," > in which you go back in time and actually do change your own past, > which is what leads to such paradoxes as "I went back in time... > and corrected this problem... so I never had occasion to go back in > time..." etc. SSSusan: Okay, good--so there ARE alternatives which more closely fit what I had in mind. Can anyone tell me which "version" of TT I'm going to find in The Time-Traveller's Wife, which I've just ordered?? PK: > JKR, perhaps realizing that her audience would not necessarily be > familiar with the conventions of time travel or perhaps simply > preferring this version, chose the option where if you go back in > time, whatever you do there (or then) has already been taken into > account in your own past. This is made clear by the fact that Harry > and Hermione go through a particular time period twice, and the > second time through, several different things they noticed during > the first time are specifically referred to -- they just know what > those things mean this time, whereas before they didn't, or > misinterpreted them. But the same things happened in that time > period. They just lived it twice. > > This is why I think the people who say "But why don't they use a > Time Turner to go back and rescue Sirius?" and other such things > do not make sense. JKR does not appear to be writing a universe in > which you can actually change the past. SSSusan: Thank you, again, PK, for attempting to open my eyes and enlighten me. I'm doing a little better with this now.... So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? Siriusly Befuddled Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 02:08:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:08:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: <002101c490e5$94f9dcd0$3462d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112311 DuffyPoo wrote: > I've thought that was a very good non-answer on McGonagall's part, possibly to the point that DD hadn't suspected Sirius until after the blowing up of Pettigrew incident. As has been said before, everyone suspected everyone else. The original Order members were being picked off one by one, at that time, yet the spy remained. Everyone was a suspect. Except, of course, Peter Pettigrew. DD knew he himself wasn't the spy so the spy had to be someone else. Sirius knew he wasn't the spy so the spy had to be someone else. Etc, etc. DD apparently didn't know about the S-K switch or he wouldn't have given testimony that Sirius was the Potters' S-K. Did James/Lily/Sirius/others suspect DD and so he wasn't in on the switch? It was made nearly a week before the attack, after all, plenty of time to tell him. Carol responds: I don't think James, Lily, or Sirius *could* have told him because the Secret Keeper's identity was part of the secret itself, which could only be revealed by the Secret Keeper. And Peter, of course, had reasons of his own for not revealing the change. Carol, who agrees with Pippin's interpretation of McGonagall's words (DD either suspected Sirius or could not rule him out as a suspect) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 02:16:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:16:19 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112312 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Potioncat: > > Well, how would we see it if we changed the characters? Draco and > > Harry? But we know something about them and that would influence > > our take on it. How about Unknown Hufflepuff and Unknown > Ravenclaw? > > > > > Alla: > > You mean Harry holding Draco upside down or vice versa? Yes, I would > pretty much say that Draco deserved it based on their dynamics, I > actually would doubt that Harry would do it under normal > circumstances. > > > Two unknown students, where two bullying another one? Again, as two > people doing something bad, but I will need to know much more before > I condemn them as evil. Actually, I am reluctant to condemn any child > as evil, unless said child commits a murder in front of me, I guess. > > I am significantly less forgiving towards FICTIONAL adults. :o) Carol: Snape, or rather Severus, was also fifteen at the time, so whatever he did to "deserve" being publicly humiliated deserves the same forgiveness or tolerance, doesn't it? And that would include his calling Lily a "Mudblood" (under duress), which to me is less evil (and certainly less dangerous) than James's (and Sirius's) treatment of him. Just a thought. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 02:21:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:21:18 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112313 > Carol: > Snape, or rather Severus, was also fifteen at the time, so whatever he > did to "deserve" being publicly humiliated deserves the same > forgiveness or tolerance, doesn't it? And that would include his > calling Lily a "Mudblood" (under duress), which to me is less evil > (and certainly less dangerous) than James's (and Sirius's) treatment > of him. Just a thought. > Alla: Yes, precisely. He was fifteen. That is why and that is why only I am willing to forgive his pureblooded bigotry. But, I am not willing to tolerate it. Not at all. What do you mean, he called Lily "mudblood" under duress? I don't remember either James or Sirius FORCING him to do it. From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 02:24:48 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:24:48 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry and Lucius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112314 Draco had not been told to make friends with Harry during the fitting. IMO Draco was told between his fitting and being on Platform 9 3/4 that he should be friendly to Harry. I base this on the statement made by Lucius in Borgin and Burkes in Cos Chapter 4 "And I would remind you that it is not -- prudent -- to appear less than fond of Harry Potter, not when most of our kind regard him as the hero who made the Dark Lord disappear." I find this comment facinating for a number of reasons.. 1. Lucius is reminding Draco how to act around Harry - obviously Draco is not following "Daddy's" instructions concerning Harry. I am sure this has caused some tension at the Malfoy house. 2. There is no reaction from Draco when Lucius uses the term "Dark Lord". Only the DEs call LV "Dark Lord" - does this mean the DEs have meet at Malfoy's behind closed doors? Draco knows who the Dark Lord is and he shows no reaction. Draco knows to react to the name LV when around other wizards - he does so at the end of OotP Chapter 30 when Haryy meets Draco, Crabbe and Goyle in the Hall. Draco makes a threat to Harry because of what he did to his father. Harry replies using LV's name and "'what's the matter?' he (Harry) said, for Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle had all looked stricken at the sound of the name." In GoF, Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle do not react when DD says LV's name they whisper among themselves. I think Draco is quite the little actor and I really hope that JKR provides us with a little more information to his home life. -Karen From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 8 02:50:38 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 02:50:38 -0000 Subject: Fudge & Umbridge believing in Voldy's return In-Reply-To: <1094589238.8138.203878480@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112315 Kim: > I've been a luker on the board for a few years now. Yb: Well, good to hear from you! Kim: > Something about OOTP has been bugging me for ages and I don't know > if it's been discussed before. > > If Umbridge doesn't believe LV is back, why would she insist that > Harry knows where Sirius is? (Especially that whole scene with the > Veritserum) Is Umbridge dumb enough to think that Harry would be > speaking to Sirius--someone who was trying to kill him and > betrayed his parents? Yb: It was my interpretation of Umby (I give all the black hats funny nicknames. It's fun to laugh at them.) that she /does/ believe LV is back. The whole "I will not tell lies" bit, basically forcing this "LV has not returned" BS down the students' throats, says that she knows, but the important thing is not to let anyone else know. Fudge knows as well, and he chooses to hide it from the general public, but he knows Harry isn't barking mad. He just wants the WW to think everything is OK. At first, he probably didn't want to believe it, but after a few talks with DD, he sees the light. Unfortunately, the DP has painted Harry as a nutter, and has probably had some words in about this LV nonsense, and to admit the truth publicly would force him to eat a huge heap of crow (like the last DP we saw in OotP), and some major egg on his face (probably why he won't be MoM for much longer). Kim: > Yes, I know that deep down Umbridge and Fudge know that Dumbledore > is right and that LV has returned. But how many people (outside > the Order) know the truth about Sirius, Peter and the whole secret- > keeper thing? In order to believe that Harry and Sirius are in > cahoots, you have to know the whole Sirius story, the whole POA > story. Yb: Not many, from what I can tell. Sirius is still a wanted man, obviously, since he can't go out in public. The DP reports "He's been spotted!" as if he's still a fugitive. I don't know if this is a bit of a cover-up or not. I don't think you need to know the whole Secret-Keeper-Switch, though. Kim: > Did Dumbledore tell Fudge the truth (everything about Sirius, the > time turner, etc) between POA and GOF? Or was that part of what > Dumbledore was explaining to Fudge at the end of GOF? During > Harry's hearing, Fudge bumbles on about "are you going to > tell me some story involving a time turner, etc..." (sorry I don't > have my book in front of me.) Seems like Fudge has heard the real > story, but chooses not to believe any of it. Yb: GoF? Don't you mean OotP? And the Fudge quote is (not from the hearing, but from the interrogation of Harry and Marietta regarding the DA): "Go on, then, Dumbledore, go on -- Willy Widdershins was lying, was he? Or was it Potter's identical twin in the Hog's Head that day? Or is there the usual simple explanation involving a reversal of time, a dead man coming back to life, and a couple of invisible dementors?" Absolutely awful, what an IG-NOR-A-MOOSE that lime-green-bowler man is! All right... Fudge has obviously heard the truth about Sirius and Peter, even the time-turner (if the TT incident he is referring to is the one in PoA). He clearly thinks (and even says) this is a cock- and-bull theory if he ever heard one. But remember what /Professor/ Snape said in the infirmary at the end of PoA: The kids were under a Confunus Charm, Sirius had them believing he was innocent, blah, blah, blah. Fudge probably bought this one a little better than DD's version. (To be honest, I would, too.) So back to the Umby remarks above: Well, Fudge knew the kids were in company of Sirius for quite a while, and Sirius didn't kill Harry, so he /can't/ be after Harry, or else Harry wouldn't have survived the encounter. Thus Fudge thinks Sirius has other plans, and the Potter boy believes the "I'm innocent" line. Flash forward to OotP. The Azkaban breakout shows what Fudge thinks: he's sure that Black's goal wasn't to get Harry, but to get the DE's back in order. He probably thinks Sirius using Harry somehow,and the fact that Harry will not listen to reason about Sirius is more evidence that the scar has messed his head up. Thus, he tells Umby that Sirius is still a criminal, but that Harry is talking to him occasionally, and thinks he's innocent. Hence the Veritaserum incident: Umby wants to know where Sirius is so he can be caught, and the Ministry looks good again, having caught the worst criminal in recent history. I don't know if Fudge has "seen the light" about Sirius and Peter as of before the battle in the MoM. He clearly hasn't by the time DD leaves the school: I doubt he'd be so willing to shoot his mouth off about the whole batty story if he believed a word of it. Umby probably doesn't know anything more than what we heard Fudge say at the Three Broomsticks in PoA. She, of course, may have heard the story. Perhaps Fudge had too much to drink (a little heavy on the red currant, perhaps?) and started talking about "crazy old Albus" and his hare-brained explanation for a laugh. I don't think she knows the story, though. Kim: > But if you didn't want anyone to know that LV has returned, > wouldn't you keep your paranoia to yourself? It's one thing to say > that DD is old and off his rocker, but I wouldn't go around saying > that Harry is crazy and that he's communicating with Sirius Black. Yb: I don't think he /is/ telling anyone Harry is communicating with Sirius Black. Think of the implications: Harry is a hero to the WW, and the public finds out that he's hanging out with a mass murderer. Half the people would think Fudge was nuts, saying things like that about the Boy Who Lived. Half would demand that Harry be put on trial to find out where Black is. After a couple weeks of mass confusion and hysteria, though, things would change. People would start wondering. Of course, the whole Sirius-Potter-betrayal isn't widely known, but it was believed that Sirius was a DE, second-in-command to Voldemort. So he'd probably not be friends with Harry, right? After all, Harry is the reason Voldemort fell. Naturally, a DE would want to kill Harry, especially one as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the infamous Black. So why is Harry communicating with Black now? And why has he turned him in? I see the public being split into 4 groups, each with their own answer to this question. 1) Harry is becoming the next Dark Lord. (The ones who believe this panic.) 2) Harry is insane. (Doesn't explain why Sirius is talking to him.) 3) Harry isn't talking to Black at all. The Ministry is lying to us. (Growing amount of distrust and disbelief of the Ministry eventually leads to the Minister being thrown out, or a complete overthrow. Fudge, being his paranoid self, and loving his job, would immediately think of this one, and do anything he could to keep it from happening.) 4) Maybe there's more to the story. (These folks start a Yahoo group. They discuss it amongst themselves for a few weeks, and they start an underground newsletter, Eventually they select a representative with bodyguards to interview Harry. The interview goes without a death, and suddenly, questions are answered. The group starts collecting a following, and as word spreads, the people begin to lose faith in the Ministry, see #3. Pretty soon, the Ministry, Fudge, and the DP are disgraced, and the WW is well aware of LV's return. By the time he has organized his 100 or so little minions, Harry and DD have thousands on the lookout for him. Thus Voldemort is handed a considerable setback, Harry has plenty of support, and Fudge is reduced to collecting change in his lime-green bowler on the street.) Thus, telling the world that Sirius is communicating with Harry is a BAD idea. Kim: > The MoM behavior in OOTP has always baffled me. If you're Fudge, > you can't go around telling your employees, "uh, well, we have > good reason to believe that Sirius isn't a death eater and that > he's communicating with Harry Potter, but let's try to suppress it > all and keep it hush-hush. Oh yeah, let's not forget that Harry > Potter is also deranged." That just doesn't compute. Yb: Nope, which is why I suggested the theory abov. Fudge doesn't tell anyone that Sirius is believed innocent, since he doesn't believe it himself, and he doesn't say a word to anyone except Miss Senior- Undersecretary-to-the-Minister Umby that Harry and DD think Black is innocent, blah blah, be on the watch for him, keep an eye on the Floo, blah blah. Maybe she didn't even hear it from Fudge. Maybe she realized who Harry was talking to in the fireplace earlier in the year, and just came up with the plan herself. But I don't think she's that smart, really. Kim: > Granted, Fudge and Umbridge do a good deal of BSing during Harry's > 5th year, because they're silly, ignorant gits. Umbridge's quest > to make Harry's life miserable shouldn't really make sense to the > Wizarding World and Hogwarts students considering they don't know > the real story. Yes, I know DD spoke at the end of term feast, but > it doesn't seem to get through to anyone, or shall I say that no > one has put all the pieces together. Yb: Actually, Umby shot herself in the foot in this one. The kids (and their parents) may not have believed DD at the end of GoF, but suddenly a *Ministry* official in the school is flat-out calling Harry *and* DD liars. Surely someone noticed the scars on Harry's hand after a detention a detention session with her? Wouldn't they ask some questions? And Harry insists on disrupting the class, and Umby *insists* on shutting him up. Wouldn't that make an interesting owl home: "Dear Mum and Dad, You won't believe what Prof. Umbridge said.She said that Cedric Diggory, that 7th year who died last year, died in a tragic accident. Potter still thinks it was You-Know-Who (I know I'm not supposed to say that, but he does.) She still doesn't let us use magic in class, but she keeps saying "that's a lie, this is a lie" and all that. Why does she keep saying that? She keeps harping on the "he's lying" bit, maybe Dumbledore was right in June of last year, at the feast. Maybe You-Know-Who has come back. Do you think Dumbledore is crazy?" The students are certain to realize (at least the ones in Harry's class are) that this constant "this is a lie, all lies, all of it" bit is a serious case of denial. That's probably why so many of them from that class joined the DA. Umby is forcing stuff down their throats so fast they don't swallow it all. Kim: > And of course there's the Daily Prophet. As a journalist myself, I > can't say enough about how crappy that paper is. Yb: Agreed. The Quibbler is more entertaining anyway. Sorry to keep referring to the DP in this post, but it's the only window we have into the Ministry and its policies. > Kim > -who's next question will revolve around how several MoM officials > don't appear to be good wizards. (Umbridge being unable to do > spells to get rid of F&G pranks, Fudge not knowing if Squibs can > see dementors, etc...) Yb: Can't wait to read it. I can write Fudge off, being ignorant as usual, since he obviously wouldn't have associated with /that/ sort of crowd. And of course, not many Squibs would be in contact with dementors, would they? I think that the Ministry, being a governmental body, is more political than magical. The people in there are politicians, at least the higher-ups and public figures. The ones who can actually *do* magic, like Arthur, Dawlish and (presumably) Bode get put in positions where they can use it. Wizards who are hopeless at magic get put in areas where they won't need it, like Umby. Interestingly enough, Fudge is probably a talented wizard. He was Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes when the Potters were killed, and he was one of the first on the scene when Sirius was arrested, which implies that the DoMC is dispatched to clean up any messes, and maybe take care of Muggle memories in an emergency. So he was probably at least reasonably skilled. ~Yb, spending far to much time analyzing Fudgie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 03:11:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:11:02 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape In-Reply-To: <131C520D.5C007AAA.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112316 Juli wrote: > > My opinion is that Snape does get along with the rest of the staff. That doesn't mean he's best buddies with all, or even any, of them. But I think we'd hear if there was a lot of tension between Snape and other teachers, and I refer here to the permanent staff, not the revolving door known as the Defense Against Dark Arts position. > > Since we mostly see Harry's POV, we don't really get to witness much interaction between Snape and other teachers, except with Dumbledore and McGonagall. We know Dumbledore trusts Snape and believes his story, and all indication is that McGonagall trusts Snape equally. Whether that is from her own personal experience or because she trusts Dumbledore's opinions without question, I don't know. But I do think McGonagall respects Snape as a fellow teacher and an ally against Voldemort, while at the same time enjoying their house rivalries. She might even like him a little, enough to perhaps have an occasional social conversation with him over a cup of tea (which would take a bit of bravery and tolerance, I should think!). > > As for the other teachers, the best example comes from Hagrid, I believe. Whenever Harry accuses Snape of anything devious or unsavory, Hagrid repeatedly defends Snape. That's not an indication that Hagrid actually likes Snape or would seek out his company, but he does seems to respect Snape's teaching ability and integrity. I have a feeling the other teachers feel the same. You can respect someone without having the least desire to engage in a social relationship with that person. Carol adds: My apologies for not snipping, but I agree with everything Juli said here and just want to add a few more examples. In SS/PS Snape "made himself unpopular" (implying that he wasn't unpopular before) by refereeing the quidditch match. Apparently this unpopularity is temporary; in CoS he initiates the reaction against Lockhart ("Just the man. The very man") and the others follow his lead. The first to do so is Professor Sprout, then Flitwick, then McGonagall (CoS Am. ed. 294). The friendly Snape/McGonagall rivalry shows up early and is best exemplified by McGonagall's remark (in SS/PS?), "I couldn't look Severus Snape in the eye for weeks," but it appears in almost every book. More important, we see them together, as Dumbledore's most reliable helpers, on several important occasions, most memorably when Crouch!Moody is revealed as an imposter in CoS. The similarity of their reactions on this occasion is interesting. (BTW, Snape must have been McGonagall's student throughout his years at Hogwarts, but now she treats him in every way as her equal.) My favorite Snape/ McGonagall scene is the last appearance of either character in OoP: Snape almost amicably agrees to McGonagall's proposal to add more points to Gryffindor's (and Ravenclaw's) hourglasses ("What say you, Professor Snape?" "What? Oh--well--I suppose"). And he seems genuinely glad to see her. )"Professor McGonagall! Out of St. Mungo's, I see!" (OoP Am. ed. 852-53) I think it's clear from these examples that Snape has the respect of his colleagues and that he and McGonagall are on friendly terms despite the significant difference in their ages though both are very reserved and would never display their affection. Of course it's strictly platonic, almost like the relationship of an older sister and a younger brother who now must be treated as a fellow adult. He is her full colleague, having taught for fourteen years, and like her, the head of a house. Only when Dumbledore is out of the picture and she has to step into her role as assistant headmistress does any difference in their status appear, and there is never any friction on those occasions. Carol, who wonders what McGonagall does for the Order and why, on the one occasion Harry saw her at Grimmauld Place, she was dressed as a Muggle From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 03:36:57 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:36:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > mhbobbin: snip snip > >> > You may read "Keep in touch" literally. That would be consistent > > with many of JKR's clues, cleverly stuck in a context where it's > > appropriate. And if there wasn't something odd about Lupin's > touch, > > I wouldn't notice those words. Interesting that she gives those > > words to Lupin whereas anyone else could have said them in that > > context. > > > > Alla: > > OK, I most certainly need clarification at this point, because I am > very interested. > > See, for the longest time I found Pippin's theory to be VERY > believable. I abandoned that ship at some point after movie came > out, BUT it is so well argued that it does keep me on my toes and > makes me nervous sometimes. :o) > > So, I definitely agree with you that Remus is a little reluctant to > touch Harry and when he does (when Sirius falls) I have to wonder > why? > >snip> > > > BUT, wasn't your original point that Lupin never touched Harry? So, > what are you arguing now? I am not being sarcastic, I just want you > to clarify your theory. > > How do you read "keep in touch"? Do you read it as some kind of > hidden warning to Harry? mhbobbin: To clarify my original point--and it's more of an observation than theory--I think that JKR has drawn attention to there being something odd about Lupin touching Harry. I think that others have proposed that Lupin never touches Harry--that's not quite true--and I'm not saying that, and that's easily disproved. But even when Lupin touches Harry, it's interesting. Such as the only time Lupin shakes Harry's hand--although it seems this is a common gesture for Lupin to make to the kids, is at Privet Drive. I'm only saying that IMO she's drawing attention to it. And when Lupin says "Keep in touch", Lupin is not speaking in code but asking Harry to communicate. BUT I suspect that JKR's having him use the words Keep in Touch as a clue to the reader to look here. IMO, she intends for us to examine this relationship further. DD spends the whole of OotP avoiding eye contact wih Harry out of concern that LV might see into their relationship. I just wonder if there's a similar concern from Lupin---that Lupin doesn't touch Harry for fear that Voldemort can learn something about Lupin. What that would be or how that would work I have no idea. I don't buy ESE!Lupin. In part, because Lupin doesn't lie to Harry and Lupin always uses sound judgment in advising Harry. His opinion is respected by other Phoenix members. As for how many secrets Lupin can hold in the story line, that would depend on how important a character in the story line that Lupin proves to be. I don't think his major role ended in PoA but at this point, we don't know. mhbobbin From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 03:43:14 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:43:14 -0000 Subject: Fudge & Umbridge believing in Voldy's return In-Reply-To: <1094589238.8138.203878480@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112318 Kim wrote: >If Umbridge doesn't believe LV is back, why would she insist that Harry knows where Sirius is? (Especially that whole scene with the Veritserum) Is Umbridge dumb enough to think that Harry would be speaking to Sirius --someone who was trying to kill him and betrayed his parents? Why would she think Harry is on the DE's side? Why does she think that Harry, Dumbledore and Sirius have "been in on this whole thing together from the start?"< KathyK: Hi Kim, everyone! Fudge knows of the story about Sirius Black not actually being a Death Eater from the end of Prisoner of Azkaban. Harry and Hermione shouted it at Snape and Fudge. They were convinced the children were 'confunded' by Sirius. Fudge knew also that Dumbledore had gotten the same story from Sirius himself. Then Harry and Hermione rescue Sirius, which at the time Fudge did not suspect, and had no reason to, they could have done such a thing. Thanks to Rita Skeeter, by the end of GoF, Fudge had changed his opinion of Harry and then Dumbledore tells him something he just can't accept-that Lord Voldemort is back. Where did Dumbledore get this information? From Harry who has 'funny turns' and is a parslemouth. Fudge leaves Dumbledore in disbelief, after having to listen to the ridiculous notion that LV has returned. Not only that, Dumbledore wants him to get rid of dementors and make nice with the giants. So not only does Fudge think Harry is mad, but Dumbledore as well. He begins to think about all he knows about Harry Potter. What was it he was saying last year? That Sirius Black was not the traitor/death eater everyone thought he was. That he was *innocent.* Maybe he begins to think Snape might have been right: that Potter had something to do with Black's escape. Perhaps he remembers Dumbledore's response to Snape: "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once" (PoA Ch 22, US ed. pg 420) He starts to put two and two together. Hermione had a time-turner. This he would know because McGonagall had to get permission from the Ministry for Hermione to be allowed to have one. What if Harry and Hermione really were in two places at once? What if they used the Time-Turner to rescue Black? Dumbledore must have been in on it, too. So Mad Harry and Dumbledore are in cahoots with Sirius Black. He tells Umbridge to be on the lookout. Those two are helping the escaped murderer. It's only natural, I think, that Umbridge would try and find out where Sirius was when she attempted the Veritaserum on Harry. Kim: >But how many people (outside the Order)know the truth about Sirius, Peter and the whole secret-keeper thing?< KathyK: The Death Eaters, Harry, Ron, Hermione, The Weasley kids, Fudge, and Umbridge...am I forgetting anyone? Kim: >I've always thought of it as a stretch not to believe DD and HP, AND to assume that Sirius and Harry are in cahoots. But if you didn't want anyone to know that LV has returned, wouldn't you keep your paranoia to yourself? It's one thing to say that DD is old and off his rocker, but I wouldn't go around saying that Harry is crazy and that he's communicating with Sirius Black. To the average wizard, that would have them scratching their heads, based on the knowledge that the "public" has.< KathyK: I'd say the only one Fudge has told that he suspects Harry is in cahoots with Sirius is Umbridge, his trusted Senior Undersecretary who is in a position to try and discover the whereabouts of Sirius and some evidence Dumbledore and Harry are harboring a murderous death eater. I think Fudge sees their belief in Sirius' innnocence as further evidence they're both crazy and that allying with Sirius in some way is tied in with Dumbledore's wanting to oust Fudge from power and take over the WW himself. Kim: >Granted, Fudge and Umbridge do a good deal of BSing during Harry's 5th year, because they're silly, ignorant gits. Umbridge's quest to make Harry's life miserable shouldn't really make sense to the Wizarding World and Hogwarts students considering they don't know the real story.< KathyK: I highly doubt anyone in the outside WW has any idea of what is truly going on inside Hogwarts. Not with Umbridge controlling the school and not with the _Daily Prophet_ doing Fudge and Umbridge's dirty work. As far as the rest of Hogwarts...I think Umbridge is pretty nasty to any students who aren't falling in line with her regime. Harry has taken a particularly extreme position against her and is therefore subject to more special attention from Umbridge as compared with other students. Thanks, Kim! This has been fun. ;-) KathyK From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 8 04:08:44 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:08:44 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <003201c49538$6fe9d880$2f2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112319 HunterGreen wrote: >> From what we've been told about Slytherins, they are ambitious, >> use any means to achieve their ends, given the choice will always >> save their own neck and come from a 'pure ancestory' (I take that >> to mean pureblood, or half-blood at the least). Slytherin does >> not *require* believing in pureblood supremacy, its just that >> many of the students in that house happen to." But Susana disagrees: > I don't think Slytherin requires 'pure ancestry' - half-blood is > hardly considered 'pure ancestry'. Tom Riddle was half blooded but > he believed in the supremacy of pure blood. I always assumed the > requirement was that believe and not the pure blood ancestry > (though I agree that a muggleborn wouldn't be sorted in to > Slytherin - it would be strange if he/she *believed*). And now Yb: I really doubt Tom Riddle had the pureblood mentality that Slytherin is famous for. How could he? He was an orphan, with no knowledge of his family, and lived in a Muggle orphanage. It would be like you said, a muggleborn "believing," not really plausible. I think the only reason Tom got in with his muggle-blood intact was because he shared all the personality traits Huntergreen listed above, and he was Salazar's descendant. I think some degree of pureblooded-ness is required to get into Slytherin, even though the Hat doesn't base placement only on that criteria: Neville didn't get put in Slytherin, nor did any of the Weasleys, or Cedric (I'm grasping here. I think he was at least a first generation pureblood: his father works in the MoM, and his mother is not described as any bit out of place or uncomfortable in GoF in the few places where we see her. Thus, the Slytherin criteria probably put pureblood on a list of "required" traits, but you need a few more in the personality department, else you'll be put somewhere else. And before someone mentions Harry, remember, *Harry* mentioned Slytherin when he was under the hat being sorted; the Hat elaborated on it, saying he had a few/some of the qualities necessary, but I don't think it ever *considered* placing Harry in Slytherin for a moment. HunterGreen also wrote: >> Am I the only one >> who's getting a little frightened of Hermione? Back when I was >> first reading the books she was my favorite character, but around >> the time she kidnapped Rita Skeeter in GoF she's worried me a >> little bit. Hermione is ruthless, strong-willed, and often >> dangerous." Susana replied: > I don't think Hermione would use *all* means to achieve her ends - > only those she thinks are justifiable. One may argue that her > means are *not* justifiable, but I'm arguing that *she* > believes they are. You seem to be implying that she draws no line; > I'm saying she draws a line that some people consider excessive. > Personally I think it's a very courageous line because she's aware > of how close to 'wrong' she is and how easily she can cross it by > mistake. When telling Harry and Ron about Rita in GoF, she shows > signs of being nervous (guilt?) to find out her friends reaction > to what she's done. My interpretation was that she's not sure if > she crossed the limit. Is she dangerous? Oh, yes. Along with DD > she's one of the most dangerous characters in Potterverse. People > who fight for a cause that transcend their own welfare (house > elves rights/muggle rights/etc.) are often a lot more dangerous > than people who 'just' seek power - who are 'just' ambitious. > Ambitious people tend to draw a completely different line that has > nothing to do with 'justifiable' Yb: Susana, you aren't alone on this one. I'm not sure how *guilty* Hermione was feeling on the train in GoF. She was happy, beaming, speaking with quiet triumph, and smiling serenely, to quote some adjectives, etc. But I'm sure she draws a line, and it's a little further than some of us want to go. I think she did want her friends' reactions to this little plot of hers: interesting that we don't get them. The boys are stunned into near speechlessness, but we don't hear what they think of this plan. If she was wanting a "good girl," she didn't get it that day. Susana: > Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because > it's too flexible. I said she doesn't have a 'thirst to prove > herself' - 'thirst' being the key word here. While Percy clearly > wants to be an important person; Hermione wants to "do something > worth while" (OotP). And I never met someone who says that and is > after recognition. People who use that expression regarding their > aim in life usually spent their lives fighting for a nearly lost > cause. You can say that's 'ambitious' but that is the reason I > didn't use that word - it's not a thirst for recognition. Yb: Agreed. Hermione is smart, and she likes to prove it by doing well in class, and she doesn't play dumb for anyone, but she doesn't really brag about it. Much like me in high school. Sort of like me now. She won't deny that she is smart, and she's caught bragging a little ("I got 112% on the Charms exam") but she isn't rubbing people's noses in it, or really calling attention to it, outside of answering every teacher's questions correctly, of course. When the students in the DA got their "Galleons," Terry Boot calls her on the Protean Charm she used, saying it's NEWT level, she tries to look modest about it. She doesn't think it's a big deal, she thinks all the weird looks are because the kids don't like the idea. She doesn't want awards and recognition for her brains, no more than any other smart student would. And HunterGreen wrote: > There's one other thing that we've been told about Slytherins, > that being that they have a disregard for the rules, and on the > surface that wouldn't fit Hermione at all. On the surface that is. > Hermione obeys the rules when they work for her. Susana replied: > Ok, I overlooked that as a Slytherin trait. A certain disregard > for the rules is definitely Slytherin, and Hermione has it. But > then again, she's a teenager. Even Percy could be found with a girl > in an empty classroom late at night. Breaking rules is part of > growing up. Yb's response: Who wasn't like that when they were an adolescent? Everybody broke some rules that they didn't agree with: Don't stay out after 10, don't have parties with adults away, do your homework everyday. Please, I think Percy is the only true rules stickler in canon. Even DD breaks rules occasionally. I really doubt it's accepted practice to hire werewolves and centaurs for teachers. And he even said in CoS: "Sometimes even the best of us have to eat our words" regarding Ron and Harry breaking rules to save Ginny, etc. Breaking rules, especially unjust ones, like ones that begin with "educational decree number", is a very common thing, for Harry, Ron and Hermione. In fact, until GoF, Hermione was the one saying "You shouldn't do this or that." In PS/SS she was doing it for a while because "THOSE ARE THE RULES!!" but she eventually reverted to scolding when she saw doing something as dangerous: "Don't use the Firebolt, don't sneak into Hogsmeade with the Invisibility Cloak, don't mess with time, etc." HunterGreen wrote: >> Personally I think Hermione might have fit in Slytherin if she >> weren't a muggleborn. And Susana's answer: > Hermione and Percy are in Gryffindor because they *chose* to; Not > because they were rejected by the other houses! Yb's final reply for the night, unless something else needs my attention: Maybe she has some traits, but not enough in my opinion. I believe that the Sorting Hat truly sees where we best fit, regardless of what the bloodlines be. I think some choice is involved: if Hermione had wanted to go into Ravenclaw, she'd probably have been put there. But if she'd asked for Slytherin, I think the Hat may have tried to talk her out of it. I think that's why it took so long to place Neville: he was desperately wanting Hufflepuff (based on what we saw of him for 4 books, I'm sure that's where he /thought/ he belonged), but the Hat kept saying "No, no, you would fit right in with Gryffindor! You can do it, I swear!" The Hat's purpose is to decide what house the student belongs in, based on personality traits, and take into consideration the student's choices, but not leaving the decision entirely up to that. ~Yb, signing off a very long post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 04:31:40 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:31:40 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in Knockturn Alley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > I suspect this has been done to death, so could a kind and friendly > person point me to the appropriate posts? > > When Hagrid was acting suspiciously in Knockturn alley he said Flesh- > eating slugs were ruining the school cabbages. > > I can't even bring myself to spell it out, it's so obvious, (and you > clever people must have seen it sooner than I,) but I didn't even > notice it the first few times I read the book. > > As a biologist I know that these things happen, creatures get given > ridiculous common names that are based on ignorance of what they > actually do for a living, (e.g. bird-eating spiders do no such > thing) but still... > > Dungrollin. > > There was a young death eater spy, > Who's apparently terribly sly, > Though riddled with flaws, > He joined the good cause, > Let us pray JKR tells us why. > Amen Carol responds: Sorry I can't direct you to previous responses though I do know that the question has arisen at least once since I've been on this list (about ten months now). You can always try Searchmort, but I'm not sure it would be worth the frustration. In any case, I agree that Hagrid's reason for being in Knockturn Alley sounds suspicious--flesh-eating slugs eating cabbages? And buying a *repellant* for dark creatures in a place that's more likely to offer them up for sale? And Hagrid wanting to kill rather than tame "interestin' creatures"? I don't buy any of it. Not that I think Hagrid is a bad guy by any means, but his reason for being in Knockturn Alley has all the marks of a not very clever lie. Who knows? Maybe he was doing something for Dumbledore. But it couldn't be Order business because it hadn't been revived yet in CoS. Carol, who apologizes for misspelling Knockturn Alley in a previous post. I was thinking of the pun on "nocturnally"--not a good mnemonic, unfortunately. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 04:52:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:52:16 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112321 Bonny wrote: > > > > > But then, I suppose her eventual reaction could be taken > > two ways: > > > > "Aunt Petunia, who was bony and horse faced, whipped around and > peered > > intently out of the kitchen window." > > - pg 19, PoA, softcover Canadian edition > > > > Is Petunia just nosy, or does she have a legitimate reason for > peering > > so intently out of the window? And, if she does have a legitimate > > reason, how composed would she have to be to hide such an intense > > reaction as would likely occur from her husband and nephew? > > > Karen responded: > > What better way to hide a reaction - look out the window? I sit near > the window at work and many times when people need to compose > themselves they come over and stare at the parking lot. I have > learned that if someone is standing in the middle of the aisle > looking out the window not to disturb them because they are usually > trying to calm down or compose themselves. Carol adds: I initially took Petunia's reaction to mean that she was searching for the killer in her neighborhood, but I think you're right that she recognizes Sirius's name and is hiding her reaction from Vernon (and Harry). I don't however think that Sirius was "that awful boy." I doubt that James took any of his friends with him when he visited Lily, particularly the arrogant Sirius, who probably would have had nothing to say to Muggles. (OTOH, Petunia certainly *would* have regarded him as "awful" had he deigned to visit the Evanses with James.) We know for sure that Petunia is a Muggle, not a witch (JKR's website) and the possibility that she might have had a romance with Sirius is extremely remote, if not out of the question. (He seems the Narcissus type, in any case, in love with himself with no interest whatever in the girls who stare adoringly after him in the Pensieve scene). That said, I do think Bonny's quote is more significant than I had previously realized. We should probably reexamine her actions and reactions in every book. She clearly has more connections with the WW than we previously supposed (even though she's not a witch or a Squib, just a witch's sister). Maybe she's even secretly aware of Mrs. Figg's connection to Dumbledore. In any case, nosy as she is, she certainly would have known the name of James Potter's best man even if she didn't attend the wedding. I wonder if she also knew that Sirius Black supposedly betrayed Lily and James to Voldemort. That would be sufficient reason to hide her emotions by looking intently out the window when she heard he was at large, don't you think? And for being afraid that he was in her neighborhood or even her own yard? Carol From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 05:02:04 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:02:04 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: <7d.579892de.2e6f8193@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > I also thought about the fact that they could go back > just as far as Tom Riddle framing Hagrid for opening the Chamber of Secrets. > They could then try to send him to Azkaban (I don't know how old you have to > be in order to be punished there I would think it's probably older than 16) > or just duel him then. He definitely wouldn't be considered an innocent child then seeing as how he caused Moaning Myrtle's death. This would solve the "guilty conscience" factor, but still produce the same result. What do you think? > > Chancie But they *can't* produce that result. If anyone from today went back and tried to send Tom Riddle to Azkaban, they would fail. How do we know? B/c Tom Riddle didn't go to Azkaban. The past doesn't change. Suppose Dumbledore went back to convict/duel TR. This Time-turning!Dumbledore would be going back b/c he knows how evil Lord Voldemort is. Let's even suppose he was successful (though I believe it would be impossible for him to do so) and had Tom sent off to Azkaban before he killed Myrtle (though I don't know how long he'd get for simply opening the Chamber). But if he goes back, Lord Voldemort would never exist--admitedly, this *is* the result we want--but that also means Voldemort would NEVER commit the murders or start the war that is the very reason Timeturning!Dumbledore goes back, i.e., if Voldemort never exists, then the reason to go back in time and lock up Tom Riddle never exists. CoS!Dumbledore ***never becomes Time-turning!Dumbledore***. And if TT!DD doesn't go back, then who puts TR in Azkaban in the first place? And if no one duels/convicts TR of crimes, then he opens the Chamber, kills Myrtle, and LV comes to power. The past only SEEMS to have changed in PoA, but Buckbeak was NEVER executed. The Trio thought he was b/c they heard the axe fall, but as we learn later in the book, the executioner was just tossing it away in anger. The Trio couldn't see anything and MISINTERPRETED the sound. Buckbeak had already escaped, though the past!Trio don't know it. Harry and Hermione ALWAYS travelled back in time and saved Buckbeak and Sirius. ALWAYS. Their past selves don't know it, b/c they are in the PAST and don't know the future. Their future selves know it b/c they remember their past selves. The very reason Harry can cast his Patronus is because he knows he has already done it. Past!Harry saw Future!Harry cast the Patronus, but MISINTERPRETED it as being his father, just as he MISINTERPRETED Buckbeak's "execution". When Future!Harry is waiting for his father to show up and save Past!Harry, he realizes Past!Harry's mistake, i.e., James was never there. Future!Harry ALWAYS casts the Patronus. Future!Harry is always there with Past!Harry, even if it doesn't seem like it's possible from Past!Harry's point of view. Ugh. It's so clear to me, but even re-reading this, it's so hard to explain. -TL From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 05:02:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:02:43 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <036901c4914e$cc76f080$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112323 > Nope, you definitely shouldn't like him too much. It's rather like "poor > Snape, look how hard his life was" as an excuse for how he later turned out > to be a DE, and now supposedly is reformed? While I love the complexity of > Snape's character, I am not fooled by him: he's in it all for himself, > unless he does something noble to convince me otherwise. As is Peter > Pettigrew. > > The whole argument about James being entranced by the "dark arts" and or > being a putz because of a single Pensieve memory, is "reaching," IMO. > Everybody does things when they are young which they regret, and that > doesn't make them evil. I might remind people who might think otherwise that > there are specific items in that memory that you have to wonder how Snape > knew, like the L.E. James drew, the Marauder's conversation, and several > other intriguing details which should make you go, "HUH? How did SNAPE know > THAT?" Let's face it, Snapey Poo sure looks like the nosey cur Sirius said > he was if you look at it from that perspective. > > Charme Carol responds: I don't want to repeat earlier arguments, but if you go back to earlier discussions of the Pensieve, you'll see that most of the evidence indicates that the memories it presents are objective--what really happened--beyond the perspective of the person whose memory is being presented. That's why Dumbledore takes his memories out of his head and puts them in the Pensieve, removing them from their subjective context so he can study them objectively. Snape may or may not have known the nicknames of the Marauders but he didn't listen in on their conversation or see the initials James scribbled on his test. Both before and after the exam, he was immersed in the test questions that he answered in such detail--until James distracted him. Harry is not seeing from his perspective. He's walking around inside the memory, not seeing through Snape's eyes or from his perspective. Carol, who probably *does* like Snape too much but hopes that her response is clear and logical nonetheless From theadimail at yahoo.co.in Wed Sep 8 05:13:55 2004 From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:13:55 -0000 Subject: Mclaggan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112324 Sorry for busting in late but who's this mclaggan guy? Whoever he is he is driving me crazy. Bye, Adi From theadimail at yahoo.co.in Wed Sep 8 05:37:36 2004 From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 05:37:36 -0000 Subject: A Theory of Essences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112325 Hi, One of the interesting features about the Sorting Hat is that it selects people based on qualities that are essential to them and not whether these particular qualities are manifest at the time of sorting or not. A good example of this would be Neville who at the start of the series was a timid kid but now has come to be one of the most courageous of the lot. How does the hat do it? Well, my guess is JKR would say there are essences to each one of us. And it is this essence that hat looks for when it is sorting. And further, JKR says that the essences once spilled cannot be retrieved, as in the murtlap scene in book5. I do not know whether JKR has used this point in the construction of plots but this can explain a lot of things. Such as ghosts. I mean persons cannot come back from death because death takes away the essence of one's being. Therefore the ghosts who stay behind are only able to do so by having somehow the accidental qualities left behind even after their essences have passed on. How would this affect the series? I think the death of Voldemort can be brought by finding and striking at his essence. Since his essence is ambition gone astray or evil, it can be struck down by love or good, the power which Harry will find in the locked room. Bye, Adi From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 05:48:29 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 6 Title -- Hyphen? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908054829.81110.qmail@web12309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112326 > Carol: > I don't know what the British rules are regarding > hyphen usage, but in > American English, a temporary compound (i.e., one > that's not in the > dictionary) consisting of an adjective plus a noun > or participle is > hyphenated if it precedes the noun it modifies. > Since "half" is an > adjective and "blood" is a noun and they both > precede "prince," the > compound adjective is hyphenated. (Source: "The > Chicago Manual of > Style," 14th edition, p. 221) I guess in my thinking it would have been more along the lines of a name or an object, which would not be subjected to the same rules as if it were a description of a person. I don't have my AP Style Manual unpacked, or I'd be able to give you a better example. The only thing I'm coming up with for an example is I was thinking of the Half Blood Prince along the lines of Independence Day Parade or Puerto Rican Day Parade, where instead of modifiers, which require hyphens, it is part of the title of an object or event. It could also be argued, though, that Blood Prince could be a title, which would also, then not require a hyphen. bamf, who really should have continued with her journalism career, but had to pay bills... ===== "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 ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 06:24:18 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 06:24:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112327 > Thank you, again, PK, for attempting to open my eyes and enlighten > me. I'm doing a little better with this now.... So, in JKR's > version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened > from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events > and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? > > Siriusly Befuddled Snapey Susan Hey Susan, I just tried to answer this with Chancie, so let me see if I can do a better job here. Imagine the universe--the whole space/time continuum is a book. BigBang to the End. We're in a god-like perspective now OUTSIDE the book. To us, Past, Present, and Future are all there. To enjoy the book, we put ourselves in the characters point of view--moving forward in time page by page from front cover to cover, volume to volume. Harry is one entity, living page to page, and at every point in the book, he thinks he's acting of his own free will. I just re-read PoA, and that Harry doesn't have a clue that Sirius is going to die. He'd do things differently, I'm sure, but those things haven't happened from his pov, and he doesn't know about them till he gets to the pages where they do happen. I think the confusing part about time travel in PoA is in the misinterpretations. They make for a good story, but seem to lose people along the way--but if you look closely, you see that the timeline holds up. Harry only thinks Buckbeak has been executed when the Trio hears the axe fall. He continues to think Beaky's dead until he rescues him and sees that the sound they heard was just the executioner throwing his axe. At the point when the axe falls, we have 2 Harrys, one who's "heard" Beaky die, and one who knows Beaky's not dead. Buckbeak NEVER died. Nothing was changed. Harry *always* saved him, but the Harry that saved him is a future-self of the Harry who first thought Buckbeack died. We know for sure that this is the time-turning method that JKR is using b/c of the Patronus Charm. The first time Harry lives through the dementors' attack, he thinks James has come to save him. He's wrong, just as he was wrong about Buckbeak dying. From his perspective, he thought the James-like person casting a spell was his dad. After he's time-turned, he's on the other side of the lake waiting for James to show up. He then realizes his mistake--that James was never there. HE--Harry of the future--cast the Patronus. This knowledge gives him the confidence to actually do it. I don't have the book handy, but Harry even comments on the fact that he was able to do it b/c he KNEW that he had already done it. His past self, living this hour the first time saw his future self, living the same hour a second time, cast the Patronus. He figured it out right before he actually cast the spell. It's not a case of Harry going back in time and changing the past. HE WAS ALWAYS THERE TWICE. If Harry wasn't in the past twice, he never would have cast the Patronus, and he would have died/suffered the Dementor's kiss. Dumbledore *seems* to send them back, but in reality, he's just figured out what happened--*he* knows Beaky wasn't executed (though at this point Harry still mistakenly believes he was) and now he's figured out how Beaky escaped. He currently--as of that page--knows Sirius is locked up but not guarded, and he HOPES that the kids can rescue him. But he's already figured out that the kids have gone back in time--b/c they must have let Beaky go. Let me try it another way: Harry is a few hours older than he should be--I don't have my book nearby, so say the events from Beaky's "execution" to Sirius' escape last from 6-9pm. Imagine Harry's wearing a wristwatch(that's unaffected by timetravel). The "first" Harry hears Beaky executed at 6pm. The "second" Harry rescues Beaky at 6pm but this Harry's wrist watch would read 9pm--b/c he's already lived through this time once. Say the Dementor attack was at 8pm. Time-travelling!Harry's watch would read 11pm--2 hours after Beaky's rescue, but 3 hours since Harry first heard the axe fall. The Time-travelling!Harry knows he can cast a Patronus charm b/c it happened in his past--according to his watch it's now 11pm for him and he first saw the Patronus at 8pm. By the time they have rescued Sirius at 9pm, Timetravelling!Harry's watch will read midnight, b/c he lived those three hours of 6-9pm twice. Harry's unaffected watch will be 3 hours fast, as its 9pm-12am only happened to HARRY. Now that he's moved forward from where he time-turned, he'll have to reset his watch to match up with reality--he's jet-lagged! So 8pm always happens the same way, but if you time travel, you experience it twice. To Harry, he experiences it as 8pm and then again as 11pm from different sides of the lake. But to the rest of the universe, there is only one 8pm. Harry is on both sides of the lake at the same time. We as readers experience it twice b/c we followed Harry. But from an omnipotent-outside time viewpoint, Harry was always there twice. (and the actual times here are just made up for arguments sake) UGh. once again, I get it, and I know what I mean, I'm just not convinced that I can get what's in my head across to anyone else. Sorry, I tried. -TL From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 21:45:44 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 14:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907214544.25425.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112328 > Chancie wrote: > It doesn't really make since to me that there would be time limits on the TT, but the only thing about not having limits is, why don't they just use it to kill Tom Riddle when he's a baby so that no one has to suffer from the things that he will do if given the chance. It would seem like the easiest fix for the whole situation. Harry's parent's would still be alive, Hagrid wouldn't have been framed, and expelled. Cedric wouldn't have been Killed. Neville's parent's would still be sane. Sirius would still be alive....well I think I've made my point. cathy: I think that, if possible, your solution would solve all of their problems (though it is unknown what others it might create), the only persons I believe who would be willing to go to such lengths (i.e. kill a defenseless baby/child) would be those of the nature of Voldemort and his followers. I just can't see any of the "good" guys stooping to such measures. While Voldemort was certainly willing to kill Harry while an infant (that backfired, didn't it?), I just can't see Dumbledore or any of the others aligned with him ever doing anything of the like. Fight an adult who can defend him/herself, yes, but not go after an innocent child. ~Cathy~ now karyn: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the THING with the time-turners that you can't undo certain things? Like, you can go back and correct things that just happened, but you can't go back and kill LV, for example, because there are already so many consequences from him being alive? --Karyn... who think she's read/heard this somewhere but doesn't have a source and might just have made it up... --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 01:53:22 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 21:53:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups]Marietta's punishment (was Re: "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112329 Alla: On the other hand, as I said earlier, I tend to think that Harry may show true compassion to Marietta in next book and may allow her to attend DA lessons, if she will ask. Hmmm... First Off let me say that I believe everyone is entitled to an oppinion, however I have serious doubts that's ever going to happen!!! Do you remember when YOU were 14? I'm 22 now, but I can DEFIANTLY tell you that from what I remember of 14/15 year olds is that they aren't usually that eager to give people who tell on them and get them into trouble second chances! Marietta betrayed the whole DA! She almost got every one expelled(or worse, we all remember what Harry's detention's with her were like) by going to Umbridge!! Hermione gave everyone who signed up fair notice of by signing the paper, they were promising not to tell Umbridge or anyone else about the DA. Marietta deserved to be punished. As far as her memory, things would have been so much worse if she had remembered and decided to tell Fudge. Besides once her memory was erased, it's not like they really had time to be worring about "poor Marietta" Dumbledore had left and everyone was worrying about the future of Hogwarts. As far as forgiving her because she made a mistake, I can see that happening. But as far as letting her come back to DA meetings it reminds me of a saying that goes something like this : fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 02:28:30 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:28:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments Message-ID: <147.3324d284.2e6fc84e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112330 Alla wrote: But, I am not willing to tolerate it. Not at all. What do you mean, he called Lily "mudblood" under duress? I don't remember either James or Sirius FORCING him to do it. I agree! Lily was coming to defend Snape! How this could be "under duress" I don't understand. The only think I can think is because Snape was embarrassed, he called her "mudblood" to try to divert the attention to someone else, and show himself as a "tough guy", but that in NO way excuses his attitude towards Lily! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 02:08:31 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:08:31 EDT Subject: Time-Turning (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <1df.2a090886.2e6fc39f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112331 SSSusan: So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? Chancie: Once again I'm going to chime in here. What then would make the TT different from the Pensieve??? Hermione participates in class, or else she wouldn't have home work from her additional classes. She couldn't take exams if she wasn't part of the class and just "watching them" no one would know she was ever even in the class! Does this make sense? The only rule I could see that could apply and make since in this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back a few days in time. This is the only thing I could think of that would make since. The whole "not being able to change time" thing just doesn't cut it for me. But that's just my opinon. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eeyore5497 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 22:24:11 2004 From: eeyore5497 at yahoo.com (Michelle Horcher) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040907173622.30682.qmail@web60508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040907222411.40068.qmail@web12209.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112332 karyn wrote: macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: Mac now: so Harry was christened ... hmmmmmmmm (I do hope JC isn't supposed to be behind 'that' door at the MoM or else anything to do with the veil). Personally I hope there's NOT gonna be a religious/Christian theme/explanation of everything, because I'm agnostic/atheist myself, and that would ruin the whole experience of the books for me. Besides, it would feel really strange if JKR threw in some Christian values somewhere because a lot of the books are built upon the difference of the Wizard World vs Muggle World. There are lots of people who celebrate Christmas of other reasons than it being a big Christian holiday. Maybe that's the case here too? --Karyn... I cannot speak for JKR, true many do celebrate "Xmas" for other than christian beliefs. However, has it occured to anyone that the whole basis of HP Books is in that "prophecy" and the fact that "the boy who lived", lived because of "Sacrificial Love" the same "Sacrificial Love" that Jesus gave us on the cross! So much for hoping that JKR isn't going to "throw in some Christian Values"! Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 04:45:01 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 04:45:01 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > DuffyPoo wrote : > "Marietta would have been cleared up in a trice by Madam Pomfrey if > she'd known what jinx had been used. " > Marcela here: I believe that Madam Pomfrey *did* know what type of jinx had been used, after all Umbridge and McGonagall (and Cho) know that the spots showed up the moment Marietta started 'singing' -it was implied that McGonagall took care of Marietta after DD flew away 'with style'. I strongly believe that Madam Pomfrey just didn't want to fix Marietta's face, same as Flitwick and McGonagall didn't want to fix the swamp, or put out the twins fire crackers... they were sort of 'boycotting' the new regime and its supporters, LOL. Do you think that McGonagall would not have asked Harry (or Hermione) what was that jinx about if she had 'wanted' to get Marietta better? Don't forget about them being wizards and witches, jinxes happen all the time and they can be solved -not like curses and/or powerful spells, which could probably not be fixable. Del replies : > Sure ! And why not reinstate the Red Letter for adulterous women while we're at it ?! Marrietta, a 15-year-old girl, has had to keep those monstruous pustules for more than 2 full months !! Marcela here: Honestly! That comparison is just waaayyy out there... While what was done back then to adulterous women was an injustice, the jinx that Marietta got is not, in War times everybody needs to know whom are the traitors, if not you could end up like Lily and James, and BTW the DA members barely got away, if it hadn't been for Dumbledore's sacrifice they would all probably have been expelled. As for Marietta not remembering because of Kingsley's Obliviate curse, I'm sure that Cho and other DA Ravenclaws had to have updated her. Marcela From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 08:42:37 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 08:42:37 -0000 Subject: Mclaggan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "theadimail" wrote: > Sorry for busting in late but who's this mclaggan guy? Whoever he is > he is driving me crazy. > Bye, > Adi Finwitch: McClaggan. A name from Rowling's website http://www.jkrowling.com/ , a name that probably will make it into book 6... (And McClaggan could be a she, as well, mind you, it's a surname We cannot tell either way!). My guesses: McClaggan is: the next DADA teacher/Half Blood Prince/minor character. Finwitch From J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk Wed Sep 8 09:32:38 2004 From: J.Z.Dench at uel.ac.uk (Jospehine) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:32:38 -0000 Subject: LV and HP wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112335 "niekycrins" wrote: The wand chooses the wizard, according to Ollivander. So the wand with the first Fawkes feather chose LV (TR), the second wand chose HP. What exactly does this mean? When did LV get the Fawkes wand? Nieky Jospehine now: Just responding to your first point. It may not be a very popular view, but I would think that LV 'chose' that wand simply for the purposes of the plot... (prepares for theorists to ambush me at night and tie me to a stake...) I think this is one area we cannot over complicate. Sorry- it was a good point though! Jo From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 09:34:14 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:34:14 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch/Veil/summer in book6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112336 > Alla: > So, I definitely agree with you that Remus is a little reluctant to > touch Harry and when he does (when Sirius falls) I have to wonder > why? Finwitch: Hmm - that reluctance was when Lupin was Harry's teacher. His hesitation to pat Harry's shoulder, that is. He's trying very hard not to treat Harry any different from the rest - because it's expected between teacher/student. (Being werewolf is bad enough, he doesn't wish to add any more issues). I'd say that giving Harry the map when he no longer was his teacher is a bit of a clue on that! Alla: > NO, I don't find strange that Remus wants to save Harry from falling > too. What I do find strange is how did he know that Veil is deadly > that FAST? Finwitch: Well, I have a theory about the Veil - it's NOT, in itself, lethal. What's behind it, is not where the dead go - it's a werewolf-place! So just about everyone who enters, will die or at least be bitten, thus becoming a werewolf, given a new, wolf-related name etc. As Lupin's a werewolf, he *knows* that. He's *been* there as a child. He ALSO knows that Sirius can stay alive there by transforming into a dog, and full moon isn't close (Lupin can go there and enervate Sirius). Also, Harry would NOT survive in there... And, most wizards WOULD die there! What comes to veil as metaphor, it doesn't work for me. Death as Growing daffodils (finnish uses another plant, but the point is the same one), - or that skeleton with a scythe, sure. Veil? It could be a piece of clothing for a grieving widow (but *she's* alive!), a bride about to be married, or by some women of the East. It's a piece of cloth to hide someone (but that someone's alive, not dead). So Sirius is well hidden. Alla: > How do you read "keep in touch"? Do you read it as some kind of > hidden warning to Harry? Finwitch: Well, considering how Moody told Harry to write every three days - I think Lupin simply asked Harry to write to him as well. (Preferably daily, I think). Hmm... Harry's going to spend a *very* short time with Dursleys - what will happen? Is Lupin going to pick him up? Is Harry deciding he'd rather die fighting Voldemort (and the fight WILL eventually happen anyway, now that he knows the prophecy) than survive but starve at Dursleys? Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 09:45:13 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:45:13 -0400 Subject: Memory Charms (was Re: "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: <001a01c49588$8a7c7680$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112337 Yb said: "On a different pitch (same note): How can you "decide" what memories to erase? "Obliviate" seems to take care of everything, even how to write your own name in joined- up writing, as evidenced by Lockhart, but there must be varying degrees of Memory Charms, otherwise Marietta wouldn't have had much use for Hogwarts after this little encounter. So to erase 6 months of meetings, how would you go about just getting the ones you want? Any thoughts?" DuffyPoo: I had thought this was more along the lines of a Confundus Charm. Marietta was saying no when she should be saying yes, and vice versa. We were introduced to the Confundus Charm in PoA where HP and HG were saying the opposite of what Snape and Fudge were saying. Snape said Black had Confunded them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 09:50:54 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 05:50:54 -0400 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? Message-ID: <002301c49589$55e02e70$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112338 Dharma replies: "There is ample evidence that *Lucius is an abusive person*. Just because Lucius has the economic power to lavish gifts on Draco or to manipulate circumstance to favor Draco, it does not follow that Lucius is not abusive to his son. The extent to which Draco is the subject of his abusive behavior is questionable, as we only know what Harry knows." DuffyPoo: But none of it *proves* LM is abusive of Draco. None of it, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 10:10:23 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:10:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Alla: > > So, I definitely agree with you that Remus is a little reluctant to > > touch Harry and when he does (when Sirius falls) I have to wonder > > why? > > Finwitch: > > Hmm - that reluctance was when Lupin was Harry's teacher. His > hesitation to pat Harry's shoulder, that is. He's trying very hard not > to treat Harry any different from the rest - because it's expected > between teacher/student. (Being werewolf is bad enough, he doesn't > wish to add any more issues). I'd say that giving Harry the map when > he no longer was his teacher is a bit of a clue on that! > > mhbobbin: So how do you explain Lupin in OotP? He's not Harry's teacher. And he shakes the hands of the other kids--twice. He shakes Harry's hand, yes, but only at Privet Drive. I think there's more going on here than teacher / student or the development of Harry's relationship with Lupin. In PoA, we see more of Lupin's thought process --he wanted to reach out to Harry but thought better of it--than we do in OotP where he is less central to that part of the story. So Lupin thought better of touching Harry. In that context, the reader accepts the statement and doesn't question it. But this peculiar characteristic--unique to LUpin and unique to Lupin's relationship to Harry--continues in OotP. I will continue to maintain that there is something interesting in Lupin's parting words to Harry in OotP. mhbobbin From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 10:24:34 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 06:24:34 -0400 Subject: Snape and DADA Message-ID: <003c01c4958e$099e23f0$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112340 PK: > Now, if you take the theory that going back in time DOES change > things, producing alternate timelines, you would have one ribbon > going along normally, and then when someone went back in time to do > something that *had not been done*, the ribbon would split in two. > The things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, which > is why I say they "had always done them" and that they are not > actually going back and doing things that change events. The > things they do that influence events *aren't changes*, which is > why I say they "had always done them" and that they are not > actually going back and doing things that change events. > One would be the timeline he came from, where the thing had not > happened. The new one would be the same up to the point he did > it, and then it would branch off. (Then there are further concerns > such as whether or not you can actually get back to your 'home' > timeline -- which, it should be noted, you have not altered.) SSSusan said: "[I'm sure many of you are just shaking your heads at me, saying, "Nope, there's no hope for THAT one." But surely there's at least one other person out there who can't quite grasp this!? Damn-- I'm Phi Beta Kappa, but I can't "get" time travel!!!]" DuffyPoo: That one would be me. I've stayed out of TT threads for this very reason. I cannot wrap my head around it. However, having just read this thread, reading what PK wrote above, I had one thought: What if the voice HP heard at GH and thought was James was actually himself? Is that why Lupin was so shocked when HP said he'd heard James' voice (during the Patronus lesson)? Has HP already gone back to GH, told Lily about the 'ancient magic' of sacrifice to save baby-Harry? Grasping at straws because I just don't get it... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 10:24:52 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 06:24:52 -0400 Subject: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban Message-ID: <004001c4958e$1479ae70$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112341 Carol responds: "I don't think James, Lily, or Sirius *could* have told him because the Secret Keeper's identity was part of the secret itself, which could only be revealed by the Secret Keeper. And Peter, of course, had reasons of his own for not revealing the change." DuffyPoo: I don't believe that the S-K's identity is part of the secret or there would have been no need for the S-K to go into hiding as Sirius had intended to do before he talked James into making the switch. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 10:30:07 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:30:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112342 "mhbobbin": > I think there's more going on here than teacher / student or the > development of Harry's relationship with Lupin. > > In PoA, we see more of Lupin's thought process --he wanted to reach > out to Harry but thought better of it--than we do in OotP where he > is less central to that part of the story. So Lupin thought better > of touching Harry. In that context, the reader accepts the statement > and doesn't question it. But this peculiar characteristic--unique to > LUpin and unique to Lupin's relationship to Harry--continues in > OotP. I will continue to maintain that there is something > interesting in Lupin's parting words to Harry in OotP. Finwitch: Well, now that Harry knows Remus is one of the friends of his parents - partly why he's close to Sirius as well - shaking hands is too formal. Hugging would be too intimate, considering Harry's still calling him Professor Lupin despite of Remus' insistence to call him Remus... It's an awkward situation and Lupin doesn't know how to take it. They could be close, if not for certain events- but the events ARE there. But I can imagine more: Lily's love-protection hurts a werewolf, even if the werewolf in question is friendly and not a danger *at the moment*, just because he'd be mortal danger once a moon? OTOH, Lupin doesn't seem to feel pain when touching Harry (like saving him from the Veil) Then again, he's probably good at hiding it, after all that moonly practise for years. Finwitch From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Sep 8 10:34:33 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:34:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > So, in JKR's > version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened > from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events > and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? > I don't think so . If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT is that it *is* possible to change time. That is, it was entirely possible for future!Harry to enter Hagrid's hut while the past!Harry (and Hermione and Ron) was there. If he had done that, he would have changed the future (i.e., the present from which he came). However, because they were aware of this possibility, and tried hard not to change the course of events, they returned to an unchanged future/present. To give a grim example of returning to a changed future/present: Let's say that Harry had entered the hut, and that the trio were so shocked by seeing a second Harry, they ran screaming to tell DD. DD in his turn thinks that there is some black magic involved and tries to perform some complex and dangerous spell that results in his own death. So, when future!Harry and Hermione return to the sick room, Ron isn't there (never having been hurt) and they see Poppy weeping over DD's dead body. *Of course*, this is as full of paradox - if future!Harry bursts into the hut and past!Harry encounters him, how come he doesn't have the memory of that? But then, TT *is* paradoxical - there is no way (other than the splitting time lines theory) to make it entirely logical. Naama From amgolden22 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 06:20:02 2004 From: amgolden22 at yahoo.com (Andrea Golden) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908062002.65430.qmail@web50508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112344 Quoting Carol: My favorite Snape/ McGonagall scene is the last appearance of either character in OoP: Snape almost amicably agrees to McGonagall's proposal to add more points to Gryffindor's (and Ravenclaw's) hourglasses ("What say you, Professor Snape?" "What? Oh--well--I suppose"). And he seems genuinely glad to see her. )"Professor McGonagall! Out of St. Mungo's, I see!" (OoP Am. ed. 852-53) Andrea: (for whom this is a first post!) I was always under the impression at the end of OoP that, while Snape's comment about McGonagall being out of the hospital seemed sincerely pleased, he was rather miffed by her overriding him by giving Gryffindor all those points. She seemed to be mocking him a little too: "So that's fifty each for Potter, the two Weasleys, Longbottom, and Miss Granger... Now, you wanted to take ten points from Mr. Potter, I think, Professor Snape--so there we are..." (ooP Am. ed. 853). She's just given Gryffindor two hundred fifty points, and as an after thought, takes ten away on Snape's behalf. Of course, all this takes place from Harry's point of view, which is inherently flawed and biased. The interactions between Snape and anyone he genuinely likes (and I think he does like McGonagall and respects her very much) will be colored by his anger at Snape. ship w(REC)ks and canon fodder at http://www.livejournal.com/users/phaballa Boggart in my Head at http://home.uchicago.edu/~amgolden --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amgolden22 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 06:28:32 2004 From: amgolden22 at yahoo.com (Andrea Golden) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908062832.70384.qmail@web50505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112345 Quoting mhbobbin : To clarify my original point--and it's more of an observation than theory--I think that JKR has drawn attention to there being something odd about Lupin touching Harry. I think that others have proposed that Lupin never touches Harry--that's not quite true--and I'm not saying that, and that's easily disproved. But even when Lupin touches Harry, it's interesting. Such as the only time Lupin shakes Harry's hand--although it seems this is a common gesture for Lupin to make to the kids, is at Privet Drive. I'm only saying that IMO she's drawing attention to it. Andrea: Isn't it possible (and perhaps this has been brought up previously) that Lupin hesitates to touch Harry in PoA because he feels it would be untoward? Consider the fact that he has left his best friends' only child to be raised by Muggles who treat him unkindly for the past thirteen years and never told the boy of his existence, it only seems fitting for Lupin to be hesitant about being demonstrative. He might feel guilty for leaving Harry with Muggles and perhaps feel that he has no right to comfort Harry when he himself abandonned Harry as well. ship w(REC)ks and canon fodder at http://www.livejournal.com/users/phaballa Boggart in my Head at http://home.uchicago.edu/~amgolden __________________________________________________ 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 patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 11:18:19 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:18:19 -0000 Subject: Memory charms (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112346 ~Yb: > How can you "decide" what memories to erase? "Obliviate" seems to > take care of everything, even how to write your own name in joined- > up writing, as evidenced by Lockhart, but there must be varying > degrees of Memory Charms, otherwise Marietta wouldn't have had much > use for Hogwarts after this little encounter. So to erase 6 months > of meetings, how would you go about just getting the ones you want? TL replied: >>I think this accuracy should just be ascribed to "magic". "Obliviate!" pronounced with the proper emphasis, wand movements, and **intention** to erase DA meetings, activities, and personnel does the trick. No worrying about how the biological brain stores memories. No worrying about how many DA meetings there were. << HunterGreen: Ah, thank you for that explanation, however simple it was. I think that's the only way the memory charm thing would have worked without causing too much suspicion. He just pointed the want and said 'obliviate', while concentrating on DA meetings, or perhaps he said "obliviate meetings!" or something to that effect, sort of like the difference between 'accio' and 'accio Firebolt'. TL: >>Just the intent and training and power. Kingsley should have the talent and ability to accomplish it. [snip] Gilderoy ended up in such a mess b/c he was really intending to wipe out huge parts of the boys' memories. [snip] Gilderoy didn't know when or how the boys had figured out the secret of the Chamber, so he was going to take it all away--can't leave any straggling memory that might have contributed to the discovery. Gilderoy wasn't going to take a chance of them remembering anything at all that might expose him. Any loose ends might undo the spell and reveal Lockhart's perfidy.<< HunterGreen: I think that Lockhart just wasn't as talented with memory charms as he claimed to be. He's not really talented with *anything* besides fame, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's not good at the one thing he thinks he can do. Kingsly is an auror, and I'll bet memory charms are part of auror training (either that or he's good with them because he was studious in school, which I'd guess most aurors were). Therefore, he was able to obliviate without harming Marietta's memory or erasing unnecessary parts. Lockhart on the other hand, was simply erasing memories. We don't know how far back he was *intending* to go (since the broken wand may have may the charm worse than he intended), but he had planned on telling people that Ron and Harry "lost their minds", so perhaps what happened to him was what he intended (when Ron used the 'eat slugs' hex/jinx/curse, it didn't appear to do anything beyond what he had planned). Perhaps Lockhart is unaware that obliviate can be used on *specific* memories. Perhaps he just uses it *strongly* (if there are different levels), and the reaction he's noticed is that it makes people appear to lose their minds, so he thinks thats what it does (as in, its the *only* thing it does). Then again, you could be right, and Lockhart really did want to completely wipe Harry and Ron's memories (which is pretty sadistic, although it does make me wonder what Dumbledore would have done if his weapon against Voldemort couldn't remember who he was). From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 8 11:21:28 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:21:28 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <003301c49538$717ed060$2f2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112347 > DuffyPoo: > >A 'fear of failure' and hence a thirst to prove herself. She's been thrust > into a world she knows nothing of, fears failure, and so "Hermione Granger > was on the edge of her seat and looked desperate to start proving that she > wasn't a dunderhead."< > > -------------------------- > > > Susana: > A very intelligent person (I'm not half as intelligent as Hermione) rarely > has the *need* to prove one self, less even a *thirst* to prove one self. Potioncat: What is wrong with wanting to prove yourself? The Sorting Hat said that Harry had a thirst to prove himself and I took that to be a good thing. He'd been held down so long, he wanted to show what he was capable of. Why would it be wrong for Hermione? She may be proving herself to herself. (to the displeasure of her classmates.) Potioncat From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 11:29:03 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 04:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040907222411.40068.qmail@web12209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040908112903.5662.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112348 Personally I hope there's NOT gonna be a religious/Christian theme/explanation of everything, because I'm agnostic/atheist myself, and that would ruin the whole experience of the books for me. Besides, it would feel really strange if JKR threw in some Christian values somewhere because a lot of the books are built upon the difference of the Wizard World vs Muggle World. There are lots of people who celebrate Christmas of other reasons than it being a big Christian holiday. Maybe that's the case here too? --Karyn... I cannot speak for JKR, true many do celebrate "Xmas" for other than christian beliefs. However, has it occured to anyone that the whole basis of HP Books is in that "prophecy" and the fact that "the boy who lived", lived because of "Sacrificial Love" the same "Sacrificial Love" that Jesus gave us on the cross! So much for hoping that JKR isn't going to "throw in some Christian Values"! Michelle christians are not the only ones with Values or who Love or who Sacrifice. The point of the thread is to say that there are some holidays that are pretty much universal because many belief systems lump them at the same time and we may call them by the christian name that calander and card publishers force on us. Harry Potter, as I said before, is not a retelling of the bible, as some on this and other sites seem to believe. (see - he sneezed - that is proof of ..... out of the bible) Yes, there are a lot of people on this list and others that are christians and like to see affirmations (sorry - can't spell until I have my coffee) of their faith everywhere, but I also believe that JKR has kept this series as fill-in-the-blank about religion as possible. She is not writing a series of christian books about "christian values". She is writing a series about "human values". christians do not have the market on good, love, sacrafice, values, etc. I live by a standard of values that would make most christians go screaming for the hills. There are many others on this and other lists of other faiths that do also. All I am simply saying is that just because of certain virtues in the books, do not mean one belief over the other unless cannon or interviews have said otherwise and the fact of the belief JKR personally holds does not mean that it transfers to her books. moonmyyst (who usually just hits delete on anything to do with HP and christianity and is now remembering why) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 11:34:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:34:12 -0000 Subject: Memory charms (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > > HunterGreen: > I think that Lockhart just wasn't as talented with memory charms as > he claimed to be. He's not really talented with *anything* besides > fame, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's not good at the one thing he > thinks he can do. -- Lockhart on the other hand, was simply erasing > memories. We don't know how far back he was *intending* to go (since > the broken wand may have may the charm worse than he intended), but > he had planned on telling people that Ron and Harry "lost their > minds", so perhaps what happened to him was what he intended (when > Ron used the 'eat slugs' hex/jinx/curse, it didn't appear to do > anything beyond what he had planned). > Perhaps Lockhart is unaware that obliviate can be used on *specific* > memories. Perhaps he just uses it *strongly* (if there are different > levels), and the reaction he's noticed is that it makes people appear > to lose their minds, so he thinks thats what it does (as in, its the > *only* thing it does). Finwitch: Intention! If Lockhart's intention was to erase any memory having to do with the fact that he knew no other spell than "Obliviate" - this intent fulfilled on Harry/Ron would erase *very* little - they only knew it for that year... (And besides, someone would have noticed if they went that unaware!) However, this same INTENT upon Lockhart himself would erase *his* memory nearly completely (he's ALWAYS known that secret he was about to obliviate away!), as *he*, quite naturally, has very few memories other than that obliviating-cheat! And I do agree that Kingsley knows the charm better than Lockhart! (Then again, his intent had to do with DA-meetings, of which Kingsley himself has NO memory as it is... much safer, isn't it?) Finland From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 11:36:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:36:55 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Marietta's punishment (was Re: "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote:\ snip. > As far as forgiving her because she made a mistake, I can see that > happening. But as far as letting her come back to DA meetings it reminds me of a > saying that goes something like this : fool me once shame on you, fool me twice > shame on me! Alla: Hey, I am a few years older than you are but you don't have to convince me that teens are not eager to give second chances :o) But, Harry supposed to be a little better than usual teen, does not he? Not perfect, but a little better. If you read earlier discussion ont hat topic, you would also see that you don't have to convince me that Marietta's betrayal was a bad thing. :) > From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 8 12:01:13 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:01:13 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <003201c49538$6fe9d880$2f2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112351 Susana wrote: > I can see I'm alone on this. There's a difference between pursuing ones objective and doing it at all costs. I don't think Hermione would use *all* means to achieve her ends - only those she thinks are justifiable. One may argue that her means are *not* justifiable, but I'm arguing that *she* believes they are. You seem to be implying that she draws no line; I'm saying she draws a line that some people consider excessive. > Potioncat: I'll bet Lucius feels his actions are justifiable too. I snipped a lot of a very good discussion to get to this point. I think I got what I expected out of this thread, but I'd like to confirm it in the friendliest manner. I'd like to hear from both sides. It seems to me that in the post above, and in others, the argument is that Hermione doesn't have Slytherin traits because Hermione is a good person. And that where a Gryffindor has a trait that belongs to Slytherin, the trait is re-named. I happen to think that Slytherins and Gryffindors are very similar! Do you think it is bad to have Slytherin traits? Or do you think it is only bad to have them in the degree Slytherins do? I don't think there is anything wrong with those traits, but rather in the way we've seen Slytherins use them. (For the purpose of this discussion, I don't consider a belief to be a trait. I agree that believing in Pureblood supremacy is bad.) And that could be said of all the houses. Too much ambition can drive a person to go beyond good behavior to reach his goals. Blind loyalty can cause a person to follow a leader in the wrong direction, or to tolerate mistreatment. Knowledge for its own sake can distance you from humanity. Reckless courage can get someone killed needlessly. It would seem to me that most of the students would have traits of several houses. In some cases, you can clearly see the other House traits. And in some, you can wonder why they weren't placed in a different House. Now, I may be wrong. It may be that JKR thought "I'm going to write about a group of good, courageous kids called Gryffindors and I'm going to pit them against the bad, ambitious gang of kids called Slytherins. And to fill out the pages I'm adding some unimportant loyal, smart kids for background." But so far, she's shown us some good people performing some very questionable actions. And she's shown us some bad people doing some good things. And sometimes knowing the motivation changes how we see those actions. Potioncat From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 12:19:39 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:19:39 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <003201c49538$6fe9d880$2f2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112352 Susana wrote: >>I don't think Slytherin requires 'pure ancestry' - half-blood is hardly considered 'pure ancestry'. Tom Riddle was half blooded but he believed in the supremacy of pure blood. I always assumed the requirement was that believe and not the pure blood ancestry (though I agree that a muggleborn wouldn't be sorted in to Slytherin - it would be strange if he/she *believed*).<< HunterGreen: An exact quote from the sorting hat's song in OotP: ' Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest." ' I assume that after 1000 years that Slytherin's views have been watered down a bit to allow half-bloods, but not muggleborns. I doubt the hat would sort a muggleborn into there. Of course, that's just my own interpretation. I don't think that it would sort someone based on their *belief*, because how many 11-year-olds believe that strongly in the purity of blood? (as YB pointed out, how could Tom Riddle believe in blood purity when he *started* Hogwarts and presumably knew nothing about it?). I think its just common for Slytherins to happen to carry that ideal, but there's never been anything to say that having that belief is a requirement for being in Slytherin. There are many, many Slytherins we don't know about, do *they* all have that belief? Susana: >>There's a difference between pursuing ones objective and doing it at all costs. I don't think Hermione would use *all* means to achieve her ends - only those she thinks are justifiable.<< HunterGreen: And using any means she sees justifiable is not *any* means? What she considers justifiable is a rather large amount of things (things that I doubt Ron or Harry would be comfortable with). Susana: >> One may argue that her means are *not* justifiable, but I'm arguing that *she* believes they are. You seem to be implying that she draws no line; I'm saying she draws a line that some people consider excessive.<< HunterGreen: I wouldn't say that she draws no line, but then again I have yet to see her draw one. Susana: >> People who fight for a cause that transcend their own welfare (house elves rights/muggle rights/etc.) are often a lot more dangerous than people who 'just' seek power - who are 'just' ambitious. Ambitious people tend to draw a completely different line that has nothing to do with 'justifiable': How much will they sacrifice *their* present welfare for their goals. That line usually makes them predictable and even controllable. But the right/wrong line is completely unpredictable.[snip] Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because it's too flexible.<< HunterGreen: Do you think that ambition only covers ambition for power or monetary sucess? I would say that Hermione is extremely ambitious when it comes to things like house-elf rights and when it came to "getting" Rita Skeeter. Susana: >>A certain disregard for the rules is definitely Slytherin, and Hermione has it. But then again, she's a teenager. Even Percy could be found with a girl in an empty classroom late at night. Braking rules is part of growing up.<< HunterGreen: But disregarding them? Hermione is interesting because she seems determined to follow the rules to the letter unless they get in her way. Its not breaking rules for the sake of breaking them (which is essentially what teenagers do, brain chemistry at that age makes you want to do anything you are told not to do, just because you are told not to do it). Hermione likes rules, she likes order, but not when it gets in her way. She doesn't stop and say "lets not do the polyjuice potion because we'll have to steal ingredients to make it", but instead finds ways around the rules. I guess its the difference between rebelling (like Harry sneaking to Hogsmeade in PoA) and breaking rules when its necessary to break rules (like saving Sirius in PoA). Susana: >>Are you implying (again) that the sorting is based on ones family? - Even if you mean that it's so only for the Slytherin House, do you mean Percy chose his ambition over the rest but Salazar-Slytherin-in- the-hat refused him because *his family* loves muggles?<< HunterGreen: I think the sorting house takes some considerations with Slytherin in that respect, yes. I don't know about Percy, to me he seems like a clear Slytherin, so I don't know why he wasn't sorted there (I don't think the student *usually* has a choice when it comes to sorting, perhaps in Percy's case the hat deliberated and he pushed it toward Gryffindor since that's where his older brothers were, and because of his family's beliefs). Susana: >>This is the same discussion as above: is it *pure blood* or *belief in pure blood supremacy*? I chose the later because our believes are our choice; our ancestry is not. Hermione and Percy are in Gryfindor because they *chose* to; Not because they were rejected by the other houses!<< HunterGreen: Well, actually, they are in certain houses because the sorting hat put them there, it is after all, the point of the hat. They didn't really have that much choice in the matter (most likely). I don't think *everything* in the series comes down to choice. Hermione wouldn't have been able to choose Slytherin if she wanted to (and she didn't anyway, she was talking about Gryffindor on the train), because Slytherin almost certainly doesn't take muggle born wizards. He himself wanted to leave the school because he wanted to keep magical learning within all magic families, and the point of the sorting hat is to pick the students for each house that the founders would have chosen themselves if they were still alive. Considering how much he hated muggleborns (as evidenced by the secret chamber with the monster to kill them), I doubt he would have allowed any in his house (he didn't even want them in the school at all). I don't think a belief in pure-blood supremacy at the age of eleven is a choice any more than being a pureblood is. Especially considering that they have no primary schools. There are very few children who would be able to recognize on their own that this is the wrong idea before leaving home for school (how could they? they'd be surrounded by their parent's beliefs all the time, and not educated differently until they left for school). I don't see how beliefs has anything to do with the houses, I thought it was based on values and personality traits. To make it simple, Slytherins value ambition/success, Gryffindors value courage, Hufflepuffs fair play and hard work, and Ravenclaw's cleverness. Being evil or prejudiced is not a requirement for being a Slytherin at all. Susana >>Why do you say Draco is not a good seeker? Harry is better than Draco because he's *very* good but the Slytherin always seem to be a strong candidate to the Quidditch cup. And I recall that Draco knew how to fly before entering Hogwarts. I know he bought his place on the team, but that doesn't mean his lousy.<< HunterGreen: He knew how to fly because he had been taught how to fly, not because he was specially talented or anything. I think the incident in CoS when he's more interested in taunting Harry than catching the snitch is why I think he's not such a good player. ' "Training for the ballet, Potter?" yelled Malfoy as Harry was forced to do a stupid kind of twirl in midair to dodge the Bludger, and he fled, the Bludger trailing a few feet behind him; and then, glaring back at Malfoy in hatred, he saw it - the Golden Snitch. It was hovering inches above Malfoy's left ear - and Malfoy, busy laughing at Harry, hadn't seen it. ' (CoS, chapter ten) Also, in the game in PoA (after he lied about his arm so their team wouldn't have to play in the bad weather), he cheats a little bit by pulling on the end of Harry's broom. He just seems a little too cocky of a player, like he only wanted to be on the quidditch team because Harry was on a quidditch team. I think he's adequate at best. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 8 12:22:12 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:22:12 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry and Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112353 Karen wrote: > 2. There is no reaction from Draco when Lucius uses the term "Dark > Lord". Only the DEs call LV "Dark Lord" - does this mean the DEs > have meet at Malfoy's behind closed doors? Draco knows who the Dark Lord is and he shows no reaction. Potioncat: On her site, JKR tells us a little (too little) about Theodore Nott. She cut a scene where the Notts visit the Malfoys on DE business. In the scene Nott and Malfoy exchange some of the DE versions of the Boy who Lived. I'd love to read that exchange! It seems that background information is still valid in her writing even if we haven't been given all the details. Potioncat From drliss at comcast.net Wed Sep 8 12:28:43 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:28:43 +0000 Subject: Lupin's touch Message-ID: <090820041228.8684.413EFAFB00042E1D000021EC22007354469C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112354 Finwitch: Well, now that Harry knows Remus is one of the friends of his parents - partly why he's close to Sirius as well - shaking hands is too formal. Hugging would be too intimate, considering Harry's still calling him Professor Lupin despite of Remus' insistence to call him Remus... It's an awkward situation and Lupin doesn't know how to take it. They could be close, if not for certain events- but the events ARE there. But I can imagine more: Lily's love-protection hurts a werewolf, even if the werewolf in question is friendly and not a danger *at the moment*, just because he'd be mortal danger once a moon? OTOH, Lupin doesn't seem to feel pain when touching Harry (like saving him from the Veil) Then again, he's probably good at hiding it, after all that moonly practise for years. Lissa: Does Lupin ask Harry to call him Remus? For some reason I was thinking he never did. I agree that in PoA Lupin didn't touch Harry because he was his teacher. Being a werewolf is bad enough- and I'm sure Snape would LOVE to catch Lupin in what he'd call inappropriate action! If I recall right, Lupin also never shuts the door when he and Harry are alone, either. Good call on his part- just to cover his own behind. For all that Lupin and Harry SHOULD be close, they're not- not after the werewolf revelation has been made. It partly comes from Harry, yes, but even more from Lupin. Lupin makes absolutely no effort to contact Harry thoughout GoF. I think there's a few reasons for it: the whole teacher/student dynamic, and not wanting to interfere with Sirius's relationship with Harry, but I think more than that Lupin is just exceptionally closed off. Molly constantly accuses Sirius of thinking that Harry is James, but is Sirius the only one doing that? I think Lupin can't look at Harry and NOT think of James, and that hurts him. And while Sirius clings to Harry because of the resemblence, Lupin pushes himself away. Even in OotP, they're not that close. It's clear Lupin cares very much about Harry- when Harry wants reassurance (from Sirius) about his father's behavior in the Penseive scene, Lupin joins in that conversation by right, as an equal, despite the fact he's not technically invited. But Lupin rarely seeks Harry out, and vice versa. Harry's plenty wrapped up in his own problems, so I can understand it. (Besides, adults aren't THAT interesting to a 15 year old boy.) And Lupin has his work for the order, true, but I think there are very, very few people permitted to be emotionally close to him, and he's fighting it with Harry. As for why Lupin grabbed Harry so quickly, that doesn't raise questions for me about whether Lupin is good or evil, but what Lupin -knows-. It seems like he knows something about that veil. How? He didn't work at the Department of Mysteries (at least, not for long)- the poor guy hasn't been able to find paid work and has been shunned all of his adult life. But maybe one of the others did? I agree there's a mystery about Lupin. We're missing far too much of his life to think otherwise. Of course, the frustrating (in a good way!) thing about JKR is I haven't been able to guess many of her twists- even though they're perfectly logical when you look back on them. However, I tend to think the touching thing doesn't have anything to do with it- it's just the response of a very emotionally withdrawn and damaged man to a situation he doesn't know how to cope with. Bear in mind, too, that the HP males are not touchy-feely. How often does Sirius hug Harry? What about Mr. Weasley? What about Ron? Heck, how often does Vernon touch Dudley? A clap on the back is about it! Anyway, there's my two cents :) Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 12:37:28 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:37:28 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112355 Potioncat: >>I'll bet Lucius feels his actions are justifiable too. [snip] Do you think it is bad to have Slytherin traits? Or do you think it is only bad to have them in the degree Slytherins do? I don't think there is anything wrong with those traits, but rather in the way we've seen Slytherins use them.<< HunterGreen: I think Slytherins too often get seen as the "evil house" (although I don't think that Susana necessarily sees it that way). Personally, I think that being ambitious and driven is not evil at all, its not even a bad trait (I know I could use a bit more of it). However, (IMO only, feel free to disagree), I think a lot of that bias comes from the way the books are written. The only "good Slytherin" we've seen is Snape, and he's a horrible example, because he went off and became a Death Eater. JKR thinks that courage/bravery is a very important trait (I know I read an interview or quote from her at one point where she says that almost exactly...I think it was on her website somewhere). The main character and his two best friends are from Gryffindor. Sirius, James, Lily, Lupin and Hagrid were all from Gryffindor (and most likely Dumbledore too). Many of us are waiting for the "good Slytherin" to come around and break the stereotype, but is that person really coming? JKR has been dismayed to see fansite author's who align themself with the Slytherin house, does *she* see it as the evil house? Because there's nothing in the traits that points to "evil" (certainly being 'clever' could lead to evilness as much as ambition). However, it doesn't really matter if the good Slytherin never appears in the books, or if JKR really does think that Gryffindor is the best house. There's still enough gray there for readers to draw their own conclusions about which house is "best" (personally, I think its Hufflepuff). From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 12:59:47 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:59:47 -0000 Subject: Ethics in HP was:"Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112356 Potioncat: > But so far, she's shown us some good people performing some very > questionable actions. And she's shown us some bad people doing some > good things. And sometimes knowing the motivation changes how we see > those actions. Finwitch: And that's some important lesson to learn. We could make hypothesis of the poor man stealing expensive medicine in order to heal his lethally ill wife - the most common example of ethical dilemma. What comes to 'use any means' to achieve their ends - that's what strucks me as wrong. While there is that 'ends justify the means', it does NOT hold right for every case, yet there IS some truth in it. Oh, and adolescents usually have their own code of ethics that opposes the adult view. Hermione taking the broomstick to McGonagall presents adult view, Ron's objection the adolescent code of honour. I'd say that Hermione was right in this, Ron was right when he commented that Hermione needs to check her priorities on her 'We could have been killed - or worse, expelled'... There's the question of society moral code (rules, laws, requirement of obedience) and personal moral code (conscience). This is, I believe, what Dumbledore meant with the choice between what is right and what is easy. It was easy to go along with the Ministry and all those 'educational decrees', but was it right? Did they, as Albus Dumbledore put it, insult the memory of Cedric Diggory by claiming he died of an accident? Easy thing is to follow smc - (because you'll avoid bad publicity and punishments while possibly even getting a reward in form of promotion, acceptance, praise...) the right thing is to follow pmc. Will you stand up for what is right when your (official) society is against it? This is something that has earned fame for some martyrs, like Socrates or Mahatma Gandhi. (non-religious, just political). Christianity was *based* by a martyr and helds up lots for such an act. It takes lots of courage, might require acting against your friends in case they're against your idea, you certainly must give up any ambitions you may have, and it requires action rather than staying inside and reading books. Thus, I dare say that any martyr would be in Gryffindor, whether their method is to suffer of the cruel arrows of destiny or to raise arms against the sea of troubles (Shakespeare wondered which way is more noble - curiously, Neville's mostly doing the first while admiring the second, and Harry's the other way round)... But to be effective, you'd need both, and wisdom to know which act to choose at times. Finwitch From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 13:11:30 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:11:30 -0000 Subject: Memory Charms (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112357 Marcela wrote: > (big snip) > As for Marietta not remembering because of Kingsley's Obliviate > curse, I'm sure that Cho and other DA Ravenclaws had to have updated > her. Ginger adds: There's no canon to back this up, but I wonder if there aren't several types of memory charms, including a temporary one. KS could have done one of those on her. She was sent off to bed at the end of the chapter, but the first mention of her in the next chapter places her in the hospital wing. It is entirely possible that she went back to the Ravenclaw Common Room, and Cho (or another friend), upon seeing her, took her to the hospital wing. They would have certainly asked her about her face. Even if KS had obliviated the DA meetings, she would still remember her visit with DU. At this point Cho would have been agast and probably pointed out to her that this would have gotten her (Cho) in very deep trouble. Marietta may have decided to keep quiet of her own free will at that point. KS wouldn't have needed a permanent one, only one that lasted through the interview in DD's office. Of course, as Marcela pointed out, the DA Ravens could have filled in the blanks. Like I said, no canon to back it up, but it seems someone like KS would be the type to use the "softest" method that would have been efficient. Especially when dealing with a student. Or maybe I romanticize KS cuz I'm quite taken with him. Just a thought-may be right, may be wrong. All it proves is that I can still type. Ginger, who thinks Lupin holds back around Harry because he has lost too many close to him and doesn't want to get hurt again. From j.oramous at verizon.net Wed Sep 8 13:36:55 2004 From: j.oramous at verizon.net (Jenn Oramous) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:36:55 -0500 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: <1094640857.11995.29058.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040908133652.SFDW22385.out006.verizon.net@Laptop> No: HPFGUIDX 112358 Okay, I haven't been around for a while and there is NO way to catch up on reading all of these posts....so if these questions have been asked and answered, could you point me in their direction? If not, then..... Does anyone know what the "J" stands for in Lipin's name? When the trio are on the train in POA, Hermione states that he is "R J Lupin" because of his luggage...so any ideas. And two when Ron gets his new wand it has a unicorn hair core...again. His first wand had a unicorn hair, we know this because he mentions that it is poking out in SS (btw if this wands was handed down to him, how did it choose him? Wouldn't it have chosen the person who had it first?). So once you have a wand do your replacement wands always have the same core? Could this mean that certain ppl have certain traits or enhanced traits because of the type of core in their wand? And do we know what cores Lily and James had? And in reference to that extra question in there, could Ron be stuck with a sub par wand because he was given a hand-me-down in the first place? What I mean is maybe he was never meant to have unicorn hair but since that used one was now he is stuck with it. Okay I am going back to the shadows..... Jenn From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 13:36:51 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:36:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: <090820041228.8684.413EFAFB00042E1D000021EC22007354469C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112359 > Lissa: > > Does Lupin ask Harry to call him Remus? For some reason I was thinking he never did. Finwitch: In PoA, for the most part, he IS his teacher, but I seem to recall he *does* say something in lines of like: "I'm not your teacher anymore, Harry. Please call me Remus". And it's quite right that there's little touching between them. I suppose it's a cultural thing - I see nothing wrong with it, myself, nothing odd certainly... Customs here are that handshake is somewhat formal greeting, there's also hugging between close friends/relatives who see each other after a long time - all other forms of greeting don't involve touching. Sirius comforts Harry by holding his shoulder so tight it hurts (to make sure Harry knows he's there) in GoF when Harry's reliving the graveyard scene. Molly hugs Harry just a bit later (and Harry feels more embarassed and surprised than comforted, but is too polite to say anything about it). Finwitch From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 13:47:38 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:47:38 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112360 > HunterGreen: > I think Slytherins too often get seen as the "evil house" (although I > don't think that Susana necessarily sees it that way). Personally, I > think that being ambitious and driven is not evil at all, its not > even a bad trait (I know I could use a bit more of it). However, (IMO > only, feel free to disagree), I think a lot of that bias comes from > the way the books are written. The only "good Slytherin" we've seen > is Snape, and he's a horrible example, because he went off and became > a Death Eater. JKR thinks that courage/bravery is a very important > trait (I know I read an interview or quote from her at one point > where she says that almost exactly...I think it was on her website > somewhere). The main character and his two best friends are from > Gryffindor. Sirius, James, Lily, Lupin and Hagrid were all from > Gryffindor (and most likely Dumbledore too). Many of us are waiting > for the "good Slytherin" to come around and break the stereotype, but > is that person really coming? JKR has been dismayed to see fansite > author's who align themself with the Slytherin house, does *she* see > it as the evil house? Because there's nothing in the traits that > points to "evil" (certainly being 'clever' could lead to evilness as > much as ambition). > However, it doesn't really matter if the good Slytherin never appears > in the books, or if JKR really does think that Gryffindor is the best > house. There's still enough gray there for readers to draw their own > conclusions about which house is "best" (personally, I think its > Hufflepuff). Alla: I agree 100% that JKR seems to write the books as if she does not like Slytherin House at all and you are correct - this quote about Gryffindor being her favourite house is in FAO on her website. I said many many times - I have absolutely NO problem with her portraying Slytherin ideology as an evil one, because I feel that it is (personally I was extremely happy when answering the question on the websiteabout half-bloods , mudbloods, etc., she drew reality connections with Nazi treatment of jews. Now I can at least be sure that author intended for Slytherin prejudice to be reality-based so to speak) But I do have problems qualifying eleven year olds as potential Death Eaters. I think it is a very, very primitive qualification and way too early in life. Having said all that, I do hope that good Slytherin is coming, because without him/her there is not enough grey for me in Slytherin House to classify it on the same level with other three. Yes, we can imagine that good Slytherin exist, but that is not enough. I want to see fully developed characters, not just say that they may be there. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 13:58:01 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:58:01 -0400 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? Message-ID: <001101c495ab$db30ef20$02c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112361 Marcela here "-it was implied that McGonagall took care of Marietta after DD flew away 'with style'. I strongly believe that Madam Pomfrey just didn't want to fix Marietta's face, same as Flitwick and McGonagall didn't want to fix the swamp, or put out the twins fire crackers... they were sort of 'boycotting' the new regime and its supporters, LOL. <>Do you think that McGonagall would not have asked Harry (or Hermione) what was that jinx about if she had 'wanted' to get Marietta better?" DuffyPoo: That makes Madam Pomfrey and Professor McGonagall two very nasty pieces of work, IMO. Much like DD if he knew Sirius was innocent but left him to rot in Azkaban anyway. This is not the same as Flitwick and McGonagall's response to Umbridge, as leaving the swamp and not extinguishing firecrackers hurt no one...except perhaps Umbridge's pride, which was the point. "Thank you so much, Professor!" said Professor Flitwick in his squeaky little voice. "I could have got rid of the sparkles myself, of course, but I wasn't sure whether or not I had the *authority.*" If Umbridge wanted to micro-manage the school, the teachers were giving her their full co-operation.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 14:04:04 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:04:04 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112362 > mhbobbin: snip. > DD spends the whole of OotP avoiding eye contact wih Harry out of > concern that LV might see into their relationship. I just wonder if > there's a similar concern from Lupin---that Lupin doesn't touch > Harry for fear that Voldemort can learn something about Lupin. What > that would be or how that would work I have no idea. Alla: Thanks for the clarification. I do hope that Remus' importance did not end up with PoA. Do you think it is possible that Remus is now one of the Dumbledore's spies? Then it would mean that Snape is not doing direct spying, I guess, but something else. Not necessarily saying that we can't have two spies, of course From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 13:12:03 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (N. Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:12:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112363 Susan wrote: > Hey, PK, thanks for answering this. But, see? I just DON'T > get it! If a person wasn't alive in, say, 1800, then why *should* > he be able to go to 1800, do something which impacted the course > of events, then return to the present? It seems like such a > cop-out in telling a story! Tonks here: Maybe this will help. Time is an illusion. In the Cosmic order in which Dumbledore lives there is no time only the eternal NOW. All things are happening in the now. So when ones sees the future or goes back in time... it is just a deeper layer of now. Dumbledore's pocket watch is different from a normal watch for this reason. Have I really confused you .. now? Tonks_op From sad1199 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 14:21:12 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:21:12 -0000 Subject: Lupin/werewolf/veil/HBP thread? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112364 sad1199 here: I was reading the posts about Lupin's touch and was very interested in Finwich's theory of the veil being a werewolf place and that there must be more to Lupin that we've seen so far. I know there was a HPB/Lupin thread; could anyone direct me to it? I have not had a go a guessing who the HBP may be (I kind of don't want to know, surprises and all)and would like to see others ideas concerning Lupin as the HBP. Thank you in advance for any help... Have a Happy Love Filled Day! sad1199 From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 8 14:31:34 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:31:34 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: <20040908133652.SFDW22385.out006.verizon.net@Laptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112365 Jenn wrote: > And two when Ron gets his new wand it has a unicorn hair core...again. His first wand had a unicorn hair, we know this because he mentions that it is poking out in SS (btw if this wands was handed down to him, how did it choose him? Wouldn't it have chosen the person who had it first?). Potioncat: I don't remember which brother owned the wand before Ron. Nor do I know if we're told whether it came new to that brother. I would think that whenever you purchase a wand, the most approprate one chooses you. I would tend to believe that Ron and the original owner of his first wand were very similar. We'll have to see if there is any difference with Neville and his new wand. Potioncat who tried to make it work out that Ron will take the wand back in time and become DD and later Ron will get the wand as an old hand-me-down wand...so that he's always had the same wand... (but couldn't.) From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 14:58:14 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:58:14 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112366 > > > > Alla: > > > > You mean Harry holding Draco upside down or vice versa? Yes, I would > > pretty much say that Draco deserved it based on their dynamics, I > > actually would doubt that Harry would do it under normal > > circumstances. > > Finwitch: Well, here's something of Harry's fighting-opponents. Dudley Dursley Dudley's best weapons are his fists and Smeltings-stick, his best defence is calling out for Mommy. Fighting Dudley, Harry uses wit to attack (like that comment on the toilet, and if he's angry, his magic aids him) and speed in defence (with occasional aid of magic in case he's scared). Second, Draco Malfoy Draco has wits and magic, he retorts to teachers (particularly Snape), he tells the press, he uses tricks... Harry has talents he himself is not aware of, he tends to *ignore* Draco mostly, and trusts his friends. Third, Voldemort Both use all they have, and Harry has help from various sources that help him win (Mom's love, Phoenix, Brother-wands, and finally, DA-group and surprise-appearance of Dumbledore) --- Vernon, Petunia, Umbridge and Snape aren't opponents, but adults who bully Harry. Though Harry *defies* them (Umbridge in particular, but then again, most in Hogwarts did, but none so much as Harry), they're more of bullies than opponents, really. -- And well, about Sirius&James on Severus Snape. I'd call them opponents, not the bullys and the bullied. After all, SS knew more curses than most learn for the 7th year as he first came to Hogwarts. So it wasn't nice of Sirius&James to start on 'snivellus' - but, at least the one they picked is the *strongest*, not the weakest of all the students not in their little Moon-transformer-club... Finwitch From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 15:18:20 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908151820.75081.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112367 > Alla: > > Yes, precisely. He was fifteen. That is why and that is why only I > am willing to forgive his pureblooded bigotry. > But, I am not willing to tolerate it. Not at all. What do you mean, > he called Lily "mudblood" under duress? I don't remember either > James or Sirius FORCING him to do it. She means that Snape was very overwrought at the time because he was being humiliated in front of a large crowd. Few people would be rational during such an experience and I would suspect the sanity of those few who managed it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 8 15:25:16 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:25:16 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Lissa: > > > > Does Lupin ask Harry to call him Remus? For some reason I was > thinking he never did. > > Finwitch: > In PoA, for the most part, he IS his teacher, but I seem to recall he > *does* say something in lines of like: "I'm not your teacher anymore, > Harry. Please call me Remus". > [snip] > > Finwitch Pat here: I looked at the end of POA--it sounds like you are talking about the part where Remus returns the invisibilty cloak to Harry when he is packing up his things to leave Hogwarts. "Here--I brought this from the Shrieking Shack last night," he said, handing Harry back the Invisibility Cloak. "And..." He hesitated, then held out the Marauders's Map too. "I am no longer your teacher, so I don't feel guilty about giving you back this as well. It's no use to me, and I daresay you, Ron, and Hermione will find uses for it." There's a little more conversation about why the map makers would have wanted to lure Harry out of the school. Then DD comes in to tell Remus his carriage is here. Remus picks up his things, says good-bye, and tells Harry that "It has been a real pleasure teaching you. I feel sure we'll meet again sometime." >From there on, it is just Harry and DD discussing some of the recent events, but that's it. It would have been nice if Remus had told Harry to call him by his first name, as it would have let Harry know that the door to a friendship was open. But he just didn't do it. Too bad, really. ******** BTW--Lissa (this part has been snipped previously) but I think your assessment of Remus is quite good. I'll just add that Harry isn't one to reach out to anyone either, given all those years of living with the Dursleys. So, if Remus and Harry are ever going to be close, I think Remus, as the adult, will have to be the one to intitiate it. I have hopes for that, after the ending of OotP, where Arthur, Mad-eye and Remus are telling Harry to stay in touch and letting Vernon know that they'll show up if they don't hear from Harry every 3 days. It would be nice if Harry and Remus would send a few owls to each other--Harry needs to talk to someone who was close to his parents and to Sirius, and that leaves Remus. Well, Peter, too--but I doubt that Harry wants to talk to him. Remus has always been one of my favorite characters, especially after OotP. I do hope that he will be closer to Harry in the next two books. Harry really needs someone who connects him to his parents. Pat From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 8 15:32:01 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:32:01 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: Firstly - thanks to Nora and annegirl11 for swimming against the tide by examining the WW and Hogwarts in terms of a wider frame of reference than the usual run of recent posts. Dunno about you, but just lately I've been having difficulty finding threads that spark any interest or enthusiasm at all. I'm not certain how this post will develop, but a glance at past efforts indicate a high probabilty of discursive diversions. > Nora: (with major snips) > I'm trying to figure out how to functionally work in a discussion, a > serious and non-trivial discussion, into any of these classes so far > as they've been presented, and I just can't come up with any good > concrete specifics on how this would be done. For example, methinks > that Hagrid as CoMC teacher is not exactly going to be imparting a > discussion of perspective, even if he asks the kids to draw one of > the animals. That class is overwhelmingly hands-on. Potions is > hands-on. Transfiguration is all about making things change so > McGonagall won't yell at you. DADA is the one place I can see ethics > coming up--Lupin is a good teacher, in part, because he actually > makes them think through the process of dealing with a Boggart, and > why it works to laugh at it, and what it means. > > But it still seems important that the all-magic wizarding world is > lacking a hell of a lot of things--a serious concept of human rights > is a good one, amongst other things. It is certainly far from a > utopia (and, perhaps, getting worse every book), and one of the > themes which seems to be growing is how magic has both positive and > strongly detrimental affects on society and human relationships. The > WW has worked out things that Muggles haven't, but Muggles have > worked out a lot of things that the WW hasn't, and which are coming > back to haunt them. It's the rare visionary like Dumbledore who > appreciates what his society is lacking. > One of the more interesting aspects of Hogwarts (and by extension the wider WW) that seems to slip past most of the members on this site is - just what sort of society is it modelled on? Practically all the older members would answer with little or no hesitation - the 1950s. Those of us - the decrepit, the nostalgia ridden (and usually way behind the curve when it comes to current educational/sociological theory) have no trouble identifying the form, structure, teaching philosophy and behavioural norms of Hogwarts - because our schooling was very similar. Basically it was pedantic - "this is what you need to know - learn it." Very different from modern practices, I'm sure - and don't worry, I'm not about to vapour on about which is better or worse, But for Hogwarts to make any sort of sense it is necessary to consider it according to the standards that Hogwarts (i.e. JKR) has set itself. It doesn't pretend to produce well-rounded, ethically aware, aesthetically enhanced, socially concerned wizards and witches, clutching their NEWTS certificates and committed to bettering society. It is in the business of churning out functioning wizards - in this respect it resembles a technical training college more than a grammar school - and it does it very well. The whole thrust of the curriculum is predicated on the need to master magic in order to function in society - because if you can't master magic you're nobody. The Squib is the WW equivalent of the functional illiterate. With no or few magical skills what future do you have in a society where magic is the common currency of work, travel, play and status? You have no place except at the bottom of the pile. Apparently, it takes a long time and intensive study to become magically 'literate'; so much so that there seems to be insufficient time for the study of ethics or aesthetics. Pity. I'd love to see the list of current best-sellers. They can't all be Lockhart ego-trips can they? And what about Hogwarts library? Are all the books magic-related? Of course we may have doubts whether or no the denizens of the WW have any aesthetic sense at all. In which case who is going to teach it? Art - doesn't seem to exist as we know it. A picture that moves as *it* wills - and demonstrates self-awareness and independent thought can hardly be considered a statement by the artist. Literature - none, unless you regard "how to" manuals as literature. Theatre - non-existent so far as we know. (But I bet I'd laugh my socks off at the WW version of "Swan Lake". The mind boggles.) Music - Celestina Warbeck, The Weird Sisters; that seems to be it. Fashion - frozen into slight variations on the basic robe. Architecture - none. Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get? It's a very pragmatic society, probably deliberately so, seemingly concerned with the business of everyday affairs, totally uninterested in what might loosely be described as cultural matters. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect JKR to describe every facet of the WW; some things will get glossed over because of the constraints of time, page-space or even the difficulty of conceiving WW equivalents that are just different enough to be convincing but similar enough to be intriguing. Ethics and morality is something else. Everybody has those - or at least they claim to. Unfortunately each considers their own variety of ethics and morality to be the best available (otherwise why aren't you trying something different?) and in some instances go further and claim that theirs is the only valid stance possible. This is a pretty naive view IMO. Look around you; what is acceptable in one set of circumstances is not acceptable in another and vice versa. What is considered ethical and moral changes over time, too. I get irritated with those that read a history book and then judge the actions therein by todays standards. It's an egregious mistake to remove something from its context for judgement - but it's worse by several orders of magnitude to cherry-pick. (I'll probably come back to that later.) Society in the books reads as if it's refreshingly robust. Most wizards sort out their own personal differences, and be it by stuffing a satsuma up someone's nose or by hexing their shoes, a rough justice is maintained. Nobody interferes in the business of others. What we would now consider bad or inexcusable behaviour causes little more than a raised eyebrow. There are no police - Aurors seem solely interested in DEs - there is only one Court, and no lawyers. All the laws appear to concern the use or mis-use of magic. For what we would consider capital crimes there is Azkaban; for lesser offences, well, we're not sure, but for some at least and taking Harry and Hagrid as examples, breakage or confiscation of their wand is possible. A crippling punishment in a world run by magic. Difficult to think of a Real World equivalent that would reduce an offender to an equally impotent powerlessness. As in society, so in school. Rough and ready behaviour, a certain measure of violence is considered excusable - and expected. This too reminds me of my past - at the time there seemed to be an acceptance of mischievous behaviour - up to a certain level, anyway. Summed up by the old saw "Boys will be boys" I suppose. Step over the line and you got punished - seemed fair. As in the Real World corporal punishment is no longer administered at Hogwarts, though Filch still pines for the good old days. It's the one anachronism (if you believe Hogwarts is 50s based). Modern susceptibilities, I'd guess, though the reality was not as some imagine. Certainly whenever I was up for punishment I was invariably offered a choice - strokes or detention. Nobody that I can remember chose detention "What? waste time in a classroom when we could be having fun? No thanks." So we took our strokes and then compared them for 'grouping' and lividity in the changing room afterwards. No big deal. We recognise stereotypes among the teachers, too. McGonagall, Flitwick, Binns, Snape - they were all there. Didn't take long to work out tactics and strategies for coping with them; the strict, the gentle, the boring, the vicious - everyday obstacles in school life. The only 'type' that was truly feared was the inconsistent - friendly one day, a hair-triggered monster the next. But overall the interaction between staff and pupils at Hogwarts seems commonplace to me, though doubtless exotic and disturbing to the younger set. And (no doubt to the distress of Nora) little class-time was spent discussing ethics or morality. We got that at home or at our local church. Generally speaking it was a parents responsibility to ensure that a child understood the moral guidelines that govern society, it wasn't abrogated over to the educational system. And it was seen as a parental *duty*, laxity was frowned upon - if a child misbehaved persistently the parent was first in line for blame. I'd expect much the same in the WW, after all the students are 11 when they start Hogwarts - plenty of time for the moral certainties to have been inculcated at home. But there is one area where it is Hogwarts duty to take the lead - magical ethics. And so we have the awfulness of the Unforgivable Curses drummed into their heads, that and the unsavory-ness of Dark Magic in general. Once again Hogwarts sticks strictly to its brief - magical subjects and associated areas only, please. You can forget sex education, home-making, the nature of government or how to fill in a tax form. Such is not our business - do those in your own time. This is a school for Witchcraft and Wizardry - it says so on the label. (There has been informed speculation that JKR based the Unforgivables on certain aspects of The Universal Charter of Human Rights which pronounces on the need for guaranteed freedom from named oppressions - can't get much more moral or ethical than that.) You may accept JKRs boundaries or not - better to accept, I think. Wishing some-one else's world to be different is a pretty pointless exercise; that way frustration lies. I mentioned 'cherry-picking' earlier in the piece. This I'd define as accepting some of the out-dated aspects of the WW while castigating others. An example: Snape and his teaching methods would be anathema today, but so would certain behaviours of Harry and his friends. A clique of students who repeatedly gang up on another bunch and leave them unconscious on the floor of a train would be headed for major trouble - Behaviour Orders, compulsory counseling, psychiatric assessments - the full panoply of Social Services would descend on them like an avalanche. But we don't want that do we? Youth Court is such a drag. Fine; then a little more consistency please -*both* types of behaviour are fifty years out of date and would no longer be tolerated - believe that both are integral to the story, take the whole cloth or none at all. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 15:35:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:35:52 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112370 SSSusan here: Okay, folks. I realize that many of you will not care one whit about this, and of course you deleting or bypassing is for you. But for those who're interested in time-travel or have been following this thread, variously labeled "Snape and DADA" or "Time-turning (was Snape and DADA)", I'm going to cut & paste blurbs from many people's posts, attempting to highlight both the explanations AND the questions which come from TT Nitwits like moi. In 112310 I (SSSusan) wrote: >>>Okay. Now THAT'S where I lose it. How could time [1800, 1974, whatever] already have happened **and** this individual "simply had not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it yet" *if* they did something important in 1800 or 1974?? How could they have done it and also not yet know that they'd done it?<<< In 112284 Hannah said: >>>When Harry and Hermione went back in time in PoA, they didn't *change* anything. The actions of time-travelled H and H occurred parallel to those of first-time-round H and H. For instance, they hear the sound of themselves in the wood, Harry sees himself across the lake (but luckily thinks its his Dad). So when H and H left the hospital wing, Buckbeak had already been saved. DD knew this, although they didn't, and perhaps that helped him allow H and H to do something so dangerous, since he knew they had *already* sucessfully done it. Harry is able to produce the patronus because he knows he has already done it. At the time he thought his Dad had saved him, but that was because he was interpreting events wrongly. Once he had time travelled and was standing on the other side of the lake watching his past self get dementored, he then realised that the spell he had witnessed was actually one his present self had cast.<<< And in 112285 PK wrote: >>>JKR does not seem to be writing a universe in which one can actually change the past. She took considerable pains in PoA to make it clear that everything Harry and Hermione did after they went back in time *had in fact already been happening while they lived through that period for the first time*. The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and wizards killing their past and future selves, does seem to confuse the issue -- killing one's future self shouldn't actually present a problem of feasibility in itself, but killing one's past self should be impossible.<<< SSSusan AGAIN NOW: Note how both Hannah & PK agree that in JKR's view of TT, the past DOES NOT CHANGE. Both of them (thank you very much!) did a nice job of explaining how it's the PERSPECTIVE and what the characters see/know which changes. And thank you, PK, for acknowledging that that bit from JKR about meeting oneself & killing oneself does complicate things! BUT... here is Chancie, asking the following question.... In 112302, Chancie: >>>The only problem I can see with these type of theories is if Harry and Hermione didn't go back in time, then Buckbeak would be dead, Sirius would have been *kissed* by the dementors as well as Harry. But since they could go back in time and change events, Harry saved himself, Sirius, and Buckbeak.<<< SSSusan AGAIN NOW: Clearly, we're working with DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of "changing time" or "changing the past," aren't we?? My natural tendency is to see things the way Chancie does, though the explanations that have been forthcoming from non-TT-novices have almost got me understanding . Here are two examples from Tylerswaxlion which are helpful, I think, in seeing that the past didn't change. In 112322 Tylerswaxlion said: >>>If anyone from today went back and tried to send Tom Riddle to Azkaban, they would fail. How do we know? B/c Tom Riddle didn't go to Azkaban. The past doesn't change. Suppose Dumbledore went back to convict/duel TR. This Time-turning!Dumbledore would be going back b/c he knows how evil Lord Voldemort is. Let's even suppose he was successful (though I believe it would be impossible for him to do so) and had Tom sent off to Azkaban before he killed Myrtle (though I don't know how long he'd get for simply opening the Chamber). But if he goes back, Lord Voldemort would never exist--admitedly, this *is* the result we want--but that also means Voldemort would NEVER commit the murders or start the war that is the very reason Timeturning!Dumbledore goes back, i.e., if Voldemort never exists, then the reason to go back in time and lock up Tom Riddle never exists. CoS!Dumbledore ***never becomes Time-turning!Dumbledore***. And if TT!DD doesn't go back, then who puts TR in Azkaban in the first place? And if no one duels/convicts TR of crimes, then he opens the Chamber, kills Myrtle, and LV comes to power. The past only SEEMS to have changed in PoA, but Buckbeak was NEVER executed. The Trio thought he was b/c they heard the axe fall, but as we learn later in the book, the executioner was just tossing it away in anger. The Trio couldn't see anything and MISINTERPRETED the sound. Buckbeak had already escaped, though the past!Trio don't know it.<<< And in 112327 Tylerswaxlion remarked: >>>It's not a case of Harry going back in time and changing the past. HE WAS ALWAYS THERE TWICE. If Harry wasn't in the past twice, he never would have cast the Patronus, and he would have died/suffered the Dementor's kiss. Dumbledore *seems* to send them back, but in reality, he's just figured out what happened--*he* knows Beaky wasn't executed (though at this point Harry still mistakenly believes he was) and now he's figured out how Beaky escaped. He currently--as of that page--knows Sirius is locked up but not guarded, and he HOPES that the kids can rescue him. But he's already figured out that the kids have gone back in time--b/c they must have let Beaky go.<<< SSSusan AGAIN NOW: Okay. So has everybody got it now? Understand that distinction between the past being changed and the past NOT being changed? Well, it gets more complicated, I'm afraid, just as I thought I was getting a grasp on things. Read on! In 112328 Karyn suggested: >>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the THING with the time-turners that you can't undo certain things? Like, you can go back and correct things that just happened, but you can't go back and kill LV, for example, because there are already so many consequences from him being alive?<<< And in 112331 Chancie offered: >>>The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back a few days in time. This is the only thing I could think of that would make [sense].<<< SSSusan AGAIN NOW: Now, I find that I just can't go along with these two. If we have to get into "CAN change that because 'nothing significant' came of it" vs. "CAN'T change that because it was important to future events," as Karyn suggested, I just don't see any way it would work (imho). Who's to "decide" what was a significant consequence??? And I just don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as Chancie suggested. It's certainly not at all what PK was describing to us yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to a point *before* s/he was even born. And to complicate matters further, check this out. In 112343 Naama, responding to my question, wrote: >>>SSSusan: So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? Naama: I don't think so . If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT is that it *is* possible to change time.<<< SSSusan AGAIN NOW: See? We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can or can't work. Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present. Yet here we have others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using TT to change time/events/the past. So perhaps *this* is why I object to the TT mechanism so much. It was fun in PoA, and I loved how Cuaron interpreted it in That Medium Which Is Not To Be Named, but there seem to be so many alternative views of how it "can" and "can't" work in the Potterverse, that it's left being very complicated indeed! Many people here seem comfortable with it, but even they disagree on what it means or how it works. How's the average novice-about-TT like me to get it, then? When you want to UNDERSTAND the story completely, it's frustrating. Not to mention what kids think of it. I've explained several times to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find the language to help her grasp it. So, please, JKR, no more time travel unless it's NOT central to the climactic scenes of the series!!! Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping this was helpful to someone besides myself. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 15:40:56 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <147.3324d284.2e6fc84e@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040908154056.11891.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112371 > I agree! Lily was coming to defend Snape! How this could be > "under duress" I don't understand. The only think I can think is > because Snape was > embarrassed, he called her "mudblood" to try to divert the > attention to someone else, and show himself as a "tough guy", but > that in NO way excuses his attitude towards Lily! > > Chancie I think what Snape picked up on was the same thing that has struck most readers: Lily wasn't defending Snape as much as she was raking James over the coals because he was acting like a jerk. Notice that she doesn't even mention Sirius? The only person she pays attention to was James - any girl who can reel off the detailed criticisms she has of him is not a girl who is indifferent to a guy. And of course James misses it by a mile - typical guy. Snape's dignity was already smarting sorely by this point and the last thing he wants is some Gryffindor muggleborn girl charging in to rescue him, especially when it's obvious that she doesn't care about him at all but just about how James is not acting like he should. Snape doesn't want to be rescued; he wants to win this fight. So as soon as he can he shoots the mudblood comment at James to get him riled up - and it works. Dumb kid. (Sidenote: it amazes me that people see this seen as "proof" of Snape having a crush on Lily or of some mythical Snape/Lily ship. They are totally indifferent to each other.) Snape was way out of line using the "m" word and it's clear that he knew what it meant and had no problem - at the time - using it to hurt. Fortunately for James, as it gave James some retroactive nobility for continuing the fight. He wasn't just being a berk anymore, now he was defending Lily's honour (or something). Snape shouldn't have had to be some perfect saint-like kid before we sympathize with his predicament. He didn't become more likeable because he was picked on; Harry certainly doesn't LIKE him any more but he does EMPATHIZE with him. He knows what its like to feel that way and he condemns his father and Sirius without hesitation, both then and later. I think some people think that to empathize with teen!Snape is somehow to excuse his actions or his comment about Lily. Not at all. If Harry hadn't empathized with Snape, it would have indicated a moral deficiency in HARRY, not in Snape. On other forum I subscribe to someone asked a brilliant question: does our knowledge of what Voldemort is prevent us from condemning the actions of Tom Riddle Sr. when he abandoned his pregnant wife because she was a witch and condemned his newborn son to live in an orphanage? After all, Tom Riddle Jr. grew up to be Voldemort so what does it matter what his father did? I think it does matter. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 14:35:42 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:35:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-Turning (Re: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <1b8.8e7710.2e7072be@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112372 susiequsie23 at s...> wrote: So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get that much right?? ********************************************************************* Naama wrote: I don't think so . If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT is that it *is* possible to change time. ******************************************************************** FINALLY, someone who sees my point int his whole TT debate!!! As far as other threads who have stated their belief that "you can't change time...they always' did that." Well, just as you said, the reason it happened the way it did, (Buckbeak survived, Sirius was saved) is because they were sure NOT to change time. They weren't like puppets who were made to follow the steps they had before. They did it because that's what they were trying to do! Hermione remembered to throw the rock in the hut to distract Ron. Harry remembered the patronus was cast, because he had done it previously, but he didn't HAVE to. Had he decided NOT to save himself, then he could have. JKR has said in so many ways in her books that its our choices that matter! And in my opinion, TT falls into this category as well! You always have a choice in what you do, whether you make the right one is all up to you! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 15:50:29 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:50:29 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Society in the books reads as if it's refreshingly robust. Thank you for a very lively post, Kneasy; now, I'm going to disagree with some of it. :) I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is the need for reform in the WW. Hold your charges of cultural imperialism for a moment, please. We've been told that the Fountain is a lie, the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent wizards. Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*. We see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which are 'inferior'. And Dumbledore stands against all of this. I think Azkaban is an utterly sick place, as the idea of a prison that forcibly causes clinical depression in its inmates is a place I could never wish upon my worst enemy. I have a fellow-thinker from within wizarding society, in Dumbledore. He seems to be consciously trying to bust a lot of the ingrained prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards would consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the rules for her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense. He's the Voice part of the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model. > You may accept JKRs boundaries or not - better to accept, I think. > Wishing some-one else's world to be different is a pretty pointless > exercise; that way frustration lies. I mentioned 'cherry-picking' > earlier in the piece. This I'd define as accepting some of the > out-dated aspects of the WW while castigating others. An example: > Snape and his teaching methods would be anathema today, but > so would certain behaviours of Harry and his friends. Shall we make a pact then, dear Kneasy, to try to figure out what in the WW actually conforms to JKR's boundaries and what is presented in order to be a contrast to the ideal boundaries? Something may be presented as normative in a society, and so we think 'Oh, that's just WW ethics, different than ours, let it fly'...but then the society is presented as being fairly deeply sick. I think we are being perpetually invited to be moral critics of the WW and its denizens, and that we are being invited to critique the good guys as well as the bad guys--while not falling down the slippery slope into considering all actions equivocal. Motivation matters in JKR's world, and the solely self-interested seem to be the worst of the worst. -Nora gets back to feverishly trying to finish some work that sadly does not relate to this issue at all. From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 16:06:39 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:06:39 -0000 Subject: Snape Smiles! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcb54me" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > "Behind the Slytherin goalposts, however, two hundred people were > > wearing green; the silver serpent of Slytherin glittered on their > > flags, and Professor Snape sat in the very front row, wearing > green > > like everyone else, and a very grim smile." > > > > ----- > > Not only did he have a smile but he was not wearing black. > > > > - Karen >Jeanette writes: > Great catch Karen! Although I am having trouble imagining Snape > in green, I just hope it is a deep forest green and not a bright > lime. Do you think he has a set of Slyterin green robes in his > closet, just for important games? As head of Slyterin he would have > to set an example of supporting the team. > > But why was he smiling? Did he think his team was going to win or > was he grimly getting ready for Harry Potter to pull a "Harry > Potter" and win against all odds. > Karen writes: Thanks for the laugh - imaging Snape in Lime Green robes is just too much! If he did not have a set before the game, he certainly does now. I think the grim smile was because he was hoping that the score would never get to the necessary 60 point spread in Griffindor's favor. Plus I am sure he gave a few nasty pointers on how to make the Griffindor's pay for every point they scored. Remember the game got nasty - IMO Snape was smiling in anticipation of the brutality of the game the Slytherins were going to play. After all, much as I like to analyze Snape, he is a nasty piece of work. As close to evil as a person on the good side can get. - Karen From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 16:18:41 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:18:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Harry and Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112375 > Karen wrote: > > 2. There is no reaction from Draco when Lucius uses the term "Dark > > Lord". Only the DEs call LV "Dark Lord" - does this mean the DEs > > have meet at Malfoy's behind closed doors? Draco knows who the > Dark Lord is and he shows no reaction. > > > Potioncat: > On her site, JKR tells us a little (too little) about Theodore > Nott. She cut a scene where the Notts visit the Malfoys on DE > business. In the scene Nott and Malfoy exchange some of the DE > versions of the Boy who Lived. I'd love to read that exchange! It > seems that background information is still valid in her writing even > if we haven't been given all the details. > Karen: Is Harry the Boy Who Lived to the DEs and their families? I am sure they have a much more nasty name for him. I agree it would be nice if we could have the trio over hearing a few of the DE off spring discussing their version of GH. -Karen From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 16:28:10 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:28:10 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: (Carol's response to Bonny's views on Petunia) >We should probably reexamine her actions and > reactions in every book. She clearly has more connections with the WW > than we previously supposed (even though she's not a witch or a Squib, > just a witch's sister). Maybe she's even secretly aware of Mrs. Figg's > connection to Dumbledore. Mac: IMO this is beyond doubt - why else would uptight Petunia associate with a batty old, cat-mad woman whose house smells of cabbage? Vernon certainly wouldn't associate himself with such an odd person. Even if Petunia doesn't care much about *where* Harry is left on Dudley's birthdays and during family holidays so long as he's out of their (the Dursley's)hair, it's unlikely that Petunia would voluntarily strike up an acquaintance with Mrs Figg long enough for her to get round to asking favours. Of course, Arabella might have volunteered, though I suspect Vernon wouldn't be pleased to be approached by her under any circumstances. Instead, I think it would definitely be in DD's note to never leave Harry unattended (without the protection of a 'blood tie' made by her physical presence) at Privet Drive and offering that she could reliably use Mrs Figg when necessary. This makes me wonder how Petunia could possibly protect Harry should LV suddenly turn up at Privet Drive. Perhaps it is simply that Petunia's presence (a person of Harry and Lily's blood of course - the only surviving one we know of) would bestow Harry with powers to defend himself that diminish if she is absent. That or the charm is strong in their presence but external/additional to both/either (Petunia and Harry). From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 8 16:28:47 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:28:47 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Jenn wrote: > > And two when Ron gets his new wand it has a unicorn hair > core...again. His first wand had a unicorn hair, we know this > because he mentions that it is poking out in SS (btw if this wands > was handed down to him, how did it choose him? Wouldn't it have > chosen the person who had it first?). > > Potioncat: > I don't remember which brother owned the wand before Ron. Nor do I > know if we're told whether it came new to that brother. I would > think that whenever you purchase a wand, the most approprate one > chooses you. I would tend to believe that Ron and the original > owner of his first wand were very similar. We'll have to see if > there is any difference with Neville and his new wand. > Yb: It was Charlie's old wand. Note that Charlie (in the few times we've seen him) is very interested in Quidditch, and from a line in GoF, when he's talking about Ireland's chances: "Bulgaria's got one good player, Ireland has seven." Said somewhat hotly. I think this shows Charlie has a bit of a temper, like Ron. So Charlie's wand was probably a decent fit: In PoA through OotP, we don't see a major change in Ron's magic skills, now that he has his new wand. Thus the old one must have been a decent fit. I suppose the "same core" rule applies for most cases, since most wizards would get a wand from an older siblinbg or parent, someone they were moderately similar to. Though, had Charlie and Ron been more like Bill and Percy (in personality comparison), maybe Ron's new wand wouldn't have had the same core as before. I'm interested in how different Neville's new wand will be from his father's old one. ~Yb From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 8 16:33:15 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:33:15 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: <20040908133652.SFDW22385.out006.verizon.net@Laptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112378 Jenn wrote: > Okay, I haven't been around for a while and there is NO way to catch up on > reading all of these posts....so if these questions have been asked and > answered, could you point me in their direction? If not, then..... > > Does anyone know what the "J" stands for in Lipin's name? When the trio are > on the train in POA, Hermione states that he is "R J Lupin" because of his > luggage...so any ideas. Karen: I believe it stands for John. I am not sure if that is cannon. > Jen: > > And two when Ron gets his new wand it has a unicorn hair core...again. His > first wand had a unicorn hair, we know this because he mentions that it is > poking out in SS (btw if this wands was handed down to him, how did it > choose him? Wouldn't it have chosen the person who had it first?). So once > you have a wand do your replacement wands always have the same core? Karen: Ron was given Charlie's wand when Charlie got a new one. Speculation both here and elsewhere has it that the wand was a hand-me down to Charlie from a previous Weasly or Pruitt relative. When Charlie started working he could buy his own wand, one that would choose him. Ron got his old one. Jen: Could > this mean that certain ppl have certain traits or enhanced traits because of > the type of core in their wand? And do we know what cores Lily and James > had? And in reference to that extra question in there, could Ron be stuck > with a sub par wand because he was given a hand-me-down in the first place? > What I mean is maybe he was never meant to have unicorn hair but since that > used one was now he is stuck with it. > > Okay I am going back to the shadows..... Karen: There is no cannon reference to the cores of either Lily's or James wand. Ron's wand worked pretty good for him in PS/SS so the unicorn hair is probably the correct core for him. - Karen From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 16:47:51 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908164751.22238.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112379 > We as readers experience it twice b/c we followed Harry. But from > an > omnipotent-outside time viewpoint, Harry was always there twice. > (and > the actual times here are just made up for arguments sake) > UGh. once again, I get it, and I know what I mean, I'm just not > convinced that I can get what's in my head across to anyone else. > Sorry, I tried. > > -TL You explained it very well - both times. I certainly understood and thought it was an excellent summary. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 16:49:44 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:49:44 -0000 Subject: Charms & What Lily 'did' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112380 You all probably noticed this way before I just did - Harry leads a CHARMed life because Lily was a CHARMing witch and an expert CHARMer (whose wand was, after all, particularly good for CHARM work). I took the word charm for granted as meaning 'magic spell' whenever we encounter it in HP but of course there are several ways to define it, as in the previous sentence, and on word use JKR rarely ever misses a trick. Another thing I hadn't thought to think about is that charms seem almost always 'good' (of benefit) and so naturally the enemy of/defence against harm/bad. So...perhaps Lily's job was as a bodyguard for valuable and/or vulnerable goodies against LV and the DE's. This would be different than an auror, who seems more like a commando/police detective. If so, I'd imagine her more as a charm consultant/practitioner, rather than the type that guards one-on-one. Clients might include the MoM (would this have been Millicent Bagnold during the first war?). I hope this isn't a thread that's already been done to death (apologies if so), but if not then any thoughts/comment will, as always, be appreciated and, I am sure, interesting and thought- provoking. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 16:57:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:57:52 -0000 Subject: Molly's touch (was: Lupin's touch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112381 Finwitch: > And it's quite right that there's little touching between them. I > suppose it's a cultural thing - I see nothing wrong with it, myself, > nothing odd certainly... Customs here are that handshake is somewhat > formal greeting, there's also hugging between close > friends/relatives who see each other after a long time - all other > forms of greeting don't involve touching. > > Sirius comforts Harry by holding his shoulder so tight it hurts (to > make sure Harry knows he's there) in GoF when Harry's reliving the > graveyard scene. Molly hugs Harry just a bit later (and Harry feels > more embarassed and surprised than comforted, but is too polite to > say anything about it). SSSusan: While I don't disagree at all with your point that there isn't a lot of touching going on in the HPs, I *really* do take exception with your characterization of the Molly-Harry hug at the end of GoF. Here's the scene: The thing against which he had been fighting on and off ever since he had come out of the maze was threatening to overpower him.?@He could feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner corners of his eyes.?@ He blinked and stared up at the ceiling. "It wasn't your fault. Harry," Mrs. Weasley whispered. "I told him to take the cup with me," said Harry. Now the burning feeling was in his throat too. He wished Ron would look away. Mrs. Weasley set the potion down on the bedside cabinet, bent down, and put her arms around Harry.?@He had no memory of ever being hugged like this, as though by a mother.?@The full weight of everything he had seen that night seemed to fall in upon him as Mrs. Weasley held him to her.?@His mother's face, his father's voice, the sight of Cedric, dead on the ground, all started spinning in his head until he could hardly bear it, until he was screwing up his face against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him. There was a loud slamming noise, and Mrs. Weasley and Harry broke apart. Note that Harry was embarrassed [wishing Ron would look away] *before* Mrs. Weasley hugged him. Note also that Harry didn't break away from her until there was a loud, slamming noise. We do NOT see him resisting her hug. In my opinion, this hug was JUST what Harry wanted & needed; and even if all don't agree with me about that, I still do not see how you can come to the conclusion that he was "more embarrassed and surprised than comforted." *Where* does it show this? There may be another scene--in OotP, likely--where Harry is somewhat embarrassed by Molly's fussing over him. But in *this* scene in GoF, I just don't see how one can come to the conclusion from the text that Harry was just too polite to complain about Molly's hug! Siriusly Snapey Susan, who counts this scene as among her very favorite. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 17:04:09 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908170409.87878.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112382 > Potioncat: > > It seems to me that in the post above, and in others, the > argument is that Hermione doesn't have Slytherin traits because > Hermione is a good person. And that where a Gryffindor has a trait > that belongs to Slytherin, the trait is re-named. I happen to think > that Slytherins and Gryffindors are very similar! > > Do you think it is bad to have Slytherin traits? Or do you think > it is only bad to have them in the degree Slytherins do? Excellent post, Potioncat!!! Personally I think that there are no such things as Slytherin or Gryffindor traits (or Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw or Durmstrang or Beauxbatons either). There are human traits - period. I'm very uncomfortable with idea that certain houses possess certain traits as if they get handed out with quidditch team scarves or something. Gryffindors are courageous! How wonderful - for Gryffindors. And how convenient - if you're the Boy Who Lived and you've had a good run of saving people in the nick of time and your second best friend is trying to argue that your vision can't be real and you're ignoring her logic. But Phineas Nigellus points out that Slytherins are brave too but they save their own necks first. A dead hero is no good to anyone, least of all himself. Would someone from another house say that the flipside of Gryffindor bravery is Gryffindor bravado? Or would a Slytherin say that in his house you don't rush into a situation without having a back-up plan for getting out again? Or before you examine all the possibilities in a given situation? Like what if Sirius isn't being tortured and it's a trap? Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 8 17:06:47 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:06:47 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <147.3324d284.2e6fc84e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112383 Chancie: > I agree! Lily was coming to defend Snape! How this could be "under duress" I don't understand. The only think I can think is because Snape was embarrassed, he called her "mudblood" to try to divert the attention to someone else, and show himself as a "tough guy", but that in NO way excuses his attitude towards Lily! > Snape is behaving exactly the way Lily will a few moments later when she gets angry at James for defending her. "I don't want *you* to make him apologize," Lily shouted, rounding on James. "You're as bad as he is...." Snape is angry at being helped by someone he considers no better than James. It only makes him feel worse, and he reacts accordingly. He was being held upside down with his undies showing at the time and had every right to be angry at James, at least. Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a bit like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not say that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he hated Lupin. But I wonder why people make so much of Snape's insult and ignore the utterly sexist "I will [leave Snape alone] if you go out with me." What *that* says about Lily's honor, I don't like to think. "You're just as as bad as he is..." IMO, that's not hyperbole, that's the gospel according to Rowling. James was indeed just as bad as Severus. James undoubtedly became a better person and Severus undoubtedly became worse, but there wasn't much to choose between them at that point, IMO. I can understand why some people, although acknowledging that James's behavior was really really bad, are reluctant to call it evil. But I think that's a semantic thing. "I'm flawed, you're really bad, he's evil." Of course, if a character who is better than we are is evil, where does that leave the rest of us? I have a feeling JKR's answer would be, "In desperate need of a second chance." James found his second chance sooner than Snape did, but they both needed it. We *know* James caused lasting harm to Snape--Dumbledore said so. Wounds too deep for healing, remember? James eventually became so good that even Dumbledore was ready to overlook how bad he had been before, but Snape can't, because he's still hurting. Pippin From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Sep 8 17:29:38 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:29:38 -0000 Subject: Harrys wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112384 Speaking of wands. Probably an old discussion but new to me. Tried to find earlier posts on this but no luck. In my danish PS-edition it says - Harry trying out wands at Ollivanders - that the one which chose him is made of *chimera horn* (danish: kim?rehorn) and that Voldemorts wand has the other half of it (since it's a twin *chimera horn*). No mention of Phoenix Feathers. In my UK PS-copy it does say Phoenix Feathers (with no mention of *chimera horn* at all). Wondering if it is only in the danish versions that this occurs - or if it has been in any of the UK/American/other languages, too, that the mention was of *chimera horn* instead of Phoenix Feathers. And if so - why the change? (In books 2-5 in the danish edition the Phoenix Feather is mentioned and no more talk of *chimera horn*). Inge From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 18:19:45 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:19:45 -0400 Subject: Christianity and HP Message-ID: <3481D6C4.542A6695.0004E520@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112385 Regarding whether HP reflects "Christian values" I just want to make one observation. The values we are talking about, moral behavior, sacrificial love, the ability to make right or wrong choices, etc, are NOT exclusively Christian values. They are values held dear by a variety of religions and belief systems, including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Humanism, Wicca, etc. While JKR may have been influenced by Christianity among her many other sources (paganism certainly being one), she has kept her religious references vague, to allow us to interpret HP from a variety of perspectives. I think this is deliberate on her part since she has not included any specific religious references in HP (there's not even a chapel at Hogwarts, AFAIK) that can't be considered reflective of long-standing local culture (Christmas and Halloween celebrations, for example). HP and the values contained therein are meant to speak to all of us, no matter our backgrounds or beliefs, IMO. And that's how it should be for a book series that has enchanted the entire world (thank you, JKR). Juli (who dislikes seeing sacrifice, love, morality, etc, co-opted by ANY religion or belief system) From drliss at comcast.net Wed Sep 8 17:36:42 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:36:42 +0000 Subject: Lupin's touch Message-ID: <090820041736.28833.413F4329000A0A2E000070A122007348409C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112386 Pat: BTW--Lissa (this part has been snipped previously) but I think your assessment of Remus is quite good. I'll just add that Harry isn't one to reach out to anyone either, given all those years of living with the Dursleys. So, if Remus and Harry are ever going to be close, I think Remus, as the adult, will have to be the one to intitiate it. I have hopes for that, after the ending of OotP, where Arthur, Mad-eye and Remus are telling Harry to stay in touch and letting Vernon know that they'll show up if they don't hear from Harry every 3 days. It would be nice if Harry and Remus would send a few owls to each other--Harry needs to talk to someone who was close to his parents and to Sirius, and that leaves Remus. Well, Peter, too--but I doubt that Harry wants to talk to him. Remus has always been one of my favorite characters, especially after OotP. I do hope that he will be closer to Harry in the next two books. Harry really needs someone who connects him to his parents. Lissa: Thanks :) Remus is one of my favorite characters as well, thus the reason I analyze the poor boy to death. I've tried to say this on other message boards (and maybe even here, I forget), and it doesn't seem like I'm ever clear, but here goes. I totally agree with you that Remus and Harry should connect, and Remus should reach out to Harry as the adult. What I question is if they actually will. The key word here is SHOULD. Since when do Potter characters do what they should do? :) I actually have a theory that they won't connect. I get the feeling that JKR is alienating Harry from the adults in his life. (His parents and Sirius are dead. Hagrid's occupied with the Order and Madame Maxime. Dumbledore was avoiding him. Molly is driving him away with her overprotectiveness.) I think this pattern will lead to one of two things: either Lupin being forced to break through his own emotional walls to connect with Harry (especially now that Sirius is gone), or Harry and Lupin being unable to cope with their mutual grief and avoiding each other, forcing Harry to stand on his own. One of the things I love about JKR- and I think the biggest reason I love Lupin- is she writes very real characters, and that includes all the flaws. It would be nice if they'd connect. But I wouldn't put galleons on them doing so!!! :) (although I'll be happy if they do. Books 6 and 7 could definitely use more Lupin.) Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 18:41:50 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly's touch (was: Lupin's touch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908184150.51318.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112387 > There may be another scene--in OotP, likely--where Harry is > somewhat > embarrassed by Molly's fussing over him. But in *this* scene in > GoF, > I just don't see how one can come to the conclusion from the text > that Harry was just too polite to complain about Molly's hug! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, who counts this scene as among her very > favorite. There are a couple of places where Harry is embarassed by Molly's attentions to him but if I remember correctly it's because she's being extra nice to him right after giving Ron and/or the twins and/or Ginny proper hell, and he's aware of the difference. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 18:46:01 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:46:01 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040908154056.11891.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I think what Snape picked up on was the same thing that has struck > most readers: Lily wasn't defending Snape as much as she was raking > James over the coals because he was acting like a jerk. Notice that > she doesn't even mention Sirius? The only person she pays attention > to was James - any girl who can reel off the detailed criticisms she > has of him is not a girl who is indifferent to a guy. And of course > James misses it by a mile - typical guy. Alla: I have no problem acknowledging that Lily did pay attention to everything James did, BUT are you saying that "Leave him alone" (I don't have a book right now) does not show that she was also defeinding Snape? I don't really care that she may had secondary motivation, when she interfered. It is enough for me that ONE of her motivations was to defend Snape. She does not mention Sirius. True. But James is the primary attacker at the moment. Magda: > I think some people think that to empathize with teen!Snape is > somehow to excuse his actions or his comment about Lily. Not at all. > If Harry hadn't empathized with Snape, it would have indicated a > moral deficiency in HARRY, not in Snape. Alla: Not me. I most certainly emphasise with the kid, being attacked by two others. But JKR definitely prevented me from considering James to be EVIL becuase of such action (I find his ACTION to be cruel, I think that there are reasons why he felt that way towards Snape). That was the original question, I think. I think JKR hints quite clearly at racist mindset, Snape had at time. I will never think that Snape deserved to be picked on, but I alsot hink that him calling Lily "that name" prevents me from, I guess, full empathy with him. Am I being clear or am I confusing everybody? Magda: On other forum I subscribe to someone asked a brilliant question: > does our knowledge of what Voldemort is prevent us from condemning > the actions of Tom Riddle Sr. when he abandoned his pregnant wife > because she was a witch and condemned his newborn son to live in an > orphanage? After all, Tom Riddle Jr. grew up to be Voldemort so what > does it matter what his father did? > > I think it does matter. Alla: I agree. It does matter. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 18:53:15 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:53:15 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112389 Nora: (with major snips) >>>> I'm trying to figure out how to functionally work in a discussion, a serious and non-trivial discussion, into any of these classes so far as they've been presented, and I just can't come up with any good concrete specifics on how this would be done. For example, methinks that Hagrid as CoMC teacher is not exactly going to be imparting a discussion of perspective, even if he asks the kids to draw one of the animals. That class is overwhelmingly hands-on. Potions is hands-on. Transfiguration is all about making things change so McGonagall won't yell at you. DADA is the one place I can see ethics coming up--Lupin is a good teacher, in part, because he actually makes them think through the process of dealing with a Boggart, and why it works to laugh at it, and what it means. But it still seems important that the all-magic wizarding world is lacking a hell of a lot of things--a serious concept of human rights is a good one, amongst other things. It is certainly far from a utopia (and, perhaps, getting worse every book), and one of the themes which seems to be growing is how magic has both positive and strongly detrimental affects on society and human relationships. The WW has worked out things that Muggles haven't, but Muggles have worked out a lot of things that the WW hasn't, and which are coming back to haunt them. It's the rare visionary like Dumbledore who appreciates what his society is lacking.<<<< Kneasy: >>> One of the more interesting aspects of Hogwarts (and by extension the wider WW) that seems to slip past most of the members on this site is - just what sort of society is it modelled on? Practically all the older members would answer with little or no hesitation - the 1950s. Those of us - the decrepit, the nostalgia ridden (and usually way behind the curve when it comes to current educational/sociological theory) have no trouble identifying the form, structure, teaching philosophy and behavioural norms of Hogwarts - because our schooling was very similar. Basically it was pedantic - "this is what you need to know - learn it." Very different from modern practices, I'm sure - and don't worry, I'm not about to vapour on about which is better or worse, But for Hogwarts to make any sort of sense it is necessary to consider it according to the standards that Hogwarts (i.e. JKR) has set itself.<<< SSSusan: Having begun my schooling in the States in the mid-'60s, I am asking for clarification: You're saying that with the '50s model, schools did not put the content of "learn this" into the context of a moral code or ethics? It seems to me that, as you argue later-- >>> And (no doubt to the distress of Nora) little class-time was spent discussing ethics or morality. We got that at home or at our local church. Generally speaking it was a parents responsibility to ensure that a child understood the moral guidelines that govern society, it wasn't abrogated over to the educational system. And it was seen as a parental *duty*, laxity was frowned upon - if a child misbehaved persistently the parent was first in line for blame. <<< --you're saying that it was NOT placed in such a context, but rather that was an expectation for teachings in home/church life. (As an aside, I find it interesting that many of us "modern educators" would LOVE to see a return of this particular aspect of education to those roots, but with the frequently cited concept of _in loco parentis_, it's ALL expected to come from the schools. Just don't cross the line and teach them TOO much "morals" or the parents will complain about that, too.) So anyway, back to the topic. Kneasy is arguing that JKR's Hogwarts and the larger WW don't seem too concerned w/ producing "well- rounded, ethically aware, aesthetically enhanced, socially concerned wizards and witches...committed to bettering society." I'll definitely agree with the "aesthetically enhanced," at least as we can see it. No art history/appreciation, no music courses we're aware of [the toad chorus only being an invention of Cuaron's], no opportunity, even, so it would seem, to learn other languages. Or, as Kneasy nicely put it: >>> Art - doesn't seem to exist as we know it. A picture that moves as *it* wills - and demonstrates self-awareness and independent thought can hardly be considered a statement by the artist. Literature - none, unless you regard "how to" manuals as literature. Theatre - non-existent so far as we know. (But I bet I'd laugh my socks off at the WW version of "Swan Lake". The mind boggles.) Music - Celestina Warbeck, The Weird Sisters; that seems to be it. Fashion - frozen into slight variations on the basic robe. Architecture - none. Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get?<<< SSSusan again: It's all pretty much focused on the learning & improvement of magical skills & abilities. There may be *some* discussion of moral use of magic, but where is it happening? Yet, in this, I'll still agree with Nora, who pointed out: >>> I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is the need for reform in the WW. Hold your charges of cultural imperialism for a moment, please. We've been told that the Fountain is a lie, the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent wizards. Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*. We see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which are 'inferior'. He seems to be consciously trying to bust a lot of the ingrained prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards would consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the rules for her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense. I think we are being perpetually invited to be moral critics of the WW and its denizens, and that we are being invited to critique the good guys as well as the bad guys--while not falling down the slippery slope into considering all actions equivocal. Motivation matters in JKR's world, and the solely self-interested seem to be the worst of the worst.<<< SSSusan again: I agree with this assessment of DD and of what we're being invited to do by JKR. (And I think it's how we often get "bogged down," Kneasy, in discussing modern sensibilities & standards.) Yet, there's still that niggling annoyance in wondering how & when our little witches & wizards are being exposed to these concepts. H/R/H have fairly routine encounters with DD, enough for Harry, at least, to have heard & begun to assimilate the "it's our choices" motto. But where do the other kids hear this? As Kneasy said: >>> And so we have the awfulness of the Unforgivable Curses drummed into their heads, that and the unsavory-ness of Dark Magic in general. Once again Hogwarts sticks strictly to its brief - magical subjects and associated areas only, please.<<< SSSusan again: I would say that the operative word there is "brief." Where do they get the discussion of right & wrong uses of magic, of right & wrong (period), of ethics, of working against the kinds of lies the fountain represents? It seems to me that what they get is exposure to a point system, wherein particular behaviors--*if* noticed/caught-- bring about punishments & rewards. Lots is ignored. Not much is discussed in terms of intrinsic rightness or wrongness--or even comparative rightness or wrongness. Not much of a mechanism for internalization. Again, Harry tends to have the benefit of "those conversations" with DD, but who else gets them?? So, that leads me to this question: Is JKR's model so recognizably a '50s system that we should all just be *assuming* that the moral/ethical considerations are being handled at home? And how does that mesh with the kids' not BEING at home 10 months out of each year? (Sorry, Kneasy, I don't think age 11 is or ever has been adequate for the more complex issues here.) And how does it mesh with JKR's "invitation" **to us** to consider all the things Nora has pointed out that she's inviting us to consider? We're "modern," and so we're invited to consider? while the kids are old school, and so it's just not done? I really don't think I'm trying to IMPOSE modern standards onto Hogwarts; I think Nora has shown that JKR DOES want moral & ethical considerations to be important to the WW kids, too. It just begs the question of how the kids are supposed to be considering it all, when there's precious little presentation. Siriusly Snapey Susan From squeakinby at tds.net Wed Sep 8 19:00:02 2004 From: squeakinby at tds.net (squeakinby) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:00:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <3481D6C4.542A6695.0004E520@aol.com> References: <3481D6C4.542A6695.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: <413F56B2.8040106@tds.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112390 juli17 at aol.com wrote: > Regarding whether HP reflects "Christian values" > (who dislikes seeing sacrifice, love, morality, etc, co-opted by ANY religion or belief system) Wouldn't this be a good time to end this thread then? Jem From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 19:05:45 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:05:45 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112391 Marcela wrote : " I strongly believe that Madam Pomfrey just didn't want to fix Marietta's face, same as Flitwick and McGonagall didn't want to fix the swamp, or put out the twins fire crackers... they were sort of 'boycotting' the new regime and its supporters, LOL. Do you think that McGonagall would not have asked Harry (or Hermione) what was that jinx about if she had 'wanted' to get Marietta better?" Del replies : I can understand the Trio not wanting to lift the jinx, but I'd be completely *disgusted* by adults acting that way. Letting students create mayhem is one thing, letting a particular student be disfigured for months is another. Marcela wrote : "Don't forget about them being wizards and witches, jinxes happen all the time and they can be solved -not like curses and/or powerful spells, which could probably not be fixable." Del replies : And how do we know which type is the jinx Hermione used ? Hermione is a powerful witch and she's researched quite a bit. I don't put anything past a girl who brewed a Polyjuice Potion at the age of 12. Moreover, I would think that Madam Pomfrey would have lifted the jinx before Marrietta went home for the summer, at least to avoid incensing the girl's parents, and also because it's a very unprofessional thing to do to let a student go back home injured in any way. But we know that Marrietta was still wearing her balaclava on the Hogwarts Express on the way home. I, Del, wrote : "Sure ! And why not reinstate the Red Letter for adulterous women while we're at it ?! Marrietta, a 15-year-old girl, has had to keep those monstruous pustules for more than 2 full months !!" Marcela wrote : " Honestly! That comparison is just waaayyy out there... While what was done back then to adulterous women was an injustice, the jinx that Marietta got is not, in War times everybody needs to know whom are the traitors," Del replies : First, the Red Letter was not an injustice according to a majority of the society at the time, or it wouldn't have existed to start with. People at the time thought it acceptable to mark adulterous women, but we don't anymore. Similarly, 15-year-old kids might think it's acceptable to disfigure a schoolmate who crossed them, but I, at the age of 30, disagree strongly. Second, the Jinx is very much an injustice, for multiple reasons : 1. Nobody was warned about it. They agreed not to tell, but there was never any mention of what would happen if they did, and especially there was no mention of something so dreadful. Marrietta was not given a choice to avoid the Sneak Mark, because she didn't know she was at risk of getting it. If Hermione had told them what could happen, and yet Marrietta had told Umbridge, then I wouldn't find it unfair. But Hermione didn't warn them. 2. But, you will tell me, Marrietta did agree not to tell. All right. But who gave Hermione the right to decide of the type and the length of the punishment ? Hermione wasn't commissioned to do that, she wasn't even the DA's leader. She took the matter in her own hands without any authorisation. In-justice. 3. You say it was a war situation. I agree. A war against Umbridge (not LV). Only problem is : Hermione *forcefully* enrolled the DA *before* making sure which side they were on to start with. Had she checked, she would have realised that she'd better keep Marrietta out of it, because Marrietta was almost naturally on Umbridge's side, not the DAs. Hermione forced Marrietta to betray Umbridge long before Marrietta betrayed the DA. The situation Hermione *unnecessarily* put Marrietta in was unfair. And even if Marrietta had truly deserved her punishment, the Trio still showed an incredible lack of compassion by letting her go around disfigured. Hermione lost it all when Snape ignored her rabbit teeth, she *knows* what it's like to be disfigured, she also knows how hard it is for Harry to have people gaping at his scar, and yet she lets Marrietta walk around with a balaclava on her head. I'm disappointed. Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 8 19:04:09 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:04:09 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112392 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is the > need for reform in the WW. Hold your charges of cultural imperialism > for a moment, please. We've been told that the Fountain is a lie, > the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent wizards. > Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express > ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*. We > see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood > superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which > are 'inferior'. > > And Dumbledore stands against all of this. I think Azkaban is an > utterly sick place, as the idea of a prison that forcibly causes > clinical depression in its inmates is a place I could never wish upon > my worst enemy. I have a fellow-thinker from within wizarding > society, in Dumbledore. He seems to be consciously trying to bust a > lot of the ingrained prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards > would consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the > rules for her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense. He's > the Voice part of the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model. Kneasy: Oh dear. Look out everybody - Nora is channeling Hermione. I don't consider that an occasional phrase here, a comment about the Ministry statue there, changes DD into a raving activist. His personal standards may differ from those of the WW as a whole, but I can't see him instituting a dictatorship to impose them - because that's what it would take to change the ethos of the WW. I've posted before - so Voldy gets dead - so what? What difference will that make to the attitudes of such as Malfoy? None whatsoever. It didn't when Voldy went down last time, it won't next time. Voldy did not convince Malfoy of anything, Malfoy was already a supremacist; probably had been since he lisped his first spell - he just gave him a means to express his opinions in a concrete way. The 'gradual way' is unlikely to work either. How long has DD been Headmaster at Hogwarts? Any noticeable decline in Slytherin attitudes? Nope. Certainly he recognises the Statue as an hypocrisy, but that is no guarantee that he intends to do anything about it. What support or encouragement did he give Hermione over SPEW/ELF? None. Zero. Partly, I suspect because the Elf situation is not what it seems at first sight - he condones hundreds of unpaid workers at Hogwarts - yes, they may be happy, but a happy slave is still a slave if the consensus of opinion holds. But I for one don't believe that Elves are slaves. Mistreated by certain families they may be, but I'm not convinced that invalidates the institution of House Elfdom; it's an aberation within it. Much more to come on this, I think. I agree; wizards are not benevolent - at best they are patronising, at worst they're Umbridge. And why? Because they can get away with it, that's why. They have power, magical power and if there's one lesson we can learn from history it's that individuals with power eventually use it for their own benefit. You want to break the stranglehold wizards have over others? There's only one way - take away their magic powers. For ever. It's a final resolution to the books that I've offered before and so have one or two others that recognise that unless you do so there will always be Malfoys and probably a never-ending succession of Voldys too. People are not perfectible. Power will be used; that is its purpose. But since magical power is personal and not delegated by popular consent and withheld by the will of the majority, there is no guarantee that it will be used in beneficent ways; it all depends on the inclination of the wielder. And personally I'd trust no-one that much. > Nora: > Shall we make a pact then, dear Kneasy, to try to figure out what in > the WW actually conforms to JKR's boundaries and what is presented in > order to be a contrast to the ideal boundaries? Something may be > presented as normative in a society, and so we think 'Oh, that's just > WW ethics, different than ours, let it fly'...but then the society is > presented as being fairly deeply sick. I think we are being > perpetually invited to be moral critics of the WW and its denizens, > and that we are being invited to critique the good guys as well as > the bad guys--while not falling down the slippery slope into > considering all actions equivocal. Motivation matters in JKR's > world, and the solely self-interested seem to be the worst of the > worst. > Oh, no! Idealism! Arrgh! Ideal society indeed. Ain't no such animal, as I strongly suspect you appreciate - never has been, never will be. It's all very well for writers to witter on about utopias, but when you sit down and read their vapid meanderings it is horrifying, truly awful. There's always a disposessed class in background, hewing wood and drawing water for the benefit of the 'enlightened'. Always seems to be a very ordered society too, backed up by coercive means. No thank you. As a libertarian I'm too fond of my rights - the right to dissent being of prime importance - otherwise you are no better than a slave. JKRs boundaries are interesting, though. I suspect that many are mirages and will vanish before the end. Either they will be explained away or prove to have existed only in the readers mind (with the help of a little misdirection on the part of JKR of course). It's woth remembering that what we know of the WW is what we see through the eyes of a teenage boy - one, moreover, who is a stranger in a strange land. Not the most objective witness. But if you want to define what you see as JKRs boundaries, go right ahead. I reserve the right of dissent, naturally. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 8 19:24:18 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:24:18 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112393 >>>Del wrote: > > And even if Marrietta had truly deserved her punishment, the Trio > still showed an incredible lack of compassion by letting her go around disfigured. Hermione lost it all when Snape ignored her rabbit teeth, she *knows* what it's like to be disfigured, she also knows how hard it is for Harry to have people gaping at his scar, and yet she lets Marrietta walk around with a balaclava on her head. I'm disappointed.<<< Potioncat: Hermione curses a girl with SNEAK. Humm I wonder if in 20 years or so, we hear that Hermione knew more curses than most 7 years? Hermione causes a girl to break out in a disfiguring rash, the twins cause a student to disappear for a time and reappear in a toilet....I wonder what most students think of Gryffindor House? Potioncat From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 19:35:53 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:35:53 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Del replies : > First, the Red Letter was not an injustice according to a majority of > the society at the time, or it wouldn't have existed to start with. > People at the time thought it acceptable to mark adulterous women, but > we don't anymore. Similarly, 15-year-old kids might think it's > acceptable to disfigure a schoolmate who crossed them, but I, at the > age of 30, disagree strongly. > > Second, the Jinx is very much an injustice, for multiple reasons : > > 1. Nobody was warned about it. They agreed not to tell, but there was > never any mention of what would happen if they did, and especially > there was no mention of something so dreadful. Marrietta was not given > a choice to avoid the Sneak Mark, because she didn't know she was at > risk of getting it. If Hermione had told them what could happen, and > yet Marrietta had told Umbridge, then I wouldn't find it unfair. But > Hermione didn't warn them. > > 2. But, you will tell me, Marrietta did agree not to tell. All right. > But who gave Hermione the right to decide of the type and the length > of the punishment ? Hermione wasn't commissioned to do that, she > wasn't even the DA's leader. She took the matter in her own hands > without any authorisation. In-justice. > > 3. You say it was a war situation. I agree. A war against Umbridge > (not LV). Only problem is : Hermione *forcefully* enrolled the DA > *before* making sure which side they were on to start with. Had she > checked, she would have realised that she'd better keep Marrietta out > of it, because Marrietta was almost naturally on Umbridge's side, not > the DAs. Hermione forced Marrietta to betray Umbridge long before > Marrietta betrayed the DA. The situation Hermione *unnecessarily* put > Marrietta in was unfair. > > And even if Marrietta had truly deserved her punishment, the Trio > still showed an incredible lack of compassion by letting her go around > disfigured. Hermione lost it all when Snape ignored her rabbit teeth, > she *knows* what it's like to be disfigured, she also knows how hard > it is for Harry to have people gaping at his scar, and yet she lets > Marrietta walk around with a balaclava on her head. I'm disappointed. > > Del I am going to copy this post on OTC, because it it is getting far afield, and I would like to ask your opinion on a current day examplw of the Scarlet Letter. How do you feel about "Megan's Law" and other laws requiring sex offenders to register their presence in their community? I will say no more on the main list. Off to OTC Haggridd From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 8 19:37:03 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:37:03 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112395 > Alla: > > Not me. I most certainly emphasise with the kid, being attacked by > two others. > > But JKR definitely prevented me from considering James to be EVIL becuase of such action (I find his ACTION to be cruel, I think that there are reasons why he felt that way towards Snape). That was the original question, I think.< It seems to me whatever reasons there were, the feud had its own momentum by then, or surely James wouldn't have considered dropping it if Lily would go out with him. Would Harry even consider dropping his hatred of Malfoy or Snape just to get a date? I understand why you feel the way you do, but perhaps we are simply not using 'evil' in the same way. I don't take it to mean 'beyond redemption'. I don't think any living Being in JKR's world is supposed to be evil in that sense. We've never come to a consensus on the meaning of Dark Arts. Isn't one of the difficulties that it's difficult to be consistent and still carve out an exception for James and his friends, studying illegal magic and roaming a village with a Dark Creature in tow? Maybe we shouldn't be trying so hard. If it was all about hating and fearing the Dark Arts, imagine how Snape must have felt in the Shrieking Shack, learning that his Hogwarts persecutors, who had done it all for such supposedly noble reasons, were guilty of such crimes. No wonder he was in a rage! Anyway, should a Gryffindor be afraid of anything? Pippin thinking that James's defenders are doing a good job of adding hypocrisy to his list of virtues ;-) From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 19:39:31 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:39:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > It was Charlie's old wand. Yes. > So Charlie's wand was > probably a decent fit: In PoA through OotP, we don't see a major > change in Ron's magic skills, now that he has his new wand. What always bugged me is why, if the wand chooses the wizard based on some intrinsic fit, do they ever replace them. Doing so appears fairly common - in SS Olivander refers to Harry's parents buying "their first wand" - implying they later bought another. Both Ron and Neville get hand-me-down wands (though in Neville's case I would think that this was more an emotional decision than a financial one). On the other hand, note Olivander's surprise at how well Harry's wand fit him, and Voldemort, who changed so much since he bought his wand, yet still used the same wand he bought at age 11. I think that the "perfect fit" does not always exist. Most people buy the wands that best fit them of what selection happens to be available in the store. Producing a wand is clearly a major endavour - the core needs to be acquired (how?) and the right wand tree needs to be found. Each wand is unique. So it's likely that re-visiting the store later might yield a better fit wand than the one that happened to be at the store when a person first bought theirs. Regarding Charlie's wand (which was later passed on to Ginny), I would guess that it was bought used to begin with (thus an even smaller selection). Wands are very expensive - Harry's cost something like 17 Galleons I think. For the Weasleys to afford 7 new ones would be hard. Makes more sense to buy them used for school, and let the kids buy new ones once they graduated and made enough money to pay for them by themselves. Salit From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 19:42:41 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:42:41 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112397 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slgazit" wrote: > Regarding Charlie's wand (which was later passed on to Ginny), Ack, I meant "passed on to Ron"... Salit From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 19:46:26 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:46:26 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112398 Carol: >>Maybe she's even secretly aware of Mrs. Figg's connection to Dumbledore.<< Mac: >IMO this is beyond doubt - why else would uptight Petunia associate with a batty old, cat-mad woman whose house smells of cabbage? Vernon certainly wouldn't associate himself with such an odd person. Even if Petunia doesn't care much about *where* Harry is left on Dudley's birthdays and during family holidays so long as he's out of their (the Dursley's)hair, it's unlikely that Petunia would voluntarily strike up an acquaintance with Mrs Figg long enough for her to get round to asking favours.< KathyK: Are you kidding? Batty old Mrs. Figg is the *perfect* person to leave Harry with. The Dursleys don't want their neighbors to find out what Harry is. They have their image of a perfectly normal family to consider. Strange things happened to Harry in his childhood, from regrowing his hair overnight to vanishing the glass in the zoo. The Dursley's know Harry is different-that funny, inexplicable things happen when he's around. If the Dursley's left Harry with any of their other neighbors, who all seem to be living the image of perfection and normalcy, and something happened with Harry's magic, their secret might be discovered. Word would spread through the neighborhood because I have no doubt the rest of the neighbors are just as nosy as Petunia. Then the image of the normal family would be destroyed. No, much easier to tell them Harry's disturbed, that he's a criminal. Then they'll all stay away from him. Mrs. Figg is strange enough on her own that the Dursley's might not care if something 'funny' happened while Harry was around. Even if she said something about Harry to the other residents of Little Whinging, they might discount what she says because she's a kooky old lady. I'm not saying for certain that the Dursley's don't know about Mrs. Figg. I have always argued for Petunia the Muggle, mostly disconnected from the WW and will continue to argue it. As a part of that, I guess I *am* saying I don't believe Petunia knows Mrs. Figg is a Squib. Mac: >Instead, I think it would definitely be in DD's note to never leave Harry unattended (without the protection of a 'blood tie' made by her physical presence) at Privet Drive and offering that she could reliably use Mrs Figg when necessary. This makes me wonder how Petunia could possibly protect Harry should LV suddenly turn up at Privet Drive. Perhaps it is simply that Petunia's presence (a person of Harry and Lily's blood of course - the only surviving one we know of) would bestow Harry with powers to defend himself that diminish if she is absent. That or the charm is strong in their presence but external/additional to both/either (Petunia and Harry).< KathyK: If Dumbledore told the Dursleys that Harry had to be watched by Arabella Figg when they weren't around, why did he then order her not to tell Harry she's a squib? Why would she purposefully make Harry's visits miserable? She says it's because the Dursley's wouldn't let Harry go there if they though he enjoyed it.** But if Dumbledore really told Petunia she had to leave Harry with Mrs. Figg for protection purposes, what difference would it make if Harry had a good time? Mrs. Figg presumably wouldn't have to fear what the Dursley's thought because Harry *had* to be there. There was nowhere else for him to go. On the whole blood protection issue, I find the whole thing very messy and some days I think I have a handle on how it may work only to wake up the next morning wondering what I was thinking. What I do know is that nowhere in Dumbledore's explanation to Harry at the end of OoP does he say Petunia's constant presence is necessary. What he does say is, "While you still call home the *place* where your mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort." (Ch 37, US ed. pg 836) *emphasis* mine To me that means Voldemort can't hurt Harry at Number 4. Period. Because that is where Petunia and he both live. I think Dumbledore was not as forthcoming at the end of OoP as he could have been but I do believe were it important that Petunia stick that close to Harry in order for the protection charm to work, he would have mentioned it to Harry. Why keep it from him if it will keep Harry safe? ** OoP, Ch 2, US ed. pg 22 KathyK, For Petunia the Muggle with Minimum Wizarding World Contact From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 19:51:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:51:00 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112399 Pippin:> > It seems to me whatever reasons there were, the feud had its > own momentum by then, or surely James wouldn't have > considered dropping it if Lily would go out with him. Would Harry > even consider dropping his hatred of Malfoy or Snape just to get > a date? Alla: I disagree. Frankly, I never thought that James was saying that seriously. Anythign to make Lily get off him. I would say that feud was always there, too bad I am just speculating . Pippin: > We've never come to a consensus on the meaning of Dark Arts. > Isn't one of the difficulties that it's difficult to be consistent > and still carve out an exception for James and his friends, > studying illegal magic and roaming a village with a Dark > Creature in tow? Maybe we shouldn't be trying so hard. Alla: No, we won't. Where in the canon it clearly says that Animagi is a Dark Magic? Sure, they have to register, but it is not forbidden to do so, as far as I remember. So, I don't think I am carving an exception for James and his friends. :o) I know how much you like Remus :o), but the fact that Minsitry considers him a Dark Creature, does not show that JKR considers him to be such, quite contrary. > Pippin > thinking that James's defenders are doing a good job of adding > hypocrisy to his list of virtues ;-) Alla: Eh, why? From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Wed Sep 8 14:54:26 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:54:26 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <001101c495ab$db30ef20$02c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112400 > DuffyPoo: > That makes Madam Pomfrey and Professor McGonagall two very nasty > pieces of work, IMO. Much like DD if he knew Sirius was innocent > but left him to rot in Azkaban anyway. The hex is just something written on her face, and it is a meek punishment for someone that got the headmaster thrown out: By not healing her, it could be a statement that students can *not* attack teachers. And in that case they are justified. For Slytherin being evil, or at least not worthy of trust, goes with them being primary ambitious. What I mean is that some Gryffindor can believe mainly in bravery and then in ambition, or in wit, and so on. The problem with Slytherin is that they place ambition as their primary quality, above moral or anything else. They are people that *live* for the ambition, and are not ambitious for their lives. Their fear have got the better of them and, for me, another trait of Slytherin house is cowardness. It is quite explicit with Lucious Malfoy, whose ambition brings him to a life time of kissing an half blood robes because he is afraid of change and of living. "totorivers" From humantupperware1 at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 8 15:31:39 2004 From: humantupperware1 at yahoo.com.au (humantupperware1) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:31:39 -0000 Subject: LV and HP wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112401 > "niekycrins" wrote: > The wand chooses the wizard, according to Ollivander. So the wand > with the first Fawkes feather chose LV (TR), the second wand chose > HP. What exactly does this mean? When did LV get the Fawkes wand? > > Jospehine now: > It may not be a very popular view, but I would think that LV 'chose' > that wand simply for the purposes of the plot... (prepares for > theorists to ambush me at night and tie me to a stake...) I think > this is one area we cannot overcomplicate. HumanTupperware: Sorry to expand this thought right after you say it needs to be left alone.....but it's only a little point..... I always thought that Voldy's wand "chose" him because it was suited to his potential (terrible, but great) as most wands seem to do with people......but then Harry's wand chose him because he is connected to Voldy since the GH incident. Therefore, Harry's "potential" requires him to have a wand that is on par with Voldy's. It's brother/sister wand. If Harry hadn't been connected to Voldy, or "fated" to fight him, a totally different wand would have chosen him, and poor old Neville would have ended up with the Fawkes wand. I also think that Fawkes "gave" his other feather after the prophecy was heard by Dumbledore expressly for the reason that Harry would end up with it, and be able to fight off Voldy more effectively. Just my thoughts...... HumanTupperware From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 8 19:59:18 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:59:18 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112402 Kneasy: > I agree; wizards are not benevolent - at best they are > patronising, at worst they're Umbridge. And why? Because they can > get away with it, that's why. They have power, magical power and > if there's one lesson we can learn from history it's that > individuals with power eventually use it for their own benefit. > > You want to break the stranglehold wizards have over others? There's > only one way - take away their magic powers. For ever. It's a final > resolution to the books that I've offered before and so have one or > two others that recognise that unless you do so there will always > be Malfoys and probably a never-ending succession of Voldys too. > People are not perfectible. Power will be used; that is its > purpose. But since magical power is personal and not delegated by > popular consent and withheld by the will of the majority, there is > no guarantee that it will be used in beneficent ways; it all > depends on the inclination of the wielder. And personally I'd trust > no-one that much. SSSusan: A truly intriguing proposition. Everyone loses magical power as a great leveler of the power "structure". I think I understand the distinction you're making re: magic being a *personal* power, but I still wonder.... If all magical power were suddenly gone, how long would it take before the folks who tended toward "pure bloodism" or "power-wielding for power-wielding's sake" would find another means of gathering power? another means of discriminating and pushing down others? I thought of US history automatically when reading your post. There's been a succession of those promoted [demoted, more accurately] as "dogs" of society--Italian immigrants, Irish immigrants, Blacks, and on & on--simply because it appears to be human nature, when at the bottom of the power [be it political or economic or both] base, to want to put someone else lower than you. Would the fact that magic isn't totally a "race" or "historical" thing prevent this from happening? Or would the power-hungry amongst the witches and wizards simply find some other excuse for banding together in order to gain control? Siriusly Snapey Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 20:09:14 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:09:14 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112403 totorivers wrote : " The hex is just something written on her face, and it is a meek punishment for someone that got the headmaster thrown out: By not healing her, it could be a statement that students can *not* attack teachers. And in that case they are justified." Del replies : Where *ever* did you read that Marrietta attacked DD ??? Her action had *nothing* to do with DD !! She told on the DA for reasons that we know nothing about, but it's quite obvious that her intention was NEVER to get DD thrown out !! Just like Harry never intended to get Sirius killed when he went to the MoM. totorivers wrote : " For Slytherin being evil, or at least not worthy of trust, goes with them being primary ambitious. What I mean is that some Gryffindor can believe mainly in bravery and then in ambition, or in wit, and so on. The problem with Slytherin is that they place ambition as their primary quality, above moral or anything else. They are people that *live* for the ambition, and are not ambitious for their lives. Their fear have got the better of them and, for me, another trait of Slytherin house is cowardness. It is quite explicit with Lucious Malfoy, whose ambition brings him to a life time of kissing an half blood robes because he is afraid of change and of living." Del replies : What is quite obvious is that you are judging all the Slytherins after only a handful of them. And where does it say that they place ambition over moral, or that they are afraid to live and die ? Just because some of them are like that doesn't mean they all are. After all, if we judge all the Gryffindors after pre-OoP Neville, or Peter Pettigrew, or the Creevey brothers, or even Percy or Ron Weasley, they wouldn't look too good either, would they ? Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 20:24:46 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:24:46 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > > > I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is the > > need for reform in the WW. Hold your charges of cultural imperialism > > for a moment, please. We've been told that the Fountain is a lie, > > the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent wizards. > > Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express > > ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*. We > > see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood > > superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which > > are 'inferior'. > > > > And Dumbledore stands against all of this. I think Azkaban is an > > utterly sick place, as the idea of a prison that forcibly causes > > clinical depression in its inmates is a place I could never wish upon > > my worst enemy. I have a fellow-thinker from within wizarding > > society, in Dumbledore. He seems to be consciously trying to bust a > > lot of the ingrained prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards > > would consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the > > rules for her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense. He's > > the Voice part of the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model. > > Kneasy: > Oh dear. Look out everybody - Nora is channeling Hermione. Actually, it's more like a particularly unholy alliance of Karl Popper and E. O. Hirschmann, the only economist ever with a sense of humor. > I don't consider that an occasional phrase here, a comment about > the Ministry statue there, changes DD into a raving activist. His > personal standards may differ from those of the WW as a whole, > but I can't see him instituting a dictatorship to impose them - > because that's what it would take to change the ethos of the WW. GoF, p. 709: "Now, see here, Dumbledore...I've given you free reign, always. I've had a lot of respect for you. I might not have agreed with some of your decisions, but I've kept quiet. There aren't many who'd have let you hire werewolves, or keep Hagrid, or decide what to teach your students without reference to the Ministry..." Fudge sure thinks of Dumbledore as something of a radical, and DD certainly is an intellectual radical compared to the rest of the WW. Actually bothering to read the Muggle papers and understanding Muggle society (as opposed to the ineffectual yet charming efforts of an Arthur Weasley) mark him as different. And you've read Popper, right, Kneasy? You're old enough, right? :) One of his main ideas is 'piecemeal' political reform, as opposed to 'utopian'. Popper noticed (when a lot of people didn't) what utopian societal visions (a strict reading of Plato's Republic, Hegel, Stalinism) led to. In contrast, you start trying to change one thing at a time, you make modifications along the way, and you have a certain classical liberal respect for human rights and boundaries. That's why Dumbledore is at the school--makes you wonder just how big his network of sympathizers and collaborators is, eh? Everyone who is in the Order has some sort of connection to him, and they are a motley group indeed, but their range shows that his ideas have had at least some spread throughout society. > I've posted before - so Voldy gets dead - so what? What difference > will that make to the attitudes of such as Malfoy? None whatsoever. > It didn't when Voldy went down last time, it won't next time. Voldy > did not convince Malfoy of anything, Malfoy was already a > supremacist; probably had been since he lisped his first spell - he > just gave him a means to express his opinions in a concrete way. If you force people to actually face (unlike what happened at the end of VW1, with the coverups and denial and 'oh, nothing happened) the results of their own actions, that their precious blood ideology helped a Voldemort rise, you have the start of changing the dominant ethos of a population. Pureblood supremacy is what let Voldemort rise and collect followers--but I've posted about this before, too. > The 'gradual way' is unlikely to work either. How long has DD been > Headmaster at Hogwarts? Any noticeable decline in Slytherin > attitudes? Nope. This is a sticky question, but here's a suspicion: it's not acceptable to say 'Mudblood' in public, as we gather by the offense that everyone takes to it being used in CoS. In a period of true ascendancy of Slytherin pureblood ideas (when it's okay to be an open fan of Voldemort's ideas, as it canonically was), it's going to be like using certain racial slurs in the American South in the 1950's. Nowadays, people still think them, sure--but they're not an acceptable part of public discourse. This *is* a change, and it's a change for the better. > Certainly he recognises the Statue as an hypocrisy, but that > is no guarantee that he intends to do anything about it. What > support or encouragement did he give Hermione over SPEW/ELF? None. > Zero. Partly, I suspect because the Elf situation is not what it > seems at first sight - he condones hundreds of unpaid workers at > Hogwarts - yes, they may be happy, but a happy slave is still a > slave if the consensus of opinion holds. But I for one don't > believe that Elves are slaves. Mistreated by certain families they > may be, but I'm not convinced that invalidates the institution of > House Elfdom; it's an aberation within it. Much more to come on > this, I think. I agree there's more to come, but it's interesting that he includes elves in the category of the mistreated. Hermione is certainly going about it the wrong way, but yet there *is* something profoundly wrong in how people are currently treating/able to treat the elves. > You want to break the stranglehold wizards have over others? There's > only one way - take away their magic powers. For ever. It's a final > resolution to the books that I've offered before and so have one or > two others that recognise that unless you do so there will always > be Malfoys and probably a never-ending succession of Voldys too. > People are not perfectible. Power will be used; that is its > purpose. But since magical power is personal and not delegated by > popular consent and withheld by the will of the majority, there is > no guarantee that it will be used in beneficent ways; it all > depends on the inclination of the wielder. And personally I'd trust > no-one that much. I don't trust anyone that much, either, to be honest. :) I'm not the predicting type, but I at present doubt she's going to go that route. And since you probably don't want to hear it, I'm not going to go into the responsibility of the community to police its members, okay? :) > JKRs boundaries are interesting, though. I suspect that many are > mirages and will vanish before the end. Either they will be > explained away or prove to have existed only in the readers mind > (with the help of a little misdirection on the part of JKR of > course). It's woth remembering that what we know of the WW is what > we see through the eyes of a teenage boy - one, moreover, who is a > stranger in a strange land. Not the most objective witness. > But if you want to define what you see as JKRs boundaries, go > right ahead. I reserve the right of dissent, naturally. Let me rephrase this: JKR is presenting a number of behaviors, from which we are extrapolating an ethical background of norms for the WW. She approves of some of them (and tends to make them ontologically true, as well), and doesn't of others. Yes, we're getting perilously close to authorial intent, but Wimslett and Beardsley have taken enough of a serious beating over the past 50-odd years that I don't have a problem with doing it. I actually think JKR is a rather moralistic writer. I suspect that all the bad guys are going to get theirs in the end, really. We know we're not going to have Tempted-by-evil!Harry (per interview), as much as you and the rest of the FEATHERBOAS might like to see it. Voldemort's not going to win, either, and I doubt we're going to get a completely and utterly full of angst and pain and terror ending-- although I'll be damn disappointed if we don't get at least some angst and pain. Dumbledore is JKR's self-admitted moral voice, and I think she's going to *make* things fall out so that he's fundamentally right (although I suspect that the prophecy resolution is going to end up being some special thing of Harry's that DD doesn't have the solution to, though). Just a suspicion on my part. -Nora ponders going to check out a copy of 'The Open Society and Its Enemies', now From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 20:25:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:25:46 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112405 > Del replies : > What is quite obvious is that you are judging all the Slytherins after > only a handful of them. And where does it say that they place ambition > over moral, or that they are afraid to live and die ? Just because > some of them are like that doesn't mean they all are. After all, if we > judge all the Gryffindors after pre-OoP Neville, or Peter Pettigrew, > or the Creevey brothers, or even Percy or Ron Weasley, they wouldn't > look too good either, would they ? > > Alla: But that is the problem, Del. Those Slytherins are the only ones we can judge. We don't have any good Slytherins yet. For every bad Gryffindor, we have A LOT of good ones. Where are Slytherins? They may exist in your imagination and that is fine. How do you know that they exist in JKR's? From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 8 20:50:15 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:50:15 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112406 This just sort of popped in my head, almost in response to the Snape/Lily romance theories (which I don't buy into). Maybe there is something there, but we're not reading it right... Chancie wrote: > Lily was coming to defend Snape! The only think I can think is > because Snape was embarrassed, he called her "mudblood" to > try to divert the attention to someone else, and show himself as > a "tough guy", but that in NO way excuses his attitude towards > Lily! Pippin thought: > Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he > was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a bit > like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not say > that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he hated > Lupin. > But I wonder why people make so much of Snape's insult and > ignore the utterly sexist "I will [leave Snape alone] if you go > out with me." What *that* says about Lily's honor, I don't like to > think. Then, in another post, Magda wrote: > I think what Snape picked up on was the same thing that has struck > most readers: Lily wasn't defending Snape as much as she was raking > James over the coals because he was acting like a jerk. Notice that > she doesn't even mention Sirius? The only person she pays attention > to is James - any girl who can reel off the detailed criticisms she > has of him is not a girl who is indifferent to a guy. And of course > James misses it by a mile - typical guy. And Alla responded with: > I have no problem acknowledging that Lily did pay attention to > everything James did, > BUT are you saying that "Leave him alone" (I don't have a book > right now) does not show that she was also defeinding Snape? Well, I'm going to throw this out in the water and see if it floats, so to speak: Funny how Lily defends Snape. Yes, she is paying more attention to James, but she's backing up a Slytherin, and a Dark Arts fan. She probably knows the whole "pureblood mantra" of Slytherin, because she isn't confused by the Mudblood comment, so she's obviously heard it before. It's only when Snape insults her, calling her the worst name he can think of off the top of his head, that she gives up on defending him. Maybe by this point, she has a little PHYSICAL crush on James. With the "fat head" comments, she clearly doesn't like him that much, but by this time it's moving toward a if-he-wasn't-so-arrogant-I'd-date- him-in-a-heartbeat mentality. Not there yet, but getting there. But, what if LILY had some feelings for SNAPE? Maybe she's sticking up for him not because he's helpless and outnumbered (he has enough talent to take on the Marauders at least one on one), but maybe she tried to be friends with him, or even had a little crush on him at one time. He probably never shared the feelings, but she tried to be friends with him, perhaps, and this scene was her not only being a fair, just little creature, but also helping Snapey out in a time of need. When he comes off with that comment (and note, that is the only time in canon he has ever used the term, or something like it), she finally decides he isn't worth the effort after all. I'm not saying it was a romance, or that we'll ever know (unless she told Petunia and she tells Harry, doubtful at best), but thought I'd toss it out there. ~Yb (ducks in cover waiting for rotten vegetables heading her way) From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 8 21:54:38 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:54:38 -0400 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <001f01c495ee$70761b40$acc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112407 Siriusly Snapey Susan "Not to mention what kids think of it. I've explained several times to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find the language to help her grasp it. <> hoping this was helpful to someone besides myself." DuffyPoo: I would like to poll kids in the reading age of these books. I would just bet most of them are thinking like your daughter. None of this helps me, however. I think because it doesn't exist in reality (for those of you who think it does, humour me) everyone who writes TT writes it to their own specifications. In the most recent Time Machine movie, the Time Traveller went back in time to save his fiance. He could not do that because, without her death, he didn't invent the Time Machine (or didn't invent it that quickly, at any rate). But there were not two of the Time Traveller existing in the same place at the same time. When he went back to the park to save his fiance from death, there was only one of him...at least that's how I remember it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 8 21:53:05 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:53:05 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112408 I really think Lupin's reluctance to touch Harry is more to do with the English character than any sinister reason. We have loosened up a bit in recent years, but the English male, at least when sober, is not particularly tactile with other males. And Lupin is extremely introverted, even by English standards. As a teacher too, he would be wary of any gesture that might be misunderstood. As for "Keep in touch" I think it means simply "Make sure I hear from you". Sylvia (another introverted Brit - it takes one to know one) From susanadacunha at gmx.net Wed Sep 8 22:17:55 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (susanadcunha) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:17:55 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112409 I'm replying to several posts in this tread and I sniped a lot or this would be tremendously long. I just wish I had more time to write. In post #112347 Potioncat: >What is wrong with wanting to prove yourself? < -------------- Nothing. I just don't think that's what drives Hermione. ----------- Potioncat: >She may be proving herself to herself. (to the displeasure of her classmates.)< ----------- In a way, I agree. But I wouldn't consider that it a Slythering trait. ---------- In post #112351 Potioncat: >I'll bet Lucius feels his actions are justifiable too. I snipped a lot of a very good discussion to get to this point. I think I got what I expected out of this thread, but I'd like to confirm it in the friendliest manner. I'd like to hear from both sides. It seems to me that in the post above, and in others, the argument is that Hermione doesn't have Slytherin traits because Hermione is a good person. And that where a Gryffindor has a trait that belongs to Slytherin, the trait is re-named. I happen to think that Slytherins and Gryffindors are very similar! < -------------- Yes, they are similar to me too. Yes, I'm sure Lucius feels his actions are justifiable. But no, it's not because Hermione is a good person that I think she has no Slytherin traits. As I said before, I think we all have the four houses in us and I don't believe the amount/extent of traits is the main factor in the sorting (though it's one of them). I believe it's the way we use our abilities that counts. In post #112194 I actually tried to defend that Slytherin v. Gryffindor was *NOT* a good v. evil thing. People are very complex and it's a conjugation of values and abilities that command ones actions. Good and evil are evaluated in the actions and not in the abilities. Values, on the other hand, can be classified as good or evil, but I have also argued that we should let others classify our values as we classify theirs and realise that that classification will never be unanimous. That's why I have so much trouble believing the Hat can tell who's bad and who's good. As for Hermione, I say she has no Slytherin traits because the complex thing she is *doesn't strike me* as the complex thing Salazar would want. We have tried in this thread to discuss a few important aspects of that complex thing and though there were good arguments on both sides I'm still convince she has nothing of Slytherin ? not because she's a good person; not because Slytherin are evil; not because I rename Slytherin trait when a Gryffindor has it. (Oh, I'd write ten more pages on renaming traits! But it's late.) Answering Potioncat questions: Do you think it is bad to have Slytherin traits? No. Or do you think it is only bad to have them in the degree Slytherins do? I don't think Slytherins are bad. (Period!) ------------------ Potioncat: >But so far, she's shown us some good people performing some very questionable actions. And she's shown us some bad people doing some good things. And sometimes knowing the motivation changes how we see those actions.< ------------------- I have nothing to add to that, but that's such a good remark I didn't feel like sniping it. -------------------- In post #112355 HunterGreen: >I think Slytherins too often get seen as the "evil house" (although I don't think that Susana necessarily sees it that way).< ------------------- Oh, thank you, thank you, HunterGreen. I was afraid my English was so bad I couldn't make myself explicit. I agree with all you wrote on this post and I'm hopping (there will be tears here if I'm wrong) that JKR said she was worried to see fansite moderators who put themselves in the Slytherin house *because* she has only shown bad Slytherins and she hasn't sown us the dangerous of labelling someone on a group ? we *should* think Slytherins are bad! (The sorting hat would have a hard time with me ? the only house I would rule out is Hufflepuff, but I would place most of my friends in it ? definitely the "best" house!) ------------------- In post #112352 HunterGreen: >An exact quote from the sorting hat's song in OotP: ' Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest." '< ------------------- It's canon, but it's also a song ? not an historical fact. ------------------- HunterGreen: > I don't think that it would sort someone based on their *belief*, because how many 11-year-olds believe that strongly in the purity of blood? < ------------------- And if you have a thirst to prove yourself at the age of eleven it sticks with you the rest of your life? At the age of eleven you have `inherit' most of your beliefs and some of your abilities. You may turn out to be a completely different person at 17 and even more different at 30. I don't see that as an argument. ------------------- HunterGreen: >as YB pointed out, how could Tom Riddle believe in blood purity when he *started* Hogwarts and presumably knew nothing about it?< -------------------- This deserves an illustrative example. The fallowing is not canon, just a hypothesis. Tom Riddle spent 10/11 years in an orphanage with the sole knowledge that his father had left him and his mother had died giving birth to him. He was mistreated, excluded and psychologically abused, just a little more than Harry. In those circumstances, he does a little more hysterical magic than Harry did, which only make things worse. The other kids treat him like a freak show: they throw rocks at him because this one time the rock bounced back and they want to see it happen again. The adults look at him as if he has the plague and tell him he should act grateful towards the people who take care of him. He doesn't understand what he's doing wrong, but he is sure it's his fault (as his father leaving and his mother dying). One day, a MoM official comes and explains things. He's a wizard and so was his mother (he could have found out before but in my example that's when he finds out). There is a whole community of wizards but they live in secrecy not to upset the poor thick muggles. The wizards let him suffer in ignorance for 10 years even knowing his mother was a witch and he was probably a wizard. Because the child's muggle guardian and the child it self are usually curious about Hogwarts, the MoM official offers a copy of "Hogwarts: A History" (didn't Hermione say she has hers at home in CS?). Tom learns about the houses and Salazar's ideals and instead of thinking "Oh, poor muggles. They didn't know better than to treat me the way they did." he thinks "So, I had to suffer all I did because muggles can't take it that I have something they don't? Why should *we* hide? We're better than them!" Then he investigates her mother (now that he knows where to look for information) and finds out she's Salazar's heir (I don't believe he looked through 1000 years of records ? it had to be a family secret). And he thinks "Salazar was right, of course. We're better than them and we shouldn't let those stupid muggles among us. They are a menace." Need I go further? --------------------- HunterGreen: >And using any means she sees justifiable is not *any* means? What she considers justifiable is a rather large amount of things (things that I doubt Ron or Harry would be comfortable with). I wouldn't say that she draws no line, but then again I have yet to see her draw one.< -------------------- "You can't hurt a baby!"? It's a joke. You have a fair point, of course. -------------------- Susana: >> Back to Hermione, I rather not use the word 'ambitious' because it's too flexible.<< HunterGreen: >Do you think that ambition only covers ambition for power or monetary sucess? I would say that Hermione is extremely ambitious when it comes to things like house-elf rights and when it came to "getting" Rita Skeeter.< -------------------- That's what I meant with `ambitious' being too flexible. It *can* cover the pursuit of Hermione's goals. But some people associate `ambitious' with wanting recognition at some level (thirst to prove one self). And that's not Hermione, IMO. -------------------- HunterGreen: >But disregarding them [rules]? Hermione is interesting because she seems determined to follow the rules to the letter unless they get in her way. Its not breaking rules for the sake of breaking them (which is essentially what teenagers do, brain chemistry at that age makes you want to do anything you are told not to do, just because you are told not to do it). < ------------------- I never broke rules for the sake of breaking them as a teenager. I disregarded them quite often, though. Whenever I thought they wore `stupid' (they got in my way, therefore they were stupid). ------------------- HunterGreen: >I don't see how beliefs has anything to do with the houses, I thought it was based on values and personality traits. To make it simple, Slytherins value ambition/success, Gryffindors value courage, Hufflepuffs fair play and hard work, and Ravenclaw's cleverness. Being evil or prejudiced is not a requirement for being a Slytherin at all.< ------------------- It may be my English here. Beliefs and values mean very similar things to me. That's actually why I'd choose beliefs over ancestry. Your simplification above is correct, IMO, but Salazar put in an extra factor that diverges from the basic: pure blood ancestry/belief. You think it's ancestry (based on canon); I think is belief (based on my personal sense). Oh, well. It would be very dull if we all agreed. Final note on Seeker!Draco: I agree he's on the team because he likes to show off but he can only show off if he's good. Just a thought. Susana From t.forch at email.dk Wed Sep 8 22:31:20 2004 From: t.forch at email.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:31:20 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harrys wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040909001102.02248630@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 112410 At 17:29 08-09-04 +0000, Inge wrote: >Speaking of wands. >Probably an old discussion but new to me. Tried to find earlier posts >on this but no luck. > >In my danish PS-edition it says - Harry trying out wands at >Ollivanders - that the one which chose him is made of *chimera horn* >(danish: kim?rehorn) and that Voldemorts wand has the other half of >it (since it's a twin *chimera horn*). >No mention of Phoenix Feathers. That is, I am afraid, entirely an invention of Hanna L?tzen. In general the Danish translation is OK, but she has made a few errors that makes me cringe whenever I read the books out to the kids :-( My pet grievances (apart from the chimera horn) are the Firebolt, which in Danish became a "Prestissimo" and Pigwidgeon who became "Grisligiano" (shortened to "Gris" which means "Pig"). >Wondering if it is only in the danish versions that this occurs - or >if it has been in any of the UK/American/other languages, too, that >the mention was of *chimera horn* instead of Phoenix Feathers. >And if so - why the change? Well, if I were mean I'd say that she thought that she, as the translator, should be allowed some 'artistic license', but I actually think she tries to write in a way that she believes will make it easier for the Danish children to relate to the text. Why she would think that chimera horn was easier to relate to, or more interesting, than phoenix feathers is beyond me, but I also don't understand why she translated the Firebolt into an Italian music expression (my own kids -- even at 6 -- thought that "Firebolt" sounded infinitely 'cooler', and there would be some very good translations into Danish that would also be far, far better than her attempt, IMO. "Flammekile" (flamebolt) or "tordenkile" (thunderbolt -- which is used in the Norwegian translation) or "lynkile" (lightning bolt) would all have been preferable to "Prestissimo", and much easier to understand for the vast majority of Danish kids (who know next to nothing about notations on music scores -- they'll recognise a note (though not its value) but that's about it). >(In books 2-5 in the danish edition the Phoenix Feather is mentioned >and no more talk of *chimera horn*). Actually that's not quite the case. In GoF-18 'The Weighing of the Wands', where the English version says: "until at last he had found the one that suited him - this one, which was made of holly, eleven inches long, and contained a single feather from the tail of a phoenix." The Danish version (3rd. printing paperback) has: "f?r han endelig fandt en, der passede ham - denne tryllestav p? elleve tommer, fremstillet af kristtorn og kim?rehorn samt en enkelt fjer fra en F?nix." ( "until he at last found one, which suited him - this wand of eleven inches, made of holly and chimera horn as well as a single feather from a phoenix." IIRC this is the first time it is mentioned that Harry's wand has anything other than the chimara horn (in the Danish editions). Later on, in GoF-36 'The Parting of the Ways', all mention of the chimera horn has disappeared. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 22:39:48 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] A thought popped in my head one night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040908223948.87111.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112411 --- Bex wrote: > Funny how Lily defends Snape. Yes, she is paying more attention to > James, but she's backing up a Slytherin, and a Dark Arts fan. She > probably knows the whole "pureblood mantra" of Slytherin, because > she isn't confused by the Mudblood comment, so she's obviously > heard > it before. It's only when Snape insults her, calling her the worst > name he can think of off the top of his head, that she gives up on > defending him. > ~Yb (ducks in cover waiting for rotten vegetables heading her way) It's possible I suppose but I doubt it. Lily reminded me quite forcibly of Hermione in that scene. She defends Snape like Hermione defends the house elves: as a part of an abstract social justice that doesn't actually see the person/elf in front of her. Her reaction to being called the "m" word is quite normal and realistic. If she ever did try to befriend Snape, it was probably with the same good-intentioned obtuseness that Hermione used with Winky in GoF. And Snape probably responded with the same hostility. No one likes to be considered someone's personal crusade. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 22:48:41 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:48:41 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040908112903.5662.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: moonmyyst: > christians are not the only ones with Values or who Love or who Sacrifice. The point of the thread is to say that there are some holidays that are pretty much universal because many belief systems lump them at the same time and we may call them by the christian name that calander and card publishers force on us. Geoff: With respect, in the UK, we call our holidays "Christmas" and "Easter" because that is what they celebrated. It is only in the last few years that they have become linked with some of the ethnic minorities who have come to the UK largely since WWII. OK, so many folk over here merely have a knees-up and pay scant respect to the old Christian traditional dates but isn't it funny that when they go to hospital or somewhere similar and they are asked about their religion, they say "C of E" without batting an eyelid? Geoff See my website of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 22:50:25 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:50:25 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? (was Re: The Beetle At Bay) In-Reply-To: <20040908170409.87878.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112413 Magda wrote: >>But Phineas Nigellus points out that Slytherins are brave too but they save their own necks first. A dead hero is no good to anyone, least of all himself. Would someone from another house say that the flipside of Gryffindor bravery is Gryffindor bravado? Or would a Slytherin say that in his house you don't rush into a situation without having a back-up plan for getting out again? Or before you examine all the possibilities in a given situation? Like what if Sirius isn't being tortured and it's a trap?<< HunterGreen: Or say thinking what will happen to you if your enemy is lured into a trap by you and eaten by a werewolf? (or the many other times Sirius doesn't stop to think about his own welfare, and ends up causing problems for other people in the process). Gryffindors aren't the best at *planning*, they act with their hearts more often than anything else. There are two other houses for people who think things out (Slytherin and Ravenclaw). Harry very often doesn't think out his plans, and perhaps if he did have more concern for his own welfare, it would *force* him to think things out a little more. I would say that Snape definitely thinks that Slytherins are full of bravado, and probably from, time to time, students from other houses have thought this about Gryffindors...some of them too tend to be rather demonstrative. Look at Fred and George, or Sirius and James (or even Harry when he's in a bad mood). From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 8 23:03:12 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:03:12 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112414 > > Pippin > > thinking that James's defenders are doing a good job of adding hypocrisy to his list of virtues ;-)<< > > Alla: > > Eh, why? Pippin: Well, I'm not sure I can convince you if you don't see it already, but if it was all noble and above board, why did they need to keep it secret? Why didn't they go to Professor McGonagall or Dumbledore and say, "We'd like permission to study the animagus transformation so we can help poor Remus?" Why did James have to keep his continued private war with Snape secret from Lily after they became friends? Sirius makes it pretty clear that she wouldn't have approved. And James was an *adult* by that time, too. I guess Lily had some misquided Muggleborn idea that people ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty--oh, wait, Dumbledore believes that too, doesn't he? I suppose he wouldn't have authorized James to form an inquisitorial squad. He would think that's a bad thing, you know, evil. It wouldn't happen if he had anything to say about it, would it? Pippin From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 8 23:20:31 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:20:31 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112415 HunterGreen previously: > I don't think that it would sort someone based on their *belief*, because how many 11-year-olds believe that strongly in the purity of blood? < Susana replied: >>And if you have a thirst to prove yourself at the age of eleven it sticks with you the rest of your life? At the age of eleven you have `inherit' most of your beliefs and some of your abilities. You may turn out to be a completely different person at 17 and even more different at 30. I don't see that as an argument.<< HunterGreen: I guess I just see the hat as being more powerful than you do. How else would it know to put Neville in Gryffindor when he, at that moment, seemed to be full of low-self-esteem and fear? Yes, he's becoming a different person, but he wasn't that person when he was sorted, yet he still ended up in the correct house. I think the sorting hat can see things like that (not necessarily into the future, but see what traits and values a person is growing to have, even if they don't recognize it themself). Another possible example is Sirius. He may have hated his parents as a teenager and rejected their idealogy and ran away, but at some point in his life he would have had to turn his back on them, most people aren't *born* hating their parents. It may have happened at age 5, 10 or some other point pre-Hogwarts, but I think its most likely to have happened when he became best friends with James who was NOT from a pure-blood enthusiast home. Most children have beliefs that echo their parents unless someone teaches them to believe otherwise, where would have have got that opportunity before entering Hogwarts? The way I see it is that he came to Hogwarts still with the pure-blood beliefs, and was sorted into Gryffindor because of his personality and his values (as I mentioned in another post, Sirius-- when in trouble--never stops to think of how to save himself). Basically, I disagree that the hat just judges who you are *at that moment*. -As an aside, I don't think a 'thirst to prove yourself', is a Slytherin trait, it was just something the hat was commenting on with Harry before *Harry* brought up the Slytherin house. HunterGreen previously: >And using any means she sees justifiable is not *any* means? What she considers justifiable is a rather large amount of things (things that I doubt Ron or Harry would be comfortable with). I wouldn't say that she draws no line, but then again I have yet to see her draw one.< Susana: "You can't hurt a baby!"? It's a joke. You have a fair point, of course. HunterGreen: I know its a joke BUT...I took that to reference some part of magic that won't LET you harm a baby (that is, a person under the age of a year). I think that might be why Voldemort didn't find Harry until he was more than a year old, but that's probably a subject for a different post. HunterGreen previously: >But disregarding them [rules]? Hermione is interesting because she seems determined to follow the rules to the letter unless they get in her way. Its not breaking rules for the sake of breaking them (which is essentially what teenagers do, brain chemistry at that age makes you want to do anything you are told not to do, just because you are told not to do it). < Susana: I never broke rules for the sake of breaking them as a teenager. I disregarded them quite often, though. Whenever I thought they wore `stupid' (they got in my way, therefore they were stupid). HunterGreen: Perhaps I should clarify, maybe not breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules, but breaking rules for no real strong purpose or goal. Hermione doesn't break a rule unless its part of some goal or mission she has, not just because she think a rule is stupid (which I don't think she *ever* thinks). Susana: >>Final note on Seeker!Draco: I agree he's on the team because he likes to show off but he can only show off if he's good. Just a thought.<< HunterGreen: He can show off by just being in quidditch robes on a broom (one that's better than Harry's....for a year anyway) during a quidditch game. In CoS, that was basically all he was doing during the game. (although I don't think he's *always* like that...he could be a much better player when he's not playing against Harry). From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 23:31:42 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:31:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand In-Reply-To: <20040908133652.SFDW22385.out006.verizon.net@Laptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jenn Oramous" wrote: > Okay, I haven't been around for a while and there is NO way to catch up on > reading all of these posts....so if these questions have been asked and > answered, could you point me in their direction? If not, then..... > > Does anyone know what the "J" stands for in Lipin's name? When the trio are > on the train in POA, Hermione states that he is "R J Lupin" because of his > luggage...so any ideas. > > > mhbobbin: It's John. From World Book Day with JKR: kylie: What does the "J" in Remus J Lupin stand for? JK Rowling replies -> 'John'. Boring but true! mhbobbin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 23:50:13 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:50:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > mhbobbin: > snip. > > > DD spends the whole of OotP avoiding eye contact wih Harry out of > > concern that LV might see into their relationship. I just wonder if > > there's a similar concern from Lupin---that Lupin doesn't touch > > Harry for fear that Voldemort can learn something about Lupin. > What > > that would be or how that would work I have no idea. > > Alla: > > Thanks for the clarification. I do hope that Remus' importance did > not end up with PoA. Do you think it is possible that Remus is now > one of the Dumbledore's spies? Then it would mean that Snape is not > doing direct spying, I guess, but something else. Not necessarily > saying that we can't have two spies, of course. mhbobbin: It hadn't occurred to me that there were two spies but that would be an interesting theory. I've always thought along the lines of Lupin knows something that ties back to Godric Hollow. AND somebody has to be the one who comes forward and explains what happened at Godric Hollow. As has been pointed out, the story has to start getting simpler, with only 2/7th of the story left, I would expect JKR to primarily use the characters she's already provided to us in order to start wrapping up loose ends. And she's got enough loose ends to fuel how many chat sites? As for this touching thing--I just ask people to be aware of it even if they don't **yet** agree. If this strangeness had anything to do with Harry and Lupin's emotional relationship;Or the reserve of English men; Or that Lupin feels it would be untoward; Or even a quirk of Lupin's; Or that he's a werewolf--a fate he's pretty much resigned to; then it would not be specifically pointed out--twice-- in OotP that Lupin shakes all the other kids' hands. **But not Harry's*** So I ask--what is unique about Harry? QuirMort can't touch Harry--but then there are exceptions for Lupin and nothing happens to Lupin. The exceptions are unique--at Privet Dr., at the MoM. What else is different about Harry? Well, sometimes Voldemort can see through his eyes--that's why DD won't look at Harry. Is there something that Lupin doesn't want Voldemort to know about him? And as for Lupin's parting words--"Keep in touch"- I do believe that Lupin means for Harry to write him etc. But those words by this character look to me like a signpost by JKR to take a look at this character a bit more. mhbobbin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 23:52:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:52:09 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... In-Reply-To: <20040908223948.87111.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: huge snip. >> If she ever did try to befriend Snape, it was probably with the same > good-intentioned obtuseness that Hermione used with Winky in GoF. And > Snape probably responded with the same hostility. No one likes to be > considered someone's personal crusade. Alla: Let me ask you a question. Would Lily's behaviour been considered more acceptable if she did not come to defend Snape at all? You know, let him be and saved his wounded pride. I don't see how it would have been better, but I am interested to know what you think. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 23:58:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:58:09 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > Pippin: > > Well, I'm not sure I can convince you if you don't see it already, > but if it was all noble and above board, why did they need to > keep it secret? Why didn't they go to Professor McGonagall or > Dumbledore and say, "We'd like permission to study the > animagus transformation so we can help poor Remus?" > > Why did James have to keep his continued private war with > Snape secret from Lily after they became friends? Sirius makes > it pretty clear that she wouldn't have approved. And James was > an *adult* by that time, too. > > I guess Lily had some misquided Muggleborn idea that people > ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty--oh, wait, > Dumbledore believes that too, doesn't he? I suppose he > wouldn't have authorized James to form an inquisitorial squad. > He would think that's a bad thing, you know, evil. It wouldn't > happen if he had anything to say about it, would it? > Alla: I think you mixed in several issues here, Pippin. The original argument from you was (correct me if I am wrong) that James should be considered evil because of ONE scene of his ongoing war with Snape, where undoubtedly to me James was the bully and Snape was the victim. Several people (myself included) responded something to the effect that even though James' actions in the Pensieve scene were undoubtedly CRUEL, it is hard to condemn the person as evil based on such scene, especially since we can infere or speculate that James and Snape had an ongoing feud AND there are could be reasons why James disliked Snape. Mitigating circunstances so to speak. I don't remember anybody, especially myself justifying James' actions per se. Of course he was wrong to continue war with Snape. Just as Snape was wrong to do so. If James genuinely considered Snape to be evil (sepculation, of course) and there is some objective evidence that JKR considers Dark Arts to be evil, it is especially hard for me to call James evil. I think I am confusing myself again. Now, Animagi. Secrecy does not necessarily prove that such studies are considered Dark Arts. Otherwise animagi would be mentioned during DADA lessons, I think. McGonagall talks about them during transfiguration lessons. The fact that Marauders did not talk to Dumbledore about it. True, but how does it show that they were practicing Dark Magic? Very complicated, yes, dangerous TO THEM in a sense that something with transformation can go wrong, yes. I picture Maraduers wanting to prove to themselves that they are able to achieve transformation without help of the teacher . They did it indeed. As Dumbledore says "extraordinary achievement- not least, keeping it quiet from me. (PoA, p.428) He praises them for both - for achieving the task and for keeping it a secret. From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Wed Sep 8 15:35:12 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040907222411.40068.qmail@web12209.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040908153512.59310.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112421 karyn earlier: "Personally I hope there's NOT gonna be a religious/Christian theme/explanation of everything, because I'm agnostic/atheist myself, and that would ruin the whole experience of the books for me. Besides, it would feel really strange if JKR threw in some Christian values somewhere because a lot of the books are built upon the difference of the Wizard World vs Muggle World. There are lots of people who celebrate Christmas of other reasons than it being a big Christian holiday. Maybe that's the case here too?" michelle: "I cannot speak for JKR, true many do celebrate "Xmas" for other than christian beliefs. However, has it occured to anyone that the whole basis of HP Books is in that "prophecy" and the fact that "the boy who lived", lived because of "Sacrificial Love" the same "Sacrificial Love" that Jesus gave us on the cross! So much for hoping that JKR isn't going to "throw in some Christian Values"!" karyn: Oh come on! You might be right of course, noone except JKR knows, but I am personally so so so so tired of people turning everything and anything into something with Christian themes. There are so many religions and different spiritual beliefs out there. It's true that JKR has said she's a Christian, but couldn't the fact that she doesn't want to elaborate have something to do with that she doesn't want this to be assumed? I've read these books a million times, and I've NEVER seen anything remotely Christian in any of them. We can argue this until we're blue in the face of course. We're all entitled to our own opinion. --Karyn __________________________________________________ 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 chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 17:26:47 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:26:47 EDT Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments Message-ID: <190.2e6e5cb5.2e709ad7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112422 Pippin wrote: > Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he > was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a > bit like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not > say that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he > hated Lupin. I must have missed SOMETHING because I don't remember this at ALL. Where you get that? I just looked in PoA and I found nothing of Ron saying that! Of course I was mostly skiming over but still I saw nothing that suports this at at all. From what I see Ron didn't even know Lupin was a werewolf until the shreking shack and I didn't see anything about that! If you could clear that up I'd appreciate it. Chancie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 00:21:27 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:21:27 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112424 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > I must have missed SOMETHING because I don't remember this at > ALL. Where > > you get that? snip.> > > Alla: > > I'll help you. :o) > > "Ron made a vaillant effort to get up again but fell back with a > whimper of pain. Lupin made toward him, looking concerned, but Ron > gasped, > > "Get away from me , werewolf!" "- POA, p.345, paperback, amer.edition From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Sep 8 18:41:28 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:41:28 -0400 Subject: McGonagall and Snape + totally a shallow Snape q Message-ID: <20040908.145247.4032.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112425 Carol said (re: Snape and McGonagall): > Of course it's > strictly platonic, almost like the relationship of an older sister > and a younger brother who now must be treated as a fellow adult. Hee, I never thought of that! But you're right, there is that vibe. Sometimes you get the sense the McG is kind of rolling her eyes at Snape's nasty attitude, (mentally, because she always shows teacher solidarity in front of the students) like, "What an overly-emotional doofus." The kids are scared of Snape, but McGonagall, who knows him as a person, not a teacher, just sees his bad attitude as kind of ridiculous. :) She probably has some awkward!teenage!Snape memories that diffuses taking serious offence to his nastyness (as opposed to what Lupin and Sirius must think of Snape). re:Snape's hair: > Has anyone come up with an explanation for Snape's greasy hair? I'm > not trying to be an apologist, it just seems absurd to me that an adult > who has a good grasp of professionalism wouldn't be a sleezeball. :) My theory is that he pissed off the wrong person and was gypsy-cursed (not a stretch of the imagination...) with oily hair, no matter how often he washes it. Another theory I've heard that probably makes more sense is that he lets it get on the oily side so it's more manageable. Recently washed Snape-hair is a total frizz-bomb bush. This makes sense to me because it's in keeping with Snape's half-assed approach to appearance; and it's old-fashioned, which Snape, and the WW in general, definitely is. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From klevasseur at earthlink.net Wed Sep 8 19:05:49 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:05:49 -0000 Subject: OoTP,chap 15,Snapes essay-" varieties of venom antidotes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112426 I have been re-reading OoTP and noticed something I hadn't before. In Chapter 15, Snape assigns the students an Essay on the various Varieties of Venom antidotes. Which isn't unusual, then Mr. Weasley gets attacked by a snake in Chapter 21-The Eye of the Snake, and the snake venom is giving the healers fits because they can't find an antidote. Is this something that is a coincedence, is JKR giving us hints about the upcoming snake bite, or does Snape know something? I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what you all think. Karen From klevasseur at earthlink.net Wed Sep 8 20:26:32 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:26:32 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112427 Del wrote: > Second, the Jinx is very much an injustice, for multiple reasons : > > 1. Nobody was warned about it. They agreed not to tell, but there > was never any mention of what would happen if they did, and > especially there was no mention of something so dreadful. Marrietta > was not given a choice to avoid the Sneak Mark, because she didn't > know she was at risk of getting it. If Hermione had told them what > could happen, and yet Marrietta had told Umbridge, then I wouldn't > find it unfair. But Hermione didn't warn them. Karen L: I believe that the DA needed to KNOW if there was a "traitor" and who they were. What Hermione did, although extreme in some sense, was necessary, because they couldn't have a "Spy" among them or else everyone would have been expelled. If Hermione had told the DA members what would happen if they told, one of them may have been able to reverse the jinx and then go on with their "sneaky ways". Marrietta told for her own personal gains, not to protect anyone, her reasons were selfish. And although having her face disfigured for a time is a bit extreme, she does have to explain herself now doesn't she? Maybe that's more of her punishment, to explain how she is a person that is not to be trusted. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 20:57:57 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:57:57 EDT Subject: Judging Gryffindors (was e: "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: <6a.44805db6.2e70cc55@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112428 Del writes: > After all, if we judge all the Gryffindors after pre-OoP Neville, > or Peter Pettigrew, or the Creevey brothers, or even Percy or Ron > Weasley, they wouldn't look too good either, would they ? What exactly is wrong with Ron, the Creevey brothers, and Neville, that makes them "not look good." What have they done? I can see your point with Peter Pettigrew, and Percy's actions as of late. But how the other four boys make a bad name for Gryffindors, is beyond me! Please explain your meaning. Chancie From klevasseur at earthlink.net Wed Sep 8 22:31:04 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:31:04 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... (Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112429 Yb wrote: > But, what if LILY had some feelings for SNAPE? Maybe she's > sticking up for him not because he's helpless and outnumbered > (he has enough talent to take on the Marauders at least one on > one), but maybe she tried to be friends with him, or even had > a little crush on him at one time. He probably never shared the > feelings, but she tried to be friends with him, perhaps, and this > scene was her not only being a fair, just little creature, but > also helping Snapey out in a time of need. When he comes off with > that comment (and note, that is the only time in canon he has ever > used the term, or something like it), she finally decides he isn't > worth the effort after all. I'm not saying it was a romance, or > that we'll ever know (unless she told Petunia and she tells Harry, > doubtful at best), but thought I'd toss it out there. > > ~Yb (ducks in cover waiting for rotten vegetables heading her > way) Karen L. responds: No need to duck, no rotten vegies will be coming your way from my direction anyway! I am sorry to say that although I do like Snape in the HP books, he brings in a different slant on things; I can't imagine anyone falling for him in a romantic way. He's always described as "greasy" (yuck!)....I can see Lily trying perhaps to befriend him by helping him out of the spot that James had him in and then deciding better of it when he uses the M word. (That was a very nasty thing for him to do, especially considering that she was trying to help him, no appreciation what-so-ever.) But one thought popped into my head after reading your post, what if Snape is finally "making up" for Lily's kindness to him, by helping to get Harry out of tight spots. (The counter curse in the SS/PS, protecting H/R/H from werewolf Lupin at the whomping willow-he could have run, helping DD and Mcg "save" Harry from Moody/Crouch in OoTP.) I know this is a theory that really reaches, but there has to be reasons behind Snape helping Harry out of tight spots....I am always amazed when Snape does help because of his apparent dislike of Harry.... From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Wed Sep 8 23:37:24 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:37:24 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112430 > Del : > > What is quite obvious is that you are judging all the Slytherins > > after only a handful of them. And where does it say that they > > place ambition over moral, or that they are afraid to live and > > die ? Alla: > But that is the problem, Del. Those Slytherins are the only ones > we can judge. We don't have any good Slytherins yet. What I was saying is theory anyway: in my mind, someone who believe *first* in ambition cannot be trusted. They may not be evil, but at best would be the likes of Crouch and Fudge... people that believe that ambition is *the* way are frightening, and cannot *feel*, or are too afraid to...but that's just what I think. "totorivers" From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 9 01:04:32 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:04:32 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape + totally a shallow Snape q In-Reply-To: <20040908.145247.4032.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > Carol said (re: Snape and McGonagall): > > re:Snape's hair: > > Has anyone come up with an explanation for Snape's greasy hair? I'm > > not trying to be an apologist, it just seems absurd to me that an adult > > who has a good grasp of professionalism wouldn't be a sleezeball. :) > Aura wrote: > My theory is that he pissed off the wrong person and was gypsy- cursed > (not a stretch of the imagination...) with oily hair, no matter how often > he washes it. Another theory I've heard that probably makes more sense is > that he lets it get on the oily side so it's more manageable. Recently > washed Snape-hair is a total frizz-bomb bush. This makes sense to me > because it's in keeping with Snape's half-assed approach to appearance; > and it's old-fashioned, which Snape, and the WW in general, definitely > is. > Karen adds: Snape deals with potions... boiling cauldrons, steamy rooms, slimy ingredients... I think this is the reason for the adult Snapes "oily" hair. - Karen From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 01:06:12 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:06:12 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin > > > thinking that James's defenders are doing a good job of > adding hypocrisy to his list of virtues ;-)<< > > > > Alla: > > > > Eh, why? > > Pippin: > I guess Lily had some misquided Muggleborn idea that people > ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty-- Valky: I Disagree with this Pip. Lily is a merciful witch. I doubt that she would need to consider Snape to be entirely innocent before she would display compassion for him. Perhaps it is you who needs to be convinced? Lily could be well aware that James and Sirius' contempt for Snape is their manifest hatred for Dark Wizardry. Sirius tells Harry in GOf that people were confused about each other in those dark times and didn't know who they could trust. They way I see it, Lily believed something *more noble* than James. she believed in compassion for the people who had chosen the Dark Road. Where James condemned the Black Arts and forthwith the people who practiced them, Lily's condemnation of the Dark Arts did not extend to the people. Lily offered them love, and redemption in her kindness, in her own way that was her weapon against it. She chastises James for his behaviour and goes as far as to let him know that he *is no better* than Snape in her eyes. He may believe in a noble cause but he has chosen an ugly path to walk anyway as far as she is concerned that is *not* better. Lily is merciful to both of them. Giving both exactly what she thinks they need to hear. To Snape: You *can* be loved! To James: It doesn't matter that your good you aren't doing *good*! I think she is doing them both a favour. In return, however, they both let her down. Still, she stands by her noble principles to the end proving that despite what you may have heard 'mercy is for the strong'. Pippin: if it was all noble and above board, why did they need to > keep it secret? Why didn't they go to Professor McGonagall or > Dumbledore and say, "We'd like permission to study the > animagus transformation so we can help poor Remus?" > Valky: Harry and Ron do the same. There are many reasons why they choose to. But I don't recall it ever actually being a guilty conscience that they *may* have turned evil. In almost every book Harry and Ron engage in some dangerous escapade and tell no one nor do they ask permission. The reasons for their crime are almost always entirely noble intentions, and yet they can't see how asking a teacher if it's OK will help. Pippin: > Why did James have to keep his continued private war with > Snape secret from Lily after they became friends? Sirius makes > it pretty clear that she wouldn't have approved. And James was > an *adult* by that time, too. Valky: And I am sure the private war between them had also matured by that time. Snape never missed a chance to curse James. By your argument here I can presume that Snape had as an *adult* learned and mastered far more dangerous and sadistic Black Arts curses by this time too. So well done to James if he could still hold his own in battle with Mature!Snape using basic spells like Scourgify and Expelliarmus. Dont you think?. :D From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 01:14:09 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:14:09 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <190.2e6e5cb5.2e709ad7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112434 Pippin: > > Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he > > was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a > > bit like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not > > say that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he > > hated Lupin. > > Chancie: > I must have missed SOMETHING because I don't remember this at ALL. Where you get that? I just looked in PoA and I found nothing of Ron saying that! Valky: Yeah Ron does say exactly this. He says it right after Hermione reveals that Lupin is a Werewolf. I don't think he said it because he hated Lupin, though. The way I read it he is reacting in fear. This is the first time Lupin approaches him following the revelation that he is a Werewolf. Ron is angry at Lupin yes but he is not throwing the insult as an insult. He is throwing it as a defence. Hoping, I suspect, that if he takes the high ground over Remus psychologically it might make him less dangerous physically. Its a bit of a chess defense I would say. From cquinn at mn.rr.com Wed Sep 8 16:42:48 2004 From: cquinn at mn.rr.com (twobeaglegirl) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:48 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112435 > SSSusan: > Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* > gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't > CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads co-existed > all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person wasn't aware > of the 2nd "version" being present. Yet here we have others saying > that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using TT to change > time/events/the past. > > I've explained several times to my 8-year-old daughter about how > Buckbeak never did die. But in her mind, he DID, and Harry & > Hermione simply went back and CHANGED THE PAST so that he didn't > die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT I understand--that she > is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find the language to help > her grasp it. 2beagles now: Okay, this subject fascinates me, but it also hurts my brain. :> Here is the part that always throws me off--there always has to be a *very first event* that occurs before the *time-turning*. In other words, if Buckbeak *never* died, how did he survive the *very* first time. H & H had to go through the first set of events first before they could ever go back the second time to provide the explanation. So if the two events are happening at once, then the second set of events would have to proceed the first. Here is another way to look at it--they had to get to the hospital ward the first time before they ever went back and created this circle of events. Right? That is the problem I could not seem to get past. However... I was listening to NPR recently and they had a scientist on who was talking about time-travel. He said that if a time machine were ever invented, and he believed it was possible, then the traveler could never go forward, or go back BEYOND the point that the machine was invented. This was because it would have to exist in the first place. So, let's say that a time machine were invented today. Every event that happened from here forward would include any events that would potentially be *altered*. So that helps me to understand it a little bit more, but I still get caught up in the initial set of events. I'm sure this is a very confusing post. --2beagels From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Sep 8 16:44:31 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:44:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112436 SSSusan writes: <> > Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* gotten > it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't CHANGE as > a result of TT, but that the two time-threads co-existed all along, > only one of the two "versions" of a person wasn't aware of the 2nd > "version" being present. Yet here we have others saying that's NOT > the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using TT to change time/events/the > past. Hmm...I'm not sure any of us will agree on this one way or the other until JKR tells us how the TT works (she is after all the one who came up with the thing)! But my thoughts are if it is "impossible to change time" WHY have a time turner to begin with??? What's the point of having the ability to go back in time, and just look at things? And also, why was Hermione so concerned with getting back before the last chime of the clock? If it is as you say, then she would automatically end up there on time, because everything had already played out. Why was she "warned" not to change the past as Naama reminded us? If she couldn't CHANGE anything, then why worry with a warning? Also, I just found a quote that might help: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Harry, I don't understand what Dumbledore wants us to do. Why did he tell us to go back three hours? How's that going to help Sirius?" Harry stared at her shadowy face. "There must be something that *HAPPENED* around now he wants us to *CHANGE*" he said slowly. (The emphisis is mine of course) POA, Chapter21 page 396 American Paperback. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So even Harry and Hermione seem to know that the TT gives them the chance to *CHANGE* time. Of course Harry was the one who said this, but since he said it to Hermione, and wasn't corrected (like she does for example when anyone sugests someone's apparating on Hogwarts grounds) by saying "we can't change time only do what we've already done" seems to mean that you CAN change time. Hermione I'm sure read up on the TT or got additional info (as she always does) would have known what is possible and what isn't. Well that's my take on the TT (once again) I don't expect it to change any of your point of views, but maybe it will give my argument a little more weight. Chancie From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 01:35:23 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:35:23 -0000 Subject: Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, message 112432, "kmcbears1" wrote: > Snape deals with potions... boiling cauldrons, steamy rooms, slimy > ingredients... I think this is the reason for the adult >Snapes "oily" hair. "K": I have my doubts about the *potion-oily-hair-business*. :-) ~His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto the table... (during the O.W.L. exam). OoP/Ch 28/pg 641/us ~A greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom... OoP/Ch 25/pg 592/us From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 01:40:32 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:40:32 -0000 Subject: VW-I, A History Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112438 While doing some research for this and that theory I ended up with a tentative timeline for VW-1. As you'll see there are lots of question marks in it, but here it is anyway. It is based on the HP Lexicon timeline in: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000, years 1970 ? 1981, but I've added some deductions, conjectures and educated guesses. Frequently the exact dates are not known but the order of events can be deduced. Did I miss any detail that may help? All dates follow the NHN deathday cake dating, according to which Harry was born in August 31, 1980. Numbers inside square brackets refer to canon sources listed in the end of the post. **************************** 1970: The first Voldemort War begins [1]. I couldn't find even a single event of the war that is known (or even just suggested) to happen before 1978. The first 8 years of the war are thus completely shrouded in mystery. The only exception is the next item. However, Sirius [2] implies that LV didn't "show his true colors" until late in the war (see more about that below), so I assume these years included attacks only on muggles, muggle-borns and goblins, and perhaps a few "unexplained disappearances" of half-blood and pureblood wizards. In contrast, open attacks on respectable wizarding families probably took place only during the last 2 or 3 years of the war, and that was when Crouch Sr. started to gain popularity with his harsh countermeasures. **************************** 1970 or 1971: Dumbledore is appointed headmaster of Hogwarts [3], which then becomes a stronghold in the war against LV [4]. While DD frequently seems to us as the unchallenged ruler of Hogwarts, it is worth remembering that during the Marauders' time at Hogwarts he was new to his job. Lucius Malfoy and the Lestranges (including Bella) actually spent several of their Hogwarts years under the previous headmaster, Armando Dippet. The close proximity between LV appearing on the stage and DD becoming the headmaster is also suspicious. **************************** June 1972: Lucius Malfoy graduates from Hogwarts [5]. I couldn't find any clue when he became a DE, but it was likely soon after it, as he wouldn't want to miss any of the fun. His position as LV's second after Voldy's resurrection also supports the notion that he was a DE longer than most other DEs **************************** 1973-1977: Rudolphus Lestarnge, Bellatrix Black, Evan Rosier, Wilkes and probably Alice and Frank Longbottom graduate form Hogwarts [6]. The first four become DE while the last two start Auror training. **************************** June 1978 (or 1977?): James Potter, Lily Evans, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew and Severus Snape graduate from Hogwarts. It appears that soon thereafter Lily and the "Marauders" join the Order, while Severus joins the DEs. The Marauders graduation date is according to the HP Lexicon http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000, see year 1978 in the timeline. Note that this year is NOT certain, as it follows from Snape's and the marauders' age, which is based on two slightly vogue points of canon (see the Lexicon's note in year 1960 in the same web page). It is thus still possible they actually graduated the year before that, in June 1977. **************************** Beginning of 1979 (?): The Order of the Phoenix has some kind of a meeting in an unknown location. It seems they were celebrating something, since in a photograph taken at that time many of them hold glasses [7]. Was it perhaps the day the Order was officially established? Could be, but it seems a bit late in the game for that. When had this meeting taken place? Lily and the Marauders appear in the photograph, so unless they joined the Order before graduating (not very likely) it was after June 1978. We can also deduce that it was no later than 1980. How? Because Moody's nose in the photograph is intact [8] and we know that Moody lost a chunk of his nose while killing Evan Rosier "the year before the fall of Voldemort" (see below). Besides, many Order members who appear in the photograph were killed later, and we have to allow enough time for that. It is therefore probable that the photograph was taken at the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979. **************************** 2 weeks after: Marlene McKinnon of the Order is killed together with "all her family" [8]. Travers was one of the DEs involved in killing them, as Karkaroff mentioned it in his pensive trial [9]. **************************** 6 months after (probably mid 1979): Caradoc Dearborn of the Order disappears [10]. His body was never found. **************************** June 1979: Regulus Black graduates from Hogwarts and probably joins LV immediately thereafter. We know that Regulus was younger than Sirius, but we actually don't know that he was younger by just one year. However, more than one year will create a problem with the timeline, since he probably joined the DEs before LV "showed his true colors" [2]. Perhaps you think that killing a respectable wizarding family like the McKinnons would be considered "showing his true colors". In this case you have to postpone the Order's photograph to late 1979, after Regulus' graduation. Personally I tend to think that Regulus wasn't THAT squeamish, especially if the McKinnons were half-blood or branded as blood traitors and/or Voldy's responsibility for the killing was denied at first. I think, however, that killing also the Prewetts and especially the Bones would already be considered as "LV showing his true colors", which means it probably happened after Regulus joined. **************************** July 1979(?) - October 1981: Other Order members are killed: Benjy Fenwick [10], Edgar Bones and "his family" [10](not including his sister Amelia Bones and Susan's parents), Gideon and Fabian Prewett [10], Dorcas Meadowes [11] (killed by LV personally). Since Moody doesn't mention when they were killed, I assume it was after Caradoc Dearborn's disappearance. Otherwise Moody would have probably added something like "about two months after this was taken". It was probably following these killings that the purebloods finally realized "what LV was prepared to do to get power", and then Crouch Sr. became popular and gave a lot of authority to the Aurors. This fits well with the fact that all the known killing or capturing of DEs by the Ministry during the war happened in the last two years of the war (see below). **************************** June 1978 ? beginning of 1980: Lily, James, Alice and Frank defy LV three times. This is assuming they started after graduation and finished before the prophecy was made (see next item). The prophecy's words are "born to those who have thrice defied him", which seem to imply that the defying had already taken place when these words were spoken. **************************** Fall(?) 1980: DD hears the prophecy from Trelawney in the Hog's Head. The exact date is not known but there is some indication that it was fall or winter of 1980 [12]. **************************** March 1, 1980: Ron Weasley born. **************************** July 30, 1980: Neville Longbottom born. July 31, 1980: Harry Potter is born. **************************** Sometime in 1980: Regulus Black is killed by DEs when panicked about what he was being asked to do and trying to back out [13]. **************************** Probably mid 1980: Peter Pettigrew starts passing information to LV. This is based on Sirius' guess in the Shrieking Shack [14], which Peter doesn't deny. **************************** Sometime in 1980: Karkaroff is captured by Moody after six months of tracking him [15]. In his trial Karkaroff knew Travers murdered the McKinnons [9] so Karkaroff's capture must have taken place after that event, but he didn't know Rosier is dead (see next item), and Crouch Sr. actually said that Rosier was killed after Karkaroff was captured [16]. **************************** "Shortly after" that: Evan Rosier is killed [16] and Dolohov is captured [17] by a force of aurors that includes (actually is probably headed by) Mad-eye Moody. Rosier takes a bit out of Moody's nose before his death. This is sometime in 1980 because according to Sirius, Rosier and Wilkes were killed "the year before Voldemort fell" [18]. **************************** Sometime after that: Travers and Mulciber are captured, apparently after Karkaroff since he doesn't know about it in his trial [9]. **************************** Oct 31, 1981: Fall of Voldemort at Godric's Hollow. The war ends. The timeline immediately before and after that event was debated endlessly, so I won't get into that. **************************** Canon sources ------------- [1] SS/PS, Ch. 1: "You can't blame them," said Dumbledore gently. "We've had precious little to celebrate for eleven years." It is October 1981 when DD says that, so it all started in 1970. [2] OotP, Ch.6: "Were ? were your parents Death Eaters as well?" "No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea, they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They weren't alone, either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colours, who thought he had the right idea about things . . . they got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first." [3] PoA, Ch. 18: "It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts. Other parents weren't likely to want their children exposed to me. But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic. He said that as long as we took certain precautions, there was no reason I shouldn't come to school...." It means DD became headmaster shortly before Lupin became a student. [4] SS/PS, Ch. 4: " Terrible things happened. He was takin' over. 'Course, some stood up to him ? an' he killed 'em. Horribly. One o' the only safe places left was Hogwarts. Reckon Dumbledore's the only one You-Know-Who was afraid of. Didn't dare try takin' the school, not jus' then, anyway." [5] OotP, Ch. 15: "...said Mr Lucius Malfoy, 41, speaking from his Wiltshire mansion last night...". The year is 1995, so he was born in 1954 and graduated in 1972. [6] These deductions are detailed in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/105599 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106729 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106735 [7] OotP, Ch. 9: "Harry took the photograph. A small crowd of people, some waving at him, others lifting their glasses, looked back up at him." [8] OotP, Ch. 9: 'There's me,' said Moody, unnecessarily pointing at himself. The Moody in the picture was unmistakeable, though his hair was slightly less grey and his nose was intact. 'And there's Dumbledore beside me, Dedalus Diggle on the other side . . . that's Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this was taken, they got her whole family. That's Frank and Alice Longbottom ? ' [9] GoF, Ch. 30: "Yes!" said Karkaroff. "There was Travers - he helped murder the McKinnons! Mulciber - he specialized in the Imperius Curse, forced countless people to do horrific things! Rookwood, who was a spy, and passed He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named useful information from inside the Ministry itself!" Harry could tell that, this time, Karkaroff had struck gold. The watching crowd was all murmuring together. "Rookwood?" said Mr. Crouch, nodding to a witch sitting in front of him, who began scribbling upon her piece of parchment. "Augustus Rookwood of the Department of Mysteries?" "The very same," said Karkaroff eagerly. "I believe he used a network of well-placed wizards, both inside the Ministry and out, to collect information -" "But Travers and Mulciber we have," said Mr. Crouch. [10] OotP, Ch. 9: ' ? poor devils,' growled Moody. 'Better dead than what happened to them . . . and that's Emmeline Vance, you've met her, and that there's Lupin, obviously . . . Benjy Fenwick, he copped it too, we only ever found bits of him . . . shift aside there,' he added, poking the picture, and the little photographic people edged sideways, so that those who were partially obscured could move to the front. 'That's Edgar Bones . . . brother of Amelia Bones, they got him and his family, too, he was a great wizard . . . Sturgis Podmore, blimey, he looks young . . . Caradoc Dearborn, vanished six months after this, we never found his body . . . Hagrid, of course, looks exactly the same as ever . . . Elphias Doge, you've met him, I'd forgotten he used to wear that stupid hat . . . Gideon Prewett, it took five Death Eaters to kill him and his brother Fabian, they fought like heroes . . . budge along, budge along . . .' [11] OotP, Ch. 9: "that's Dorcas Meadowes, Voldemort killed her personally" [12] Some indications that it was fall or winter of 1980: According to DD in OotP (1996) it was "a cold wet night 16 years ago" (OotP, Ch. 37), and he went to "see an applicant for the post of Divination teacher", suggesting it was before or at the beginning of the school year. When Umbridge inspects Trelawney in the beginning of the school year of OotP, Trelawney says she held her job "nearly 16 years" (OotP, Ch. 15), suggesting she was hired a bit after the beginning of the school year of 1980. [13] OotP, Ch.6: "Sirius jabbed a finger at the very bottom of the tree, at the name 'Regulus Black'. A date of death (some fifteen years previously) followed the date of birth." [14] PoA, Ch. 19: "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?" This happens in August 1995, so 15 years ago is 1980. [15] GoF, Ch. 30: "Crouch is going to let him out," Moody breathed quietly to Dumbledore. "He's done a deal with him. Took me six months to track him down, and Crouch is going to let him go if he's got enough new names. [16] GoF, Ch. 30: "Any others?" said Crouch coldly. "Why, yes there was Rosier," said Karkaroff hurriedly. "Evan Rosier." "Rosier is dead," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after you were too. He preferred to fight rather than come quietly and was killed in the struggle." "Took a bit of me with him, though," whispered Moody to Harry's right. Harry looked around at him once more, and saw him indicating the large chunk out of his nose to Dumbledore. [17] GoF, Ch. 30: "There was Antonin Dolohov," he said. "I - I saw him torture countless Muggles and - and non-supporters of the Dark Lord." "And helped him do it," murmured Moody. "We have already apprehended Dolohov," said Crouch. "He was caught shortly after yourself." [18] GoF, Ch. 27: "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." Sirius held up his fingers and began ticking off names. "Rosier and Wilkes - they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell. The Lestranges - they're a married couple - they're in Azkaban. Avery - from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse - he's still at large. Neri From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 01:37:39 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:37:39 -0000 Subject: Is Lucius Malfoy Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112439 Magda: I think Lucius has a pretty clear-eyed view of Draco's character ("my son the cowardly wimp") and he takes steps to make sure that Draco doesn't know more than he has to, such as the whole Heir of Slytherin thing in COS. Hannah: I think Lucius views Draco more as a fashion accessory than anything else. Bookworm: Lucius is a power-hungry, status-conscious, bigoted, control freak. He is emotionally abusive to Draco. I think Hannah is right that Lucius doesn't see Draco as an individual. Draco is expected to bring additional honor to the Malfoy name. Unfortunately, he is not outstanding in terms of intelligence, ability, etc. Because Draco isn't a child prodigy, Lucius has been denigrating him for years ? the "Can't you do anything right?" kind of criticism. It isn't surprising Draco is a cowardly wimp (). He looks up to his father and seeks his approval but will never get it. "frugalarugala" In my two-cents, the Malfoys are the parallels of the Dursleys, so if you count Dudley as abused, if you consider over-indulgence and witnessing of abusive behavior as abuse... I doubt Draco is abused in any criminally actionable sense, but he's definitely being raised with a warped sense of values and I can easily imagine Lucius being an aloof, manipulative father. Bookworm: Good analogy, although I'd say the Malfoys are the polar opposite rather than parallels of the Dursleys. Both Draco and Dudley have warped values. But where nothing is too good for Diddy Duddykins, Draco is never good enough. Ravenclaw Bookworm From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 8 18:00:23 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (hannahmarder) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:00:23 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112440 In 112370 SSSusan wrote: > And in 112285 PK wrote: > >>> The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and wizards > killing their past and future selves, does seem to confuse the > issue -- killing one's future self shouldn't actually present a > problem of feasibility in itself, but killing one's past self > should be impossible.<<< > > > > And in 112331 Chancie offered: > >>>The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in > this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time > during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes > everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back > a few days in time. This is the only thing I could think of that > would make [sense].<<< > > SSSusan AGAIN NOW: > I just don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as Chancie > suggested. It's certainly not at all what PK was describing to us > yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to a point *before* > s/he was even born. Hannah: Thanks Susan, I found it helpful (and was flattered to be quoted in it!). It's an excellent summary of a very interesting and complicated discussion :-) Sorry I snipped so much of it! This post concerns a different aspect of the TT question, which was asked in one of the early posts that started off this thread - namely, can a person time turn to a date before they were born? Some people think yes, some think no, some even believe time travelling is restricted to the past 24 hours or so. I had a thought about this. When H and H use the TT, they turn it to go back, but not to return to the 'present' (the point from which they started). Instead, they live through the intervening hours between the time they left (eg 9pm) and the time they travelled back to (eg 6pm), so they have 3 hours 'extra' time. This isn't particularly long, so they haven't 'aged' in that short time. Suppose you go back a long way, 50 years for instance. You go back, do what you need to do... then what? Can you use the time turner to go forward in time, back to when you started? Or once you've gone back, are you then stuck, having to live out the 50 years until you catch back up with when you left? If this is the case, you would have a pretty wretched life, making sure you didn't meet yourself or anyone else who knows you. And when you got back, you would suddenly be fifty years older, very confusing for friends and family! You can imagine the reaction of your nearest and dearest when you pop upstairs and come down five minutes later having aged fifty years! If it is the case that the time turner can only take you backwards, and not forwards even if it is to return to your time of origin, then that would put a fairly short time limit on how far you would want to go. Except in a real emergency... maybe this is how DD has clocked up so many years? That would explain how his examiner is still alive and kicking - they aren't in fact older than DD. This is probably a bit controversial - the DD bit at least. But the principal in general might be OK. Hannah From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 01:22:50 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:22:50 EDT Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112441 Pippin: > > Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he > > was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a > > bit like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not > > say that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he > > hated Lupin. > > Valky: > Yeah Ron does say exactly this. He says it right after Hermione > reveals that Lupin is a Werewolf. > I don't think he said it because he hated Lupin, though. The way > I read it he is reacting in fear. This is the first time Lupin > approaches him following the revelation that he is a Werewolf. Man, I hate it when I'm wrong! I just found where he said that! It's been along time since I read it, and I've only read it once so far. Sorry, and thanks for clearing that up for me! Chancie From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 01:47:48 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:47:48 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112442 > SSSusan here: I've explained several times to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find the language to help her grasp it. > Valky: Hi Susan, Maybe it would help your daughter to grasp the concept of time *not* changing by asking her to imagine how Hermione was at *all* her classes that year. She *had* to start somewhere, so now lets say for arguments sake that she started with Arithmancy. She *must* live out the entire class before she can timeturn back for another one, meaning that this *first* time around she is *not* in Divination. But if we hop over to see Harry and Ron we find that Hermione *is* in divination. She is there because she timeturns back and goes to be there *after* Arithmancy. But while Hermione is in Arithmancy Harry and Ron are in Divination *with* Hermione! Phew! Effectively Hermione is in *two places at once* and one of the Hermione's is one hour older than the other. Because she is in Arithmancy and Divination *at once* it follows logically that she did not miss Divination the first time round. Ok, as I type, I am imagining the arguments an eight year olds imagination can come up with, and they are pretty good ones. If using Hermione's timeturning as an example helps it probably wont last once your daughter starts thinking about it LOL. Good Luck with that, I am stumped frankly. Time Travel is a very difficult thing to contemplate. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 02:00:51 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:00:51 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112443 SSSusan writes: >>> <> Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present. Yet here we have others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using TT to change time/events/the past.<<< Chancie responded: > Hmm...I'm not sure any of us will agree on this one way or the > other until JKR tells us how the TT works! But my thoughts are if > it is "impossible to change time" WHY have a time turner to begin > with??? What's the point of having the ability to go back in > time, and just look at things? And also, why was Hermione so > concerned with getting back before the last chime of the clock? > If it is as you say, then she would automatically end up there on > time, because everything had already played out. Why was > she "warned" not to change the past as Naama reminded us? If she > couldn't CHANGE anything, then why worry with a warning? Also, I > just found a quote that might help: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "Harry, I don't understand what Dumbledore wants us to do. Why > did he tell us to go back three hours? How's that going to help > Sirius?" > > Harry stared at her shadowy face. > "There must be something that *HAPPENED* around now he wants us to > *CHANGE*" he said slowly. > > (The emphisis is mine of course) > POA, Chapter21 page 396 American Paperback. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Well that's my take on the TT (once again) I don't expect it to > change any of your point of views, but maybe it will give my > argument a little more weight. SSSusan: If when you wrote "your point of views" you included me, then hey-- I'm WAY open to changing my point of view on this topic! Every time I seem to think I'm getting a grasp of it, something gets presented which tweaks it (or makes me want to give up). I mean, whoa! That quote seems significant to me! I hadn't even thought of that reference to *changing* something, even though it's in both the book and the movie, so I should have remembered it. How do folks in the "JKR is *not* using TT in the style of going back to CHANGE things" camp account for this phrasing? Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 02:03:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:03:19 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112444 hannahmarder (I think--unsigned post) wrote: > Not just that, but why does Voldemort trust Snape? I think that's > key to the whole mystery of Snape and why he changed sides. > Voldemort must know that Dumbledore vouched for Snape and claimed he > was a spy. Carol responds: Yes, why Dumbledore trusts Snape is a crucial question, one that Harry himself has asked and which, therefore, we can be pretty sure of receiving an answer to even if we have to wait till Book 7. I think there's a simple answer, most likely that somehow he informed Dumbledore that LV was after the Potters and/or tried (in vain) to protect them himself. We do at least know where Snape stands with Dumbledore, and I for one assume that Dumbledore is right to do so. Where Snape stands with Voldemort is another matter altogether. I think he's the one Voldemort believes (or believed) has left him forever (and that the belief is correct), but we don't know whether Voldemort changed his mind after the graveyard scene. It's clear, however, that Lucius Malfoy still maintains some connection with Snape (at least until his arrest in OoP), which leads me to believe that he and the other DEs think that Snape is still secretly one of them, but restricted in his movements by the necessity of staying at Hogwarts. (I think Snape told Malfoy at the end of GoF that he couldn't be at the graveyard because you can't apparate from Hogwarts and Malfoy accepted that.) At any rate, the point I want to address is the one about Voldemort knowing that Dumbledore testified that Snape was no longer a Death Eater and was spying for him (Dumbledore) before Voldemort's fall. How would Voldemort know that? No DEs were present to hear that testimony, and Karkaroff was the only DE present at his own hearing. Karkaroff isn't going to tell the other DEs about Snape; he's afraid of being Crucio'd or murdered by his fellow Death Eaters for being a snitch. Nor would the other two hundred or so people (all of them well-respected Wizengamot or auror types) be likely to spread that bit of news. (They'd be more concerned, I would think, to keep the knowledge of Snape's true loyalty from the DEs.) Certainly there's no evidence that Snape's DE past is common knowledge. Sirius didn't know it (apparently he didn't hear about it from the Order or from the DEs at Azkaban), and there's no indication that Lucius Malfoy does, either. (He speaks favorably of Snape to Umbridge, for example. He may assume that Snape got off the same way hed did; by claiming to be under the Imperius Curse.) I think the non-Slytherin parents would be up in arms against both Dumbledore and Snape if they knew that Snape was a former Death Eater. Whether Voldemort had suspicions regarding Snape's loyalty after the events in SS/PS is another question, one that I haven't resolved to my own satisfaction, but I'll bet every knut in my possession that he doesn't know that Snape got off after Godric's Hollow because of Dumbledore's testimony that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am." Carol From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 01:58:13 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:58:13 EDT Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112445 > The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in > this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time > during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes > everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back > a few days in time. This is the only thing I could think of that > would make [sense].<<< I feel that I should clear up what I was saying by this. Several times I was quoted saying this (and yes I did), but it wasn't the way I meant it. The question had been brought up of "Can a person go back in time to a point Before they were alive?" In my first post, I stated that in my opinion it wouldn't make sense to have time restrictions. I then inserted the quote above stating from what I read in the books that the ONLY thing I could see that could POSSIBLY be considered a rule maybe, is that from my knowledge I don't remember Hermione going back in time a few days at a time. Only adding hours in order to get her work done. Then again she had no reason to go back days at a time, or years even. Chancie~ hoping that clears up her previous statement and makes it easier to understand the way she intended it! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 02:14:47 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:14:47 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112446 In 112370 SSSusan wrote: > > And in 112285 PK wrote: > > >>> The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and > > wizards killing their past and future selves, does seem to > > confuse the issue -- killing one's future self shouldn't > > actually present a problem of feasibility in itself, but killing > > one's past self should be impossible.<<< > > > > > > > > And in 112331 Chancie offered: > > >>>The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] > > in this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in > > time during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her > > classes everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her > > going back a few days in time. This is the only thing I could > > think of that would make [sense].<<< > > > > SSSusan AGAIN: > > I just don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as > > Chancie suggested. It's certainly not at all what PK was > > describing to us yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to > > a point *before* s/he was even born. Hannah: > Thanks Susan, I found it helpful (and was flattered to be > quoted in it!). It's an excellent summary of a very interesting > and complicated discussion :-) Sorry I snipped so much of it! > > This post concerns a different aspect of the TT question, which > was asked in one of the early posts that started off this thread - > namely, can a person time turn to a date before they were born? SSSusan: Well, in my ongoing (and ever-failing) quest to "get" this topic, that was me who asked about TT'ing back to a point before one was actually born. Hannah: > When H and H use the TT, they turn it to go back, but not to > return to the 'present' (the point from which they started). > Instead, they live through the intervening hours between the time > they left (eg 9pm) and the time they travelled back to (eg 6pm), > so they have 3 hours 'extra' time. This isn't particularly long, > so they haven't 'aged' in that short time. > > Suppose you go back a long way, 50 years for instance. You go > back, do what you need to do... then what? Can you use the time > turner to go forward in time, back to when you started? Or once > you've gone back, are you then stuck, having to live out the 50 > years until you catch back up with when you left? If this is the > case, you would have a pretty wretched life, making sure you > didn't meet yourself or anyone else who knows you. SSSusan: I **really** hope PK or someone who believes in the possibility of TT to a point prior to one's birth...or even just to a point more than just days previous...will pick this up & run with it, because I think this question is a great one. If Harry & Hermione lived those three hours AGAIN in order to "catch back up" with themselves [for them, that day, they lived 27 hours instead of 24], then what *would* one do if he travelled back 1 or 10 or 300 years? Do most people who believe that kind of lengthy "back-travel" believe that the time-turner *is* a two-directional tool, and that it *can* be turned forward at will? Siriusly Snapey Susan From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 02:19:01 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:19:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112447 Carol: We know that he [Dumbledore] testified that Sirius had been made Secret Keeper. He must have believed that Bookworm: I haven't seen anyone else suggest that maybe the Potters *did* make Sirius their Secret-Keeper and then changed it to Peter. If this is what happened, then Dumbledore wouldn't have lied during his statement to the Wizengamot. He could truthfully say that he knew Sirius had been made Secret-Keeper Carol: But the strongest evidence that he believed Sirius guilty, IMO, is his allowing the Dementors--whom we know he detested--to guard the Hogwarts grounds. Bookworm: What would have happened if he refused to let them on the grounds? Whatever Dumbledore knew, popular opinion `knew' that Sirius had betrayed Harry's parents, and then he killed 13 more people. Picture the situation at the beginning of PoA. This was after Harry was suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin, but before the Triwizard Tournament, before Rita Skeeter, before there was any hint that Voldemort was coming back, before Fudge's smear campaign. At the beginning of PoA, Harry was still "The Boy Who Lived". Remember Fudge's reaction when Harry arrived at the Leaky Cauldron. Sirius escaped from Azkaban and got past the dementors somehow. It made sense for the dementors to want to get him back. If Dumbledore had tried to refuse having the dementors at Hogwarts, he would have been accused of risking Harry's life. He might have battled Fudge over the dementor issue, but at what cost? What reason could Dumbledore have given without revealing some secret he had kept for 12 years? (No, I don't know just what it is, but I'm certain there is much more to this than we have learned yet.) Ravenclaw Bookworm From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 02:22:45 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:22:45 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MESSAGE 112436, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > But my thoughts are if it is "impossible to change time" WHY > have a time turner to begin with??? What's the point of having >the ability to go back in time, and just look at things? And also, >why was Hermione so concerned with getting back before the last >chime of the clock? If it is as you say, then she would >automatically end up there on time, because everything had already >played out. Why was she "warned" not to change the > past as Naama reminded us? If she couldn't CHANGE anything, then >why worry with a warning? "K": I have to agree with what you said. I'm going to list a few canon bits, including one you already mentioned. ~~'There must be something that happened around now he wants us to change,' he said slowly. PoA/Ch 21/Pg 290/UK "K": Why would Dumbledore send Harry and Hermione back to change something that can't be changed? ~'Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, 'what if we-we just run in there, and grab Pettigrew-' 'No!' said Hermione in a terrified whisper. 'Don't you understand? **We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen- PoA/Ch 21/Pgs 291-291/UK "K": *Hermione - terrified whisper *One of the most important wizarding laws *Nobody's supposed to change time *Nobody ~~'We'd only be seen by ourselves and Hagrid!' 'Harry, what do you think you'd do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid's house?' said Hermione. 'I'd-I'd think I'd gone mad,' said Harry, 'or I'd think there was some Dark Magic going on-' 'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 292/UK "K": *Awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time. *...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake! So, wizards have made mistakes when meddling with time. Loads of them have killed themselves and it was a *mistake*. It wasn't what would have happened naturally. ~~'OK,' said Hermione, getting a firmer grip on Buckbeatk's rope. 'But we've got to keep out of sight, Harry, remember...' PoA/Ch 21/pg 295/UK 'Harry, we mustn't be seen!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 296/UK 'See?' Hermione whispered. 'See what would have happened?' We've got to keep out of sight! PoA/Ch 21/pg 296/UK 'Harry,' Hermione muttered...'we've got to stay put. We mustn't be seen. There's nothing we can do...' PoA/Ch 21/pg 298/UK "K": How many times does Hermione tell Harry they must not be seen? ~~'...There's nothing we can do! We came back to help Sirius. We're not supposed to be doing anything else!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 298/UK 'There goes Lupin,' Hermione whispered. 'He's transforming-' 'Hermione!' said Harry suddenly. 'We've got to move!' 'We mustn't, I keep telling you-' 'Not to interfere! But Lupin's going to run into the Forest, right at us!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK ~~'I think I'd better go outside again, you know,' said Harry slowly. 'I can't see what's going on - we won't know when it's time-' Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. 'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly. 'But if we don't see what's going on, how're we going to know when it's time to rescue Sirius?' PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK "K": *'We're not supposed to be doing anything else!' *Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. 'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly. "K": It's obvious one can interfere with time. ~~'Hermione-what'll happen-if we don't get back inside-before Dumbledore locks the door?' Harry panted. 'I don't want to think about it!' Hermione moaned, checking her watch again. 'One minute!' PoA/Ch 22/pg 305/UK What would happen if Harry and Hermione did not get back in time before the door was locked? I'm not particularly fond of time travel but I do feel PoA was just the introduction. "K" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 02:35:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:35:08 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112449 > GEO wrote: Right now nobody has come up with a decent explaination imo. So > far the best ones I've heard are that his initial hesitation came > from Voldemort having a small inkling in the back of his head of a > possible protection kicking in when he killed Lily or Lily had > something or some sort of connection with the Dark Lord that may > have possibly made him want to spare her for one reason or another > for his very own benefit, which may have been a reason why Lily > Potter was also able to survive three encounters with Voldemort > previously as an OOTP member. Carol responds: I've already discussed this topic so often that I don't want to go into detail here; I think Lily was merely in LV's way, unarmed and a "common Muggle" (his words, not mine; he's not distinguishing between Muggles and Muggleborns or acknowledging that she might have powers he know nothing of, including the power to trick him into killing her and triggering ancient magic to save her son.) What I'm wondering, though, is what exactly is meant by "defied [Voldemort] three times. Does it necessarily mean that both Lily and James were involved in all three encounters. And does "defy" mean "survive combat"? Any ideas about other possible meanings? Carol From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 02:40:43 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:40:43 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA)-getting LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112450 I'm having fun with this discussion, even if I have trouble making it clear! > SSSusan here: Karyn says: > >>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the THING with the time-turners > that you can't undo certain things? Like, you can go back and correct > things that just happened, but you can't go back and kill LV, for > example, because there are already so many consequences from him > being alive?<<< No. Time happens once. Individuals who use time-turners experience the same period twice, only being aware of the doubling in their future forms. Again, Beaky never died. It's not a case of "correcting something that just happened." H&H always were there twice. From H&H's point of view, Beaky "died", and from their POV, the same "time" happened twice--i.e., the 6:00 hour happened twice for them. H&H are 3 hours older than the rest of the world. Dumbledore doesn't send H&H back to save Buckbeak--b/c Buckbeak didn't die. He tells them they can save "more than one innocent life"--he knows they saved Beaky--the first innocent--and he's hoping that they will also be able to save Sirius. It's tricky and precise writing. > And in 112331 Chancie offered: > >>>The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in > this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time > during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes > everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back a > few days in > time. This is the only thing I could think of that would make > [sense].<<< > > No, it doesn't matter when you go back, or how far back you go. If you are successful in your attempt to go back in time, you did it in the past. TIME HAPPENS ONCE, TIME-TRAVELLERS HAPPEN MORE. That's why Harry knows he can cast the Patronus in his "future" form--he knows he "already" did it. His past self saw his future self do it. But the time difference between Past!Harry and Future!Harry only exists for HARRY--as far as the universe is concerned, there's only one time where the Dementors attack and Harry is victim and victor. There is never a ***time*** where Harry is killed/kissed by the Dementors. If he were, he'd never be able to go back in time and prevent it. There are not multiple timelines that cancel each other out. Time happened. The paradox of experiencing the same time twice--one before another--is something ONLY the TimeTraveller is aware of, (and, of course, the reader.) It only seems like he was attacked *before* he rescued himself from Harry's perspective. From Sirius' pov, (supposing he wasn't unconscious) he would have seen Harry with his weak patronus failing and Future!Harry with his killer Patronus at the same time. > SSSusan AGAIN NOW: > Now, I find that I just can't go along with these two. If we have to > get into "CAN change that because 'nothing significant' came of it" > vs. "CAN'T change that because it was important to future events," as > Karyn suggested, I just don't see any way it would work (imho). > Who's to "decide" what was a significant consequence??? And I just > don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as Chancie > suggested. It's certainly not at all what PK was describing to us > yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to a point *before* s/he > was even born. No one gets to decide what's "significant" because it doesn't matter. Nothing, significant or in-, can be changed. It doesn't matter how far you go back or if the TT has limitations. ***If you weren't in the past twice (or more) the "first" time events happened, you won't be able to be there the "second" time--i.e. when your Future!Self visits the past.*** Because the EVENT doesn't happen twice (no first and second time), the Traveler just experiences the same TIME more than once. EVENTS don't happen twice--the PERSON is there twice. And it's ONLY from the Time-traveller's perspective that events happen more than once--a first and second time. > > And to complicate matters further, check this out. > > In 112343 Naama, responding to my question, wrote: > >>>SSSusan: So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see > things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not > really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get > that much right?? > Naama: > I don't think so . If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously > warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT > is that it *is* possible to change time.<<< I disagree. JKR shows that the timeline didn't change. Hermione is warned b/c time-travelling is not safe, and she shouldn't attempt to change time b/c it's not possible. Hermione has to be warned and special dispensation has to be given b/c damage is happening to her. She is aging faster--she is reliving 1 to 3 hours a day for the whole school year, which has to be draining on her. She can't really ever catch up on her sleep (I'd go into detail, but this post is already getting massive) Again, you can't go back and change things--and if you try, you will fail--but what methods the timeline/universe may use to keep itself together may be damaging to the Future!self. When Hermione hears that she missed Charms, she nderstood that she couldn't change it. No matter how much she Time-turned, she'll never be in that Charms class--BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. Remember, there's no first, second, fifteenth time for anyone else. They live it once. It's quite possible that off-screen Hermione tried to make that Charms class, but we know she never succeeded, and never can succeed, because we know she wasn't in Cheering Charms class. Warning her not to try to change the past also fits in here--if you miss Cheering Charms, no matter how ofter you TT, you won't get in. But you will live extra hours, aging faster than normal, all for wasted effort. > SSSusan AGAIN NOW: > See? We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can > or can't work. Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree > that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the > past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads > co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person > wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present. No. Not "two time-threads". Only one time-thread. Two Harrys and two Hermiones. From H&H's pov, they live the time twice. From everyone else's pov, H&H are there twice. >Yet here we have > others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using > TT to change time/events/the past. But they're wrong!! ;^) > So perhaps *this* is why I object to the TT mechanism so much. It > was fun in PoA, and I loved how Cuaron interpreted it in That Medium > Which Is Not To Be Named, but there seem to be so many alternative > views of how it "can" and "can't" work in the Potterverse, that it's > left being very complicated indeed! Many people here seem > comfortable with it, but even they disagree on what it means or how > it works. How's the average novice-about-TT like me to get it, > then? When you want to UNDERSTAND the story completely, it's > frustrating. Not to mention the really bad time-travel stories out there that are full of holes, even if they are entertaining. Except for the line about a future self being able to kill a past self (not logically possible) JKR's timeline holds fast--no plot holes. Well...I have one question about Hermione's comments about missing Charms, but let's not go there right now! > > Not to mention what kids think of it. I've explained several times > to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in > her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED > THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT > I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find > the language to help her grasp it. The Trio only hear the axe fall. They don't see it. If they'd seen it, they'd know Beaky wasn't dead. When we're shown the axe falling in both the book and in The Medium That Shall Not Be Named, we see that it doesn't hit Buckbeak. The Medium That Shall Not Be Named could have been edited differently--showing the Trio thinking Beaky killed and then immediately cutting to the reality of the ace hitting nothing--a "meanwhile back at Hagrid's..." The book could have been written that way, too. But the drama of thinking Beaky dead would be removed much too early, then. We lose the tension of thinking justice has gone awry. The fact that the MoM and Fudge are more concerned with appearences than with facts isn't rammed home as hard as with the failed murder of an innocent pet. It gets the point across much stronger by showing Fudge willingly went through with it. Time travel isn't necessary for this type of effect. The same effect could have been achieved if, say, a Pretend!Lupin had rescued Beaky. The Trio would still think Beaky was dead, not knowing that the axe hit nothing. Not until Pretend!Lupin revealed the rescue would they know Beaky was alive. And Cuaron and JKR wouldn't show that immediately. It's just that it wasn't a Pretend!Lupin who saved Beaky. It was Future!Harry > So, please, JKR, no more time travel unless it's NOT central to the > climactic scenes of the series!!! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, hoping this was helpful to someone besides > myself. Well I'm enjoying it, even if I'm not converting anyone to my beliefs! -TL From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 02:45:00 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:45:00 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112451 Carol wrote: Whether Voldemort had suspicions regarding Snape's loyalty after the > events in SS/PS is another question, one that I haven't resolved to my > own satisfaction, but I'll bet every knut in my possession that he > doesn't know that Snape got off after Godric's Hollow because of > Dumbledore's testimony that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am." Neri: I'm afraid it's not that easy. 200 Wizards, most of them probably from the Ministry, know about it, and it never leaked? Not even to Lucius Malfoy, Fudge's good chum? As somebody who reads the papers I have difficulties believing this, and we didn't see much indication that the average WW bureaucrat is more closed-mouth than his RL equivalent. Also, when Harry names the DEs in the end of GoF, Fudge tells him that he could have simply found the names in old records of the trials. This seems to imply that records of these trials are generally open to the public. Also, Crouch Sr. knew about Snape changing sides, and in GoF Crouch had spent several months under Voldy's Imperius curse. I remind you that this is the same Voldy who had just milked Bertha's mind to the last drop. Comparing to Bertha, Crouch is a gold mine of information about the Ministry. Would you believe that Voldy didn't mine it for all its worth? In fact, I think I'll take your bet, and then raise you one knut... Neri From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 03:07:46 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:07:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily References: Message-ID: <03ee01c4961a$2f1ccff0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 112452 From: "justcarol67" > What I'm wondering, though, is what exactly is meant by "defied > [Voldemort] three times. Does it necessarily mean that both Lily and > James were involved in all three encounters. And does "defy" mean > "survive combat"? Any ideas about other possible meanings? > Charme: I have thoughts on this...like "defy" can mean many things, including battle or even saying "no." I actually believe the "no" part is what Lily, James, Alice & Frank all did to LV and his followers: they simply said "no, we're not interested", "no, we're not doing what you've demanded," or "no, we're not giving you that." Just by listing those responses, I have 3 :) Charme From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 03:13:12 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:13:12 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112453 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "twobeaglegirl" wrote: > 2beagles: > Okay, this subject fascinates me, but it also hurts my brain. :> > Here is the part that always throws me off--there always has to be a > *very first event* that occurs before the *time-turning*. In other > words, if Buckbeak *never* died, how did he survive the *very* first > time. H & H had to go through the first set of events first before > they could ever go back the second time to provide the explanation. > OK, still having fun with this topic. There is NO FIRST TIME. The "first" time is the ***only*** time. H&H go back in time and are there for the first and only time. Beaky NEVER dies, b/c H&H always time-travel back and exist in the same place twice. It only seems like it happens more than once to the time-traveller (and us b/c we follow the time-traveller). There wasn't a first time when Beaky died, and then they went back and changed it. There was a time when Beaky ALMOST died, but was kidnapped before the execution. The confusion arises b/c The Trio thinks Beaky is dead, but they haven't seen the execution, they've only heard the axe fall. When we are in a position to see the axe fall, we see that it doesn't hit Beaky, b/c Beaky's already gone. The Trio is still on the hill hearing the axe fall and thinking Beaky's dead. Future!H & H are hiding Buckbeak. It only seems like a "second" time to Future!H&H, and that's b/c they have travelled back to a time that they lived before. > So if the two events are happening at once, then the second set of > events would have to proceed the first. Only to the time traveller. Not to TIME or to reality. >Here is another way to look at it--they had to get to the hospital ward the first time before > they ever went back and created this circle of events. Right? No. The future selves were already in the past. A paradox would have occured if they had tried to AVOID going back in time. Even though it is "later" to Harry and Hermione, it's not "later" to anyone else or the universe. Because everyone else is living a normal life flowing through time, and Harry and Hermione are living an extra three hours. It's just that these "extra" three hours exist only for the Future!H&H. It's the "extra" hours that make it seem like this time happened before. It happened before to the time-travellers, but it really only happens once. Future!Harry can cast the Patronus Charm that saves his life b/c he realizes that HE ALREADY CAST IT. For Harry, the dementor attack happens twice, because he **goes back** in time and space to the attack. The "first" time, Harry thinks his dad saves him. The "second" time, Harry realizes that the "first" time he lived through THIS VERY ATTACK, he saw his Future!Self and thought it was his dad. See, Past!Harry saw Future!Harry b/c Future!Harry was already there. Past!Harry just hadn't turned into Future!Harry yet. These Past and Future versions of Harry are only sequential to HARRY and through HARRY's mind and pov. For everyone else who is NOT time-travelling, there are 2 Harrys on either side of the lake. One doesn't appear before the other. They are there at the SAME TIME. It's not a different Dementor attack. It's the same one, it's just that Harry is there AGAIN. He's not a duplicate of the Harry that's collapsing, he's gone back in time 3 hours. Future!Harry knows/has lived 3 hours more. He's living in the same time twice. There's not a second timeline. Harry's there twice. He is in the past the one and only time it happens. If Future!Harry weren't ALREADY THERE IN THE PAST, Past!Harry wouldn't have lived to become Future!Harry. There's no possible sequence. There was always time-travel. Ugh. Again, so clear to me, so muddled when I try to write it down. -TL From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 03:33:09 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:33:09 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112454 Chancie: But my thoughts are if it is "impossible to change time" WHY > have a time turner to begin with??? What's the point of having the ability > to go back in time, and just look at things? TL: You can do much more than just look at things. Hermione took classes and examinations. Harry went back in time and saved his own life. Chancie: >And also, why was Hermione so concerned with getting back before the last chime of the clock? If it is > as you say, then she would automatically end up there on time, because everything had already played out. TL: They need to be locked up in the infirmary for 2 reasons. 1st, so that they can't be blamed for freeing Sirius--b/c everyone knows they were locked in the infirmary. 2nd, so that no one knows they time-travelled. By time-turning, they went back to a time before the door was locked--that's how they escaped. They vanished from the room back through time. When they reached the time where they vanished from the infirmary again (after re-living those 3 hours), they didn't have to be back in there, but being elsewhere would have raised questions as to how they got out (the time-turner) and would have blown their alibi. No one is supposed to know Hermione has a TT. Vanishing from a room in a place where it is impossible to Apparate or Disapparate would make certain professors go hmmmmmm... >Why was she "warned" not to change the > past as Naama reminded us? If she couldn't CHANGE anything, then why worry > with a warning? Also, I just found a quote that might help: She could drive herself crazy trying to change something. She wasn't in Cheering Charms class. She's never going to make it to that class, because she was never there. But she could keep TTing and trying to get back there, getting older and older as she lives extra hours by reliving time. Not to mention bad things could easily happen if students/professors see multiple copies of Hermione running around. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "Harry, I don't understand what Dumbledore wants us to do. Why did he tell > us to go back three hours? How's that going to help Sirius?" > > Harry stared at her shadowy face. > "There must be something that *HAPPENED* around now he wants us to *CHANGE*" > he said slowly. > > (The emphisis is mine of course) > POA, Chapter21 page 396 American Paperback. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chancie: > So even Harry and Hermione seem to know that the TT gives them the chance > to *CHANGE* time. Of course Harry was the one who said this, but since he > said it to Hermione, and wasn't corrected (like she does for example when > anyone sugests someone's apparating on Hogwarts grounds) by saying "we can't > change time only do what we've already done" seems to mean that you CAN > change time. Hermione I'm sure read up on the TT or got additional info > (as she always does) would have known what is possible and what isn't. > > Well that's my take on the TT (once again) I don't expect it to change any > of your point of views, but maybe it will give my argument a little more > weight. > I read it differently. Dumbledore tells them more than one innocent life can be saved. Dumbledore at this time knows Beaky isn't dead, and he HOPES Sirius can be saved. And it's Harry saying CHANGE above, and he's just learned about them and doesn't know any of the rules. Hermione, on the other hand, doesn't see how going back three hours is going to help **SIRIUS**. She knows that Sirius has been caught, locked up and the dementors are on the way. She knows there's nothing they can do to change *that*, which is why she doesn't understand what Dumbledore wants them to do. She's trying to figure out who the other "innocent" is and why 3 hours. At this point, she still thinks Beaky is dead, but Dumbledore's hint and Harry's guess helps her figure it out. As for not correcting Harry, she's concentrating on what Dumbledore wants her to do. -TL From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 04:02:52 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:02:52 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112455 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > SSSusan: > I **really** hope PK or someone who believes in the possibility of > TT to a point prior to one's birth...or even just to a point more > than just days previous...will pick this up & run with it, because I > think this question is a great one. If Harry & Hermione lived those > three hours AGAIN in order to "catch back up" with themselves [for > them, that day, they lived 27 hours instead of 24], then what > *would* one do if he travelled back 1 or 10 or 300 years? Do most > people who believe that kind of lengthy "back-travel" believe that > the time-turner *is* a two-directional tool, and that it *can* be > turned forward at will? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I don't know if a TT can go both ways, but if you go back 100 years, and you've got no way to TT yourself to the future, you're gonna die before you're born. >From Time-Travelling!Tyler's pov: Tyler lives 100 years. Born in 1967, she should die in 2067. However, she only lives normally until 2004, when a twist of an internet discussion on magical time-travel sends her back to 1804. No internet magic at that time, so there's no hopes of finding a forward time-travelling mechanism. So TT!T lives out the rest of her life in the past, still dying at 100, but in 1867 when her Time Travelled body reaches 100, not in 2067 which is when she SHOULD have turned 100. To the rest of the non-time-travelling universe, Tyler magically appears as a 37 y/o in 1804, lives to 100, and dies in 1867. There's no Tyler at all for a century until Baby!Tyler is born in 1967, lives to 37, and then vanishes from the world forever in 2004. Back to topic!!! Harry and Hermione and any time-traveller are older than they're "real" age b/c they have lived "extra" hours. Undoubtedly, that's one of the reasons there are so many restrictions on TT. It's very hard on the traveller. Hermione was living 25+ hour days for a whole school year. She's probably a month or two older than she should be. (Roughly 280 days in a school year. 1-3 (or more) hours a day, maybe/maybe not on weekends. Estimate 480 "extra" hours to make the maths easy. That's 20 days.) Not enough to really affect her--her non-TT age isn't that different from the length of her extra hours life, but continued use of the TT could very well cause that type of problem. Stop here, or be prepared for possible confusion. The following example can be a little confusing due to my being in the same time more than once. Imagine in the above example I only time-travel back to 1964 (to watch the Beatles on Ed Sullivan!), again supposing no way to travel forward but to live, I'll exist in 2 places at the same time. If I try to use my social security number to get a job in 1974, when the time travelled version is 47, I'll have trouble b/c the number is assigned to my birth year, which would make me only 10. Confusing to employers. There will be two Tylers in the world until 2004 when the 37 y/o goes back. They're the same person, just different ages. TT!T still lives 100 years, but dies in 2027 instead of 2067. According to Social Security, I'll only have lived 60 years, because I wasted 40 years in the past living back up to the point of departure. Ugh. Any questions??? -TL From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 04:18:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:18:59 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA)-getting LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112456 Two quick comments on this one, and that's IT!! :-) SSSusan earlier: >> See? We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can or can't work. Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of person wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present.<< Tylerswaxlion: > No. Not "two time-threads". Only one time-thread. Two Harrys and > two Hermiones. From H&H's pov, they live the time twice. From > everyone else's pov, H&H are there twice. SSSusan now: I didn't explain well, though I really do understand what you mean. I was recalling how one poster had explained it--to think of one big, long thread representing all time, and then there'd be this little thread which separated off for a time, representing H/H's doing it twice. Poor use of terminology on my part, I suppose. SSSusan earlier: >> Not to mention what kids think of it. I've explained several times to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find the language to help her grasp it. Tylerswaxlion: > The Trio only hear the axe fall. They don't see it. If they'd > seen it, they'd know Beaky wasn't dead. When we're shown the axe > falling in both the book and in The Medium That Shall Not Be > Named, we see that it doesn't hit Buckbeak. > > The Medium That Shall Not Be Named could have been edited > differently--showing the Trio thinking Beaky killed and then > immediately cutting to the reality of the ace hitting nothing--a > "meanwhile back at Hagrid's..." The book could have been written > that way, too. > > But the drama of thinking Beaky dead would be removed much too > early, then. SSSusan: Oh, believe me, *I* understand that Beaky never died and that the axe simply hit the pumpkin or stump or whatever it really was in canon. I explained all that EXACTLY to my daughter--that it's off- screen, but when we hear that "thwack" it's really just the executioner smacking down his axe out of frustration. She STILL doesn't "believe" me. It's not my understanding that's the problem (THIS time!); it's finding the language to help an 8-year-old [a quite bright one, too, I might add] grasp a concept which requires abstract reasoning which her brain [or most other 8-year-old brains] isn't really yet able to handle. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 04:35:13 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:35:13 -0000 Subject: OoTP,chap 15,Snapes essay-" varieties of venom antidotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112457 > I have been re-reading OoTP and noticed something I hadn't > before. In Chapter 15, Snape assigns the students an Essay on > the various Varieties of Venom antidotes. Which isn't unusual, > then Mr. Weasley gets attacked by a snake in Chapter 21-The > Eye of the Snake, and the snake venom is giving the healers fits > because they can't find an antidote. Is this something that is a > coincedence, is JKR giving us hints about the upcoming snake > bite, or does Snape know something? I just thought I'd throw it > out there to see what you all think. > > Karen Valky: Do you recall if there is any more info from HRH on what exactly Hermione writes in her essay? This is possibly a clue to the species identification of Nagini. that's what I would guess, and I would say also that Fawkes and Nagini are representations of something larger in the book theme so it would be valuable to find out more about Nagini. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 06:36:44 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:36:44 -0000 Subject: Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112458 This is an excerpt from http://www.bloomsbury.com/ - the UK publisher, latest interview with JKR: Is Aunt Petunia a Squib? Good question. 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. ---- Now, I think this means that, an idea that Petunia has as much magic as a squib, (enough to see Dementors like Arabella Figg) but not enough to be considered a muggle-born witch. Being muggle-born, she'd simply be considered a Muggle by wizards...! Someone came up with a term Mugid for such persons in a fanfic... but I doubt wizards in the actual books would ever have come up with that term, having no need for it, they'd just call them Muggles... Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 9 06:47:46 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 06:47:46 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <190.2e6e5cb5.2e709ad7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112460 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > Pippin wrote: Pippin: > > Maybe he was showing off his racist sentiments, but maybe he > > was just tossing the worst insult he could think of at her--a > > bit like Ron saying, "Get away from me, werewolf!" Ron did not > > say that because he hated werewolves, he said it because he > > hated Lupin. Chancie: > I must have missed SOMETHING because I don't remember this at ALL. Where > you get that? I just looked in PoA and I found nothing of Ron saying that! > Of course I was mostly skiming over but still I saw nothing that suports > this at at all. Geoff: 'Ron made a valiant effort to get up again bu fell back with a whimper of pain. Lupin made towards him, looking concerned but Ron gasped, "Get away from me, werewolf!"' (POA "Cat, Rat and Dog" p.253 UK edition) From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 07:16:44 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 07:16:44 -0000 Subject: OoTP,chap 15,Snapes essay-" varieties of venom antidotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112462 > > Valky: > Do you recall if there is any more info from HRH on what exactly > Hermione writes in her essay? > This is possibly a clue to the species identification of Nagini. > that's what I would guess, and I would say also that Fawkes and > Nagini are representations of something larger in the book theme so > it would be valuable to find out more about Nagini. Finwitch: Well, more to the point, Nagini is a venomous snake, otherwise Wormtail couldn't milk it for venom. (not all of them are, some, like boas or anakondas aren't venomous, they strangle the victim instead. No less dangerous...). Note that the Snake Harry freed in the zoo was a boa, and not venomous! Nagini is a big snake, though - and not a Basilisk either... What comes to Fawkes, well - Phoenix tears have healing powers - I'd say they can neutralise ANY poison and, in addition, heal the damage the poison did to muscles/veins/whatever. Curiously, we didn't see any Phoenix in St Mungos (well, they ARE rare, and maybe pets aren't allowed in - but Fawkes could have helped Arthur, I'm sure) Finwitch From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 9 08:07:05 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:07:05 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: snip> > But, what if LILY had some feelings for SNAPE? Maybe she's sticking > up for him not because he's helpless and outnumbered (he has enough > talent to take on the Marauders at least one on one), but maybe she > tried to be friends with him, or even had a little crush on him at > one time. He probably never shared the feelings... Little crush? It was a grand passion! On her part, at least. Spurned, of course. For the low-down on this Grand Guignol tragedy, see a post I made last year - 77800 "Lily - Snape. An AGGIE?" Kneasy From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 08:23:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:23:12 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112464 TL: > Imagine in the above example I only time-travel back to 1964 (to watch > the Beatles on Ed Sullivan!), again supposing no way to travel forward > but to live, I'll exist in 2 places at the same time. If I try to use > my social security number to get a job in 1974, when the time > travelled version is 47, I'll have trouble b/c the number is assigned > to my birth year, which would make me only 10. Confusing to employers. > > There will be two Tylers in the world until 2004 when the 37 y/o goes > back. They're the same person, just different ages. TT!T still lives > 100 years, but dies in 2027 instead of 2067. According to Social > Security, I'll only have lived 60 years, because I wasted 40 years in > the past living back up to the point of departure. > > Ugh. Any questions??? > > -TL Finwitch: Indeed - it's somewhat IMPOSSIBLE in Muggle World. I'm not so sure Wizards keep such records. Few hours, fine. 1) NO MESSING WITH TIME. This is the most important reason why the Ministry has strict rules about this. And I see why, as causing a mess WOULD create a paradox; there's also the large amount of 'unknown' consequences, no matter WHAT you do, so time-travel must be limited with this. 2) Court-factor: ability to be in two places at the same time discounts using alibi as proof of innosence. 3) IF one could go back in time for centuries, and then return, it would be of great help to historians! which leads me to wonder if boring Binns ever used a TimeTurner to get experience of History, and then he became a ghost because he didn't make it back on time! Finwitch From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 02:43:17 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Flitwick Message-ID: <20040909024317.42462.qmail@web80810.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112465 I am still fairly new to this list so apologies if this has been discussed. I couldn't find much. What is Prof. Flitwick? Is he just a short wizard? In the forbidden media they portray him with pointed ears like a goblin. Would JKR have allowed this into the forbidden media if he isn't part goblin or some such half-breed? I checked on the Lexicon for info but didn't find anything describing him except about his height--that is his being very small. I would love to see Flitwick go at it with some DE since he was known as a fairly good dueler in his day. theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lilyp at superig.com.br Thu Sep 9 03:20:47 2004 From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:20:47 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > Karen L.: > There is not enough time to really think, > hmmm, if I sacrifice myself for my child, then he will be protected > from this dark wizard. > > HunterGreen: > I disagree. Her standing there in his way saying 'kill me instead', > when she knows for a fact that's not going to happen (rather than > running to get her wand, or trying to stop him physically) seems less > like a maternal instinct and more like a specific plan to me. Lilyp: First: I agree with HunterGreen and I'd add that Dumbledore was probably aware of her plan. that's why he immediately knew what had happened and what he should do. Second: I think Voldemort had a specifid reason to spare Lily. He is merciless. think about Cedric's death or Frank Bryce's or whatever. AK doesn't take long. I bet Lily had something that he valued, perhaps some knowledge. For instance she could be an Unspeakable, researching about death, one of his obsessions. That would also explain how she knew just what to do to protect Harry (if it was merely her sacrifice fo maternal instinct, Harry would not be such a celebrity. There would be lots of other children surviving AK curse). Lilyp. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 03:21:31 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:21:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <12d.4ac6a906.2e71263b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112467 In a message dated 9/8/2004 8:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, Koinonia2 at hotmail.com writes: "K": I have to agree with what you said. I'm going to list a few canon bits, including one you already mentioned. *Awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time. *...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake! So, wizards have made mistakes when meddling with time. Loads of them have killed themselves and it was a *mistake*. It wasn't what would have happened naturally Chancie, WOW, well I guess that pretty much settles this debate as to if you can change time!!! Pure canon evidence that time CAN be changed!!!! I don't think anyone can argue with that! All I can think of left to debate is the "Can you go back in time BEFORE your were born." thing. Which since it is proven that you can change time to have a time traveling time limit...(does that make since?) And as far as PoA being the introduction, I think exactly the same way. I wonder still (despite posts from others) that the end book will have something to do with Harry going back in time to change the past. Maybe going back to when Tom Riddle opened the chamber of secrets for the first time so that Hagrid doesn't get expelled, and his parents live...ext... But that's just my oppinon. What do you guys think? Chancie ~happy to see proof that a TT does have a purpose (besides confusing everyone) after all!! =) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 04:41:47 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:41:47 -0000 Subject: Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, message 112432, "kmcbears1" > wrote: > > Snape deals with potions... boiling cauldrons, steamy rooms, slimy > > ingredients... I think this is the reason for the adult > >Snapes "oily" hair. > > "K": > > I have my doubts about the *potion-oily-hair-business*. :-) > > > ~His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto the table... > (during the O.W.L. exam). > OoP/Ch 28/pg 641/us > > ~A greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom... > OoP/Ch 25/pg 592/us Well, maybe he wears it longer and keeps it greasy so it's lank and not all fly-away like James'/Harry's hair is described. Snape might have "Potter hair" if it were short and washed. Okay, now secret-family-theorists, step right up and run with that... From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 04:48:25 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:48:25 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112469 Yb summarised most of the recent Snape/Lily "Worst Memory" scene posts and suggested: > But, what if LILY had some feelings for SNAPE? Maybe she's sticking > up for him not because he's helpless and outnumbered (he has enough > talent to take on the Marauders at least one on one), but maybe she > tried to be friends with him, or even had a little crush on him at > one time. This seems, IMHO, just as plausible based on canonical evidence as a one-sided Snape/Lily crush going the other way. Each book has presented us with a slightly revised, slightly more complicated picture of the relationships between Snape and Harry's parents and their associates. I'm sure we're not meant to be able to grasp the whole picture from this scene--the ambiguity is deliberate. I wouldn't rule out a "special" relationship between Lily and Snape based on this scene (or any other canonical evidence), but I also wouldn't see one as being in any way confirmed. Lily is cast in the series as an embodiment of maternal love. Given that, it seems entirely plausible that she, like many of the people on this list, would regard Snape as deserving of compassion *in this particular scene*, regardless of his behaviour towards her/the Potter gang in other contexts. I have another thought about the *other* controversy relating to this scene (forgive me if this topic has been talked to death; I've only been reading this list for a few days), that is, why is *this* Snape's worst memory, as opposed to, say, almost getting eaten by a werewolf? (Or, if you resist the chapter-title characterization of the scene as Snape's worst memory, why is it the memory he particularly desires to keep Harry from finding out about?) Sure, this memory is especially embarassing, likely to appeal to the sense of humor of an adolescent boy, and, as it involves Harry's parents, especially likely to be of interest to him. But I would also suggest that Snape himself could be ashamed of his own behavior in this scene. In the Shrieking Shack Incident, he can, with ample justification (having poor personal hygeine and being unpleasant to be around is not a death-penalty offense, even in the wizarding world), view himself entirely as a wronged party. In the Worst Memory, he *was* a wronged party, but he also acted like a complete and utter jerk to someone who was trying (for some reason known only to herself) to be nice to him. As a teenager, he was probably focused on the humiliation he'd suffered. But as an adult, he may recognize that his own behavior was not something to be proud of. The scene reveals that his injured dignity and hurt feelings led him to some thoroughly rotten behaviour, and *that*--his realization that, although he was humiliated by Potter and Co., he also humiliated *himself* by skipping right past descending to their level and insulting someone who was trying to help. So this scene vexes Snape for the same reasons it vexes us--because it presents him in an entirely unflattering but highly ambiguous light. Alex, new to the list. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 05:02:31 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 05:02:31 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... (Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112470 Karen L. suggested that Snape helps Harry because he owes Lily for helping him. I know this is a > theory that really reaches, but there has to be reasons behind Snape > helping Harry out of tight spots....I am always amazed when Snape does > help because of his apparent dislike of Harry.... Me (alex): I don't think Snape needs a Lily relationship to motivate him to help Harry. He doesn't like Harry, but he has *plenty* of reason to understand that being disliked is not a capital offense. He's not able to get over his adolescent traumas enough to behave decently towards Harry in everyday situations, but he draws the line at leaving him to die simply because he doesn't like him very much. Dumbledore says at the end of OoP that he thought Snape would have been able to put aside his feelings about Harry enough to teach him Occlumency--this is a reasonable assumption on Dumbledore's part because Snape *has* put his feelings aside in order to save Harry from mortal peril in the past. Why he doesn't this time is up for grabs (I'd say, either A) Dumbledore didn't give him all the information, either, just said "I want you to do this." or B) He just can't handle the intimacy of looking into Harry's mind and having Harry look into his.) Alex From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 05:43:52 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 05:43:52 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112471 > I, Marcela, wrote earlier: > " I strongly believe that Madam Pomfrey just didn't want to fix > Marietta's face, same as Flitwick and McGonagall didn't want to fix > the swamp, or put out the twins fire crackers... they were sort of > 'boycotting' the new regime and its supporters, LOL. Do you think > that McGonagall would not have asked Harry (or Hermione) what was that > jinx about if she had 'wanted' to get Marietta better?" > > Del replied: > I can understand the Trio not wanting to lift the jinx, but I'd be > completely *disgusted* by adults acting that way. Letting students > create mayhem is one thing, letting a particular student be disfigured > for months is another. > > I wrote: > "Don't forget about them being wizards and witches, jinxes happen all > the time and they can be solved -not like curses and/or powerful > spells, which could probably not be fixable." > > Del replied : > And how do we know which type is the jinx Hermione used ? Hermione is > a powerful witch and she's researched quite a bit. I don't put > anything past a girl who brewed a Polyjuice Potion at the age of 12. > Moreover, I would think that Madam Pomfrey would have lifted the jinx > before Marrietta went home for the summer, at least to avoid incensing > the girl's parents, and also because it's a very unprofessional thing > to do to let a student go back home injured in any way. But we know > that Marrietta was still wearing her balaclava on the Hogwarts Express > on the way home. ******** Marcela now writes back: I think that you are forgetting to put the story in its context. This story happens in a ficticious Wizarding World! Just a look at St.Mungos Hospital's Reception room gives you an idea of what type of 'accidents' wizards and witches are exposed to... remember the wizard with the walnut up his nose? and the receptionist's comment of 'another family row'(or something like that), remember the guy with the 'biting shoes', he said his brother had given them to him, possibly as a joke -the poor fellow was in pain!... Anyhow, I believe that you are judging their 'world' with the standards of ours (or more precisely, the developed nations), and IIRC, Hermione gets bashed very, very often for trying to 'free' the house elves from the slavery injustice and everybody thinks she is 'nutters' for even trying to. So there you are, grownups in the WW allow those injustices to happen. > Del wrote: > 2. But, you will tell me, Marrietta did agree not to tell. All right. > But who gave Hermione the right to decide of the type and the length > of the punishment ? Hermione wasn't commissioned to do that, she > wasn't even the DA's leader. She took the matter in her own hands > without any authorisation. In-justice. > Marcela again: She has all the rights, since she is the 'founder' of this association -Harry is its leader, but she is its gray matter. She herself invited the members to join -she probably told Ginny and Ron to do the same, using discretion of course-, the members themselves decided to sign the list, everybody agreed to secrecy. Don't forget that the whole idea of this group is in complete defiance to Umbridge's way of teaching, Hermione was the brain behind the group, why not do everything to protect it and its members? Del wrote: > 3. You say it was a war situation. I agree. A war against Umbridge > (not LV). Only problem is : Hermione *forcefully* enrolled the DA > *before* making sure which side they were on to start with. Had she > checked, she would have realised that she'd better keep Marrietta out > of it, because Marrietta was almost naturally on Umbridge's side, not > the DAs. Hermione forced Marrietta to betray Umbridge long before > Marrietta betrayed the DA. The situation Hermione *unnecessarily* put > Marrietta in was unfair. Marcela writes back: I have to quote this: ..."She (Hermione) rummaged in her bag and produced parchment and a quill, then hesitated, rather as though she was steeling herself to say something. 'I-I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also think,' she took a deep breath, 'that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge -or anybody else- what we're up to.'"... OoTP, page 346, h/c SE and then this other:..." Nobody raised objections after Ernie, though Harry saw Cho's friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her name. There was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as though they had just signed some kind of contract."... page 347. Once again, Hermione didn't force anybody to join the group, she invited them to meet with Harry and to associate with him, whom at that moment was considered a 'pariah', they decided to sign by themselves after Hermione's words of caution. BTW, how would Hermione know that Marietta was on Umbridge's side, afterall Cho was on Harry's side, you would expect her best friends would share the same feeling. If someone forced Marietta to sign or attend the meeting, I would say it was Cho, which is a typical case of 'weak-friend-following-the-leader-in-order-to-fit-in', and it should have been Cho the one to raise this concern, since she knew her friend better than the Griffindors. Marcela From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 9 09:37:01 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:37:01 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors Message-ID: <003701c49650$8f8e8a50$29c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112472 Carol: "But the strongest evidence that he believed Sirius guilty, IMO, is his allowing the Dementors--whom we know he detested--to guard the Hogwarts grounds." Bookworm: "What would have happened if he refused to let them on the grounds? Whatever Dumbledore knew, popular opinion `knew' that Sirius had betrayed Harry's parents, and then he killed 13 more people." DuffyPoo: Dumbledore says he has no power to overrule the Ministry. If the Ministry wanted the Dementors at Hogwarts they would have been stationed outside the gates whether DD wanted them there or not, IMO. His agreement to let them be stationed there was only an agreement in that he knew there really was nothing he could do about it so he may as well 'look' like he agrees. The Ministry, IMO, wasn't as interested in protecting HP (for all Fudge's hot air in the Leaky Cauldron) as they were in getting Sirius back into Azkaban and remove the black mark his escape made against them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 9 09:37:27 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:37:27 -0400 Subject: Lupin's middle name; Ron's wand Message-ID: <003b01c49650$9f28fc70$29c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112473 Salit "What always bugged me is why, if the wand chooses the wizard based on some intrinsic fit, do they ever replace them. Doing so appears fairly common - in SS Olivander refers to Harry's parents buying "their first wand" - implying they later bought another." DuffyPoo: This scene had never implied - to me - that James and Lily bought second wands. Ollivander can tell people he remembers the day "HP bought his first wand" but we know he has only one. He can say the same thing about Ron. I remember the day he bought his first wand. It doesn't imply - to me - that James or Lily ever bought another wand. It is all in how you interpret the passage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 09:48:17 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:48:17 -0000 Subject: OoTP,chap 15,Snapes essay-" varieties of venom antidotes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112474 > > Valky: > > Do you recall if there is any more info from HRH on what exactly > > Hermione writes in her essay? > > This is possibly a clue to the species identification of Nagini. > > that's what I would guess, and I would say also that Fawkes and > > Nagini are representations of something larger in the book theme so it would be valuable to find out more about Nagini. > > Finwitch: > > Well, more to the point, Nagini is a venomous snake, otherwise > Wormtail couldn't milk it for venom. (not all of them are, some, like boas or anakondas aren't venomous, they strangle the victim instead. No less dangerous...). Note that the Snake Harry freed in the zoo was > a boa, and not venomous! > > Nagini is a big snake, though - and not a Basilisk either... > Valky: HOLD THE PRESS!!!!! I found what Hermione's essay on venoms had in it! Third page of chapter 16 OOtP, Hermione is copying a diagram of Chinese Chomping Cabbages. Interestingly Harry is also looking at a reference with Asian flavour. Asiatic Anti-Venoms! I have done a little research into Asiatic Snakes. I recall that the description of Nagini in The first chapter of GOF recalls a Cobra Like form. (I haven't got my book due to lending it so if anyone can confirm that or correct me I will be grateful.) I am making a guess that Nagini is a 'naja atra', which is an Asian Cobra and is a particularly large snake. The other matter swimming in my thought space right now regarding these discoveries is *cabbages*. Cabbages Again!? We are still yet to discover why Figgy's house smells of cabbage. It is possible that the Polyjuice proposal has been fully put to bed as of OOtP. Valky (distractedly humming to herself ....Socks and Sphinxes and Sealed up Tunnels, Cabbages and SnakeKings...) From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 9 10:35:16 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 06:35:16 -0400 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? Message-ID: <003f01c49658$b82fb800$29c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112475 > DuffyPoo: > That makes Madam Pomfrey and Professor McGonagall two very nasty > pieces of work, IMO. Much like DD if he knew Sirius was innocent > but left him to rot in Azkaban anyway. totorivers said: "The hex is just something written on her face, and it is a meek punishment for someone that got the headmaster thrown out: By not healing her, it could be a statement that students can *not* attack teachers. And in that case they are justified." Del replies : >>Where *ever* did you read that Marrietta attacked DD ??? Her action had *nothing* to do with DD !! She told on the DA for reasons that we know nothing about, but it's quite obvious that her intention was NEVER to get DD thrown out !! Just like Harry never intended to get Sirius killed when he went to the MoM.<< DuffyPoo: Thank you, Del, for replying much quicker than I could. In fact, the other kids in the DA need never have been expelled. Umbridge was after HP from the get-go in OotP. She wanted *him* out of the picture. DD sacrificed himself to keep HP in school - read 'safe.' Marietta was not after getting DD removed from the school. As it was, although Umbridge knew all the names of the DA members, no one else was punished at all. She got what she wanted, more so in fact, when DD left the school. I just have to add, that regardless of 'why' Marietta told on the DA, the hex mark being left on her, if it could have been easily removed, by either a teacher or Madam Pomfrey, makes them nasty, nasty people, IMO. I don't believe Snape is justified in his treatment of HP or NL, and I can't believe Pomfrey/McGonagall is justified in not unjinxing Marietta if they had the ability to do so, just to 'prove' a point. One thing we don't know is if Hermione found this jinx in a book and used it, or if she combined some stuff she read and made up her own jinx, in which case, only Hermione would be able to tell them what had caused the hex. totorivers said: "They are people that *live* for the ambition, and are not ambitious for their lives. Their fear have got the better of them and, for me, another trait of Slytherin house is cowardness. It is quite explicit with Lucious Malfoy, whose ambition brings him to a life time of kissing an half blood robes because he is afraid of change and of living." DuffyPoo: I don't see Slytherins as being cowards at all. Oh, I suppose some of them are - I don't think Draco is all that brave or he wouldn't need bodyguards. Phineas said "We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance,. given the choice, we will always choose to save own necks." As someone said yesterday (sorry, I don't remember who) 'A dead hero is no use to anyone.' Do you really believe Lucius Malfoy is a coward? (I love your spelling of Lucius, btw, as I think Jason Isaacs as LM is!) LM's ambition is for power, IMO. I really don't know if he knew, before the end of OotP, that TR/LV is half-blood. Bella certainly didn't and I can't see LM doing all that he has none in the name of blood-purity for someone who is not a pure-blood himself. Bella either. That aside, as I said, I think LM is mostly after power. He is probably well aware that the Potter kid is the one who is supposed to be LV's undoing, and is, IMO, quite secretly hoping the kid will succeed and leave him free to take LV's place. There will always be evil in the world, even if/when HP defeats LV, and I'm quite certain LM is secretly building his own empire. I'm sure there are several DE friends of LM who are sick to death of being kicked around by LV - Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, Rookwood, Avery, and Wormtail will most definitely attach himself to "the biggest bully in the playground." How many other of the pure-blood DEs will be happy to stick around LV when they learn the truth of his ancestry? LM is in the perfect position to act based on what he knows. Right now, Bella thinks HP is lying about LV's heritage. Is she going to stick by him if LM can prove it to her that LV is a half-blood; the son of a Muggle, the very worst kind of Half-blood? Of course, the whole problem with this theory is, at the moment, LM is in no position to act as he's resting on his backside in Azkaban. I don't, however, think they will be there for long, and as the Dementors have left the building, there is no fear of any of the inmates losing their powers. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 11:13:18 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:13:18 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <003f01c49658$b82fb800$29c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > DuffyPoo: > > That makes Madam Pomfrey and Professor McGonagall two very nasty > > pieces of work, IMO. > > totorivers said: > "The hex is just something written on her face, and it is a meek > punishment for someone that got the headmaster thrown out: By not > healing her, it could be a statement that students can *not* attack teachers. And in that case they are justified." > > Del replies : > >>Where *ever* did you read that Marrietta attacked DD ??? Her action had *nothing* to do with DD !! She told on the DA for reasons that we know nothing about, but it's quite obvious that her intention was NEVER to get DD thrown out !! Just like Harry never intended to get Sirius killed when he went to the MoM.<< > > DuffyPoo: > Thank you, Del, for replying much quicker than I could. In fact, the other kids in the DA need never have been expelled. Umbridge was after HP from the get-go in OotP. She wanted *him* out of the picture. DD sacrificed himself to keep HP in school - read 'safe.' Marietta was not after getting DD removed from the school. As it was, although Umbridge knew all the names of the DA members, no one else was punished at all. She got what she wanted, more so in fact, when DD left the school. Valky: Del and Duffy! For goodness sakes ladies! You are depressing me no end! I see your arguments and all they are is whittled down to microscopically thin interpretations of canon themes. Sorry to be so abrupt. :) Now Del, I am well familiar with your liking for making a controversial stand for reinterpretation of the Bad Guys, but... I am just about death with pure misery and I can stand by no longer while you tear limb from limb all preconception of fair and just behaviour by our HP heroes. 1 Marietta Joined Dumbledores Army at the behest of her good friend Cho Chang. (No pushing from Hermione) 2 Voldemort is alive and kicking and mortally dangerous to every last inhabitant of the Wizard World. Someones gotta fight him! Dumbledores Army is doing the WW a service beyond anything else.. 3 Hermione was aware that she was dealing with the most sinister, vile authoritative figures ever to walk Hogwarts in her few years there. DA is too important to be left to chance under Umbridges regime. Hermione chooses an effective and powerful protection for the group. 4 The teachers see precisely the same points I do and hence do not show open disapproval of Hermiones hex. Frankly it is good for the bigger picture of the WW if the students realise Hermione is a formidable foe. Now you know I love ya Del... :D but please please this tirade on The Fighters *against* Voldemorts tyranny is just too much. Please don't make me cry. Valky From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 11:13:54 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 04:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909111354.20308.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112477 --- koinonia02 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, message > 112432, "kmcbears1" > wrote: > > Snape deals with potions... boiling cauldrons, > steamy rooms, slimy > > ingredients... I think this is the reason for the > adult > >Snapes "oily" hair. > > "K": > > I have my doubts about the > *potion-oily-hair-business*. :-) > Chris: I worked as an intern in an environmental lab one summer. If I didn't wash my hair every other day (because every day made my hair explode), I could have oiled my car with the greasy build-up. Normally, I do not have greasy hair, but the chemical buildup in the air made it that way. I don't know if the potions experimentation is the reason why Snape has oily hair, but, yes, it is very possible that is the reason. > ~His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto > the table... > (during the O.W.L. exam). > OoP/Ch 28/pg 641/us > > ~A greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark > bedroom... > OoP/Ch 25/pg 592/us > Chris: Again, if teenage Snape was into potions enough to become the teacher (or master, depending on other conversations here), he would have spent alot of time in the potions wing/room. That, and we see him as a teen at the OWLs time. I know my hygene suffered greatly at finals time. If Snape didn't care what others thought, why would he wash his hair when he could be studying? I get the impression Snape was just as studious as Hermione as a student. ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 11:45:06 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:45:06 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112478 > Pippin: > > Why did James have to keep his continued private war with > > Snape secret from Lily after they became friends? Sirius makes > > it pretty clear that she wouldn't have approved. And James was > > an *adult* by that time, too. > > Valky: > And I am sure the private war between them had also matured by that time. Snape never missed a chance to curse James. By your argument here I can presume that Snape had as an *adult* learned and mastered far more dangerous and sadistic Black Arts curses by this time too. So well done to James if he could still hold his own in battle with Mature!Snape using basic spells like Scourgify and Expelliarmus. Dont you think?. :D Potioncat: To be fair, if you're going to assume Severus Snape's magic became more intense, why don't you also assume Jame Potter's magic became more intense? We weren't told that Severus used Dark Arts in the Pensieve scene when he was fighting with James. I'll accept that he knew them. We weren't told how or if he used them. We are told that James hexed people in the halls just because he could. At the time Harry saw these two teens, I don't think one was any better (or worse) than the other. And at that moment, James was behaving worse. Based on what we heard about James in previous books, I believe he really changed as he matured! Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 12:30:37 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:30:37 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112479 Valky: > 4 The teachers see precisely the same points I do and hence do not > show open disapproval of Hermiones hex. Frankly it is good for the > bigger picture of the WW if the students realise Hermione is a > formidable foe. > Potioncat: Do we have canon that says that Pomfrey didn't have the information she needed to remove the hex? Or canon that says she chose not to remove it? I know, I know, she can re-grow bones, but she can't cure the common cold. (Pepper-up Potion sounds worse than the cold to me.) "Yes, dear, a powerful hex. Use this ointment for 8 weeks and it should clear up." I can believe that Hermione wasn't punished (think werewolf) but I doubt the adults wouldn't have done something to help the girl. Along that line, do we know that Hermione didn't tell Pomfrey about the polyjuice mixup? From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 12:33:42 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:33:42 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_It=92s_Opening?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112480 It's Opening (OOP, Chap. 26) To the tune of The Happening by the Supremes MIDI at: http://www.angelfire.com/music5/dawnsmidi/midi/50sand60s.html THE SCENE: Snape's dungeon. During an Occlumency lesson, all kinds of things start opening up: the DOM door, Snape's heavily-defended mind, and the post of Divination Professor among them HARRY: Hey Snape, I can see the Department of Mystery 'Cause when you smashed me, crashed me, raising your wand I looked up, suddenly I just looked up, and it's opening Through a door I could never enter before Cause when you cross a barrier without A detour, then you had better infer it's opening HARRY & (SNAPE) I ran right in (You ran right in) And I looked around (and you looked around) I'm in a room (you're in a room) Where these doors surround (where these doors surround) It opened for me, an open sesame view HARRY I'm confined, in a bind Till I read some of your mind, yeah! Using only shielding charms, it opened Suddenly your mind opened I saw houseflies torn apart Then a broomstick that wouldn't start And when I saw your vicious dad shouting things kinda sour Makin' your mom cower, it's opening HARRY & (SNAPE) Now I see him (Now he sees me) Deep in his id (Deep in my id) It seems he was (It seems I was) A battered kid (A battered kid) HARRY/SNAPE It happened to me and then it/later happened to him Ooh, and then it opened Ooh, and then it opened Ooh, and then it opened SNAPE It's compound, it's complex, and it's live, not just Memorex But if you're sloppy, he will then read your mind Lord Voldy, he will make it unfold, he. Your learning is too lax, when the Dark Lord makes his attacks He'll dispatch you down to death and to doom You'll break down, suddenly you will break down, it's open and shut HARRY & SNAPE A brawl in the hall, we hear Sybill starting to squall Cause if you raise that Umbridge ire you may Get fired, then we'll see it transpire: job openings! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 12:33:49 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:33:49 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112481 Potioncat wrote, very badly: We weren't told that Severus used Dark Arts in the > Pensieve scene when he was fighting with James. > > Potioncat editing to: We were not told that Severus used Dark Arts against James while they were fighting after OWLS. Potioncat not sure if that is any better... From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 12:39:37 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909123937.48753.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112482 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > Several people (myself included) responded something to the effect > that even though James' actions in the Pensieve scene were > undoubtedly CRUEL, it is hard to condemn the person as evil based > on > such scene, especially since we can infere or speculate that James > and Snape had an ongoing feud AND there are could be reasons why > James disliked Snape. Mitigating circunstances so to speak. You know, if you'd ended the sentence at "...based on one scene." But you just had to drag in the possibility that Snape somehow brought the whole thing on himself by feuding with James. Let's look at Lily's comment: "What's he ever done to you?" Or Lupin's question during the fire chat: "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?" Or Sirius' response to that question: "Well, you made us feel guilty sometimes." Those three quotes don't sound to me like it was some kind of mutual hexing feud. I might buy the claim that Lily wouldn't know about guy stuff and it might have been kept from her. But that still leaves Sirius and Lupin: did they not know if Snape was hexing James in return? And, yes, I think James was serious in offering to lay off Snape if Lily would go out with him. He probably thought it was a reasonable offer: we'd both get something we want! Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 9 12:40:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:40:08 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <20040908153512.59310.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, karyn wrote: michelle: > "I cannot speak for JKR, true many do celebrate "Xmas" for other than christian beliefs. However, has it occured to anyone that the whole basis of HP Books is in that "prophecy" and the fact that "the boy who lived", lived because of "Sacrificial Love" the same "Sacrificial Love" that Jesus gave us on the cross! So much for hoping that JKR isn't going to "throw in some Christian Values"!" > > karyn: > Oh come on! You might be right of course, noone except JKR knows, but I am personally so so so so tired of people turning everything and anything into something with Christian themes. There are so many religions and different spiritual beliefs out there. Geoff: The interesting thing is that I hold a mirror view to you. Last year, it was the Wiccans and alchemy folk and pagans who were turning everything into their themes. karyn: It's true that JKR has said she's a Christian, but couldn't the fact that she doesn't want to elaborate have something to do with that she doesn't want this to be assumed? I've read these books a million times, and I've NEVER seen anything remotely Christian in any of them. Geoff: Possibly because you're not actively looking for them.... I see many themes in the books which are Christian. As I have often said, it doesn't have to be Bible bashing. Tolkien's books are also written by a Christian and the ideas are there to be found although the books are set in a pre-Christian age. I have already mentioned "The Gospel according to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the stories of the world's favourite Seeker" by Connie Neal which finds plenty of themes. Actually, if you are indeed an atheist, I must commend your stand. It takes far more faith to be an atheist than to believe in a creator God and Jesus as God in human form. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 12:54:47 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 05:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A thought popped in my head one night... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909125447.64297.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112484 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > wrote: huge snip. >> If she ever did try to befriend Snape, it was probably with the >> same good-intentioned obtuseness that Hermione used with Winky in >> GoF. And Snape probably responded with the same hostility. No one >> likes to be considered someone's personal crusade. > > > Alla: > Let me ask you a question. Would Lily's behaviour been considered > more acceptable if she did not come to defend Snape at all? You > know, let him be and saved his wounded pride. > I don't see how it would have been better, but I am interested to > know what you think. I'm confused. I never said Lily's behaviour wasn't acceptable. Where did you get that idea? Lily's behaviour did her a great deal of credit and so did her efforts to help Snape. That her efforts would backfire does not in any way mitigate the good intentions behind it. And good intentions are praiseworthy in themselves. But good intentions don't always guarantee good results. Lily, being the kind of person she was, couldn't not have jumped in to help Snape or make James stop, take your pick. Just as Hermione can't not try to help the house elves. Perhaps a better comparison is when Hermione is trying to stop Harry from going to the MoM and gives him all her reasonable arguments which he ignores. So she asks him if he has a "saving people thing". Hermione has shown that she sometimes has a problem with tact when she's really wrought up over something, so it's in character for her to be tactless here. And it's completely in character for Harry to lose it in response and from that moment on nothing is going to keep him from going to the MoM. It's not a matter of whether Lily or Hermione was "wrong" in doing what they did - they both did what they had to do at the time. And both Harry and Snape were in character with their responses. I don't want to overexplain things but hope this makes sense. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 13:05:21 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:05:21 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112485 > > > > Valky: I can presume that Snape had as an *adult* learned > and mastered far more dangerous and sadistic Black Arts curses by > this time too. So well done to James if he could still hold his own in battle with Mature!Snape using basic spells like Scourgify and Expelliarmus. Dont you think?. :D > > Potioncat: > To be fair, if you're going to assume Severus Snape's magic became > more intense, why don't you also assume Jame Potter's magic became > more intense? We weren't told that Severus used Dark Arts in the > Pensieve scene when he was fighting with James. > > I'll accept that he knew them. We weren't told how or if he used > them. We are told that James hexed people in the halls just because he could. Valky: Please forgive me for being amused that you would say this. Of course I assume that James magic became more intense, I was merely making a point of the innocuous nature of James choice of weaponry against a foe. I suppose what I presumed wrongly was that I had successfully illustrated that Snape was attacking James as much as James was ever attacking him according to Sirius canon. Frankly, why do you disregard so entirely that Snape was on the path to being DE at this time? That he clearly did have an ambition to master Dark Curses at this time? That James was more and more deeply in mortal danger as Snapes foe each day that passed following the pensieve scene? Make no mistake. James saw a Dark man in Snape, and he was *not* all that wrong. I always concede the argument that those who were compassionate of Snape *may* yet prove to be the ones who were the truly right. But Snape *was* a Death Eater he did engage in Death Eater warfare. Most likely he killed and pillaged along with his fellow DE's, most likely he used and practiced Dark Curses at the very least with some malicious intent to boot. Definately he hated James for whatever reason and probably not least of all for James' publicy demonstrating him weak against innocuous magic. If Snape didn't try to kill James the instant he found himself equipped for the purpose then I am Figgy's kneecaps. Not all WW soldiers in the war agreed with or chose to take advantage of the advisory to use Unforgivables. James was undoubtedly one of the opposers of it. I bet every last Galleon I win on all my other bets on James. That is going to be a *lot* of Galleons. ;D > > Based on what we heard about James in previous books, I believe he really changed as he matured! > Potioncat Valky: You see potioncat this is exactly my point! He didn't change! He displayed better manners in the prescence of ladies and that is it! Why does everyone accuse Sirius of expecting Harry to act exactly like James if the James he lost fifteen years ago was such a different man to fifteen year old James? Some of us don't want to like James after the pensieve and thats fair enough, I would probably have felt the same as Lily about his behaviour. But nevertheless his heart is on his sleeve in that scene and *I* like the big bumbling boofhead's heart. He's a bloke after all... ahum... did I say that? From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 14:31:01 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909143101.21485.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112486 > Valky: > Frankly, why do you disregard so entirely that Snape was on the > path > to being DE at this time? That he clearly did have an ambition to > master Dark Curses at this time? That James was more and more > deeply > in mortal danger as Snapes foe each day that passed following the > pensieve scene? Make no mistake. James saw a Dark man in Snape, and > he was *not* all that wrong. Nonsense. James saw a convenient target in Snape; there is nothing in his attitude that suggests he took Snape seriously as an opponent. And Snape knew it; one of the reasons he fights back so hard, I think, is that he's determined to make James respect him as an opponent. Do we know that Snape was "on the path to being DE at this time"? I don't think so. We don't know when Snape made that decision. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 15:36:03 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:36:03 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040909143101.21485.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Do we know that Snape was "on the path to being DE at this time"? I > don't think so. We don't know when Snape made that decision. > > Magda The evidence right now is rather circumstantial--let me say off the bat that I have absolutely no clue when Snape made the decision, and there is a lot of room for JKR to hit us up side the head. That being said, here's why one *might* think of it as such: 1. The oft-debated comment about all the Dark Arts and curses that Snape came in knowing, and his continued interest in them. Unverified as of yet, but also no good reason to completely ignore them. 2. The also oft-debated association with the 'gang of Slytherins'. Evidence points to Bellatrix, at least, being older, so fifth-year Snape likely had had some association with at least one of these members, and, well...really no doubts about Bella's inclinations. Also a big gaping hole with lots of room for surprises. 2a. 'Lucius Malfoy's lapdog' comment, which seems to indicate some *past* association, in addition to some present. Same question as above, on time and influence and all that. 3. Regulus, the younger Black brother, joined up at some time, presumably right after school but possibly even before, but at a time when this was even somewhat (or more) socially acceptable amongst his family circles to do so. 4. I'm a self-admitted fan of George and Diana; the alternative is something BANG-y, which is also eminently possible. If fifth-year Snape is not already on the path to being a DE, then it logically follows that either the gradual process is compressed into two years, or something really big kicked him over the edge (and I know what everyone is going to say and still don't buy it). I think most of the evidence presented so far, compounded with those vague interview comments ('sordid past', etc.), points towards a young Severus who was already *inclined* towards the sort of things that being a DE would encourage. There is no reason to posit that he was philosophically opposed; the best I think we can get is a *possible* neutrality. I have no idea--but here are some of the reasons one might think of him already being on the path. -Nora notes that this is all predicated on entirely too little information, and goes to have a drink with Faith From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 15:53:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:53:29 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112488 snip Valky wrote: snip I suppose what I presumed wrongly was that I > had successfully illustrated that Snape was attacking James as much as James was ever attacking him according to Sirius canon. > Frankly, why do you disregard so entirely that Snape was on the path to being DE at this time? That he clearly did have an ambition to master Dark Curses at this time? That James was more and more deeply in mortal danger as Snapes foe each day that passed following the pensieve scene? Make no mistake. James saw a Dark man in Snape, and he was *not* all that wrong. Potioncat I think we are comparing apples to oranges and at different times! 15 year old Severus was not a Death Eater. I'll grant that 15 year old Severus was interested in Dark Magic. But when James and Serius attacked Severus, he was just reading a test. He wasn't practicing Dark Magic or hurting anyone. Moving on to 6th year and 7th year when we're told they still battle. (But not so that Lily knows it.) Severus is not a Death Eater. If he has DE tendencies he hides them so well that a decade later Sirius doubts Snape was working for LV. So I don't think James was ever on the lookout for DE Snape. Even after leaving school. Valky: > I always concede the argument that those who were compassionate of > Snape *may* yet prove to be the ones who were the truly right. But > Snape *was* a Death Eater he did engage in Death Eater warfare. Potioncat: And I concede, we may be wrong. In fact there are times in canon where I wonder if DD trusts Snape because of a magical contract imposed on Snape. Valky: > Most likely he killed and pillaged along with his fellow DE's, most likely he used and practiced Dark Curses at the very least with some malicious intent to boot. Definately he hated James for whatever reason and probably not least of all for James' publicy > demonstrating him weak against innocuous magic. If Snape didn't try to kill James the instant he found himself equipped for the purpose then I am Figgy's kneecaps. Potioncat: JKR indicated in the last chat that Snape was a DE and IMHO indicated that he participated in DE activities. Some of us may be more shocked than we'll like. But I haven't seen where young Snape or grown Snape ever wanted James Potter dead. Valky: > Not all WW soldiers in the war agreed with or chose to take > advantage of the advisory to use Unforgivables. James was > undoubtedly one of the opposers of it. I bet every last Galleon I > win on all my other bets on James. That is going to be a *lot* of > Galleons. ;D Potioncat: I wouldn't argue this because I don't think we know enough about James Potter to know. Lots of wizards supported Crouch in using any means to bring in DEs and we do not know how Potter felt about it. > > > >Potioncat previously: > > Based on what we heard about James in previous books, I believe > he really changed as he matured! > > Potioncat > > Valky: > You see potioncat this is exactly my point! He didn't change! He > displayed better manners in the prescence of ladies and that is it! Potioncat: Now I'm confused! I'm talking about the "hex people just because he could" James, the "embarrass Snape because we're bored" James. I don't think he continued with that sort of mind set as he grew up or we wouldn't hear so much about that nice Potter couple: James and Lily. The dashing, lets sneak out and prowl around Hogsmeade, James...that's a different story. Potioncat From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 02:29:02 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 22:29:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112489 SSSusan wrote: > > I just don't see why it would have to be the same DAY, as > > Chancie suggested. It's certainly not at all what PK was > > describing to us yesterday--where a person can easily TT back to > > a point *before* s/he was even born ********************************************************************* I **really** hope PK or someone who believes in the possibility of TT to a point prior to one's birth...or even just to a point more than just days previous...will pick this up & run with it, Chancie: Man, I'm never gonna live this down am I? I guess I really need to be more careful in the way I word things in the future..... This was a theory I stated because we were talking about TT rules, IMO rules with a TT don't make since! I do think it is possible to go back in time for however long. It also makes since to me that if Hermione can turn the hourglass *back* and go *back* in time, then I see no reason she couldn't turn it the opposite way and go into the future..... ****************************************************************************** *** > The only rule I could see that could apply and make [sense] in this situation, is that the TT maybe only lets you go back in time during the current day. Hermione went back in time to her classes everyday, I don't believe there is any reference to her going back a few days in time. This is the only thing I could think of that would make [sense].<<< I feel that I should clear up what I was saying by this. Several times I was quoted saying this (and yes I did), but it wasn't the way I meant it. The question had been brought up of "Can a person go back in time to a point Before they were alive?" In my first post, I stated that in my opinion it wouldn't make sense to have time restrictions. I then inserted the quote above stating from what I read in the books that the ONLY thing I could see that could POSSIBLY be considered a rule maybe, is that from my knowledge I don't remember Hermione going back in time a few days at a time. Only adding hours in order to get her work done. Then again she had no reason to go back days at a time, or years even. Chancie~ hoping that clears up her previous statement and makes it easier to understand the way she intended it! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 03:55:17 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:55:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: <1a8.28669024.2e712e25@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112490 TLwrites: Dumbledore tells them more than one innocent life can be saved. Dumbledore at this time knows Beaky isn't dead, and he HOPES Sirius can be saved. Hermione, on the other hand, doesn't see how going back three hours is going to help **SIRIUS**. She knows that Sirius has been caught, locked up and the dementors are on the way. She knows there's nothing they can do to change *that*. As for not correcting Harry, she's concentrating on what Dumbledore wants her to do. Chancie: Ok in all fairness I can see your point, and it does fit into your theory, HOWEVER, what of the quote that "K" found that FULLY suports the theory that time can be changed----- ******************************************************************** "K": *Hermione - terrified whisper *One of the most important wizarding laws *Nobody's supposed to change time *Nobody *Awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time. *...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake! So, wizards have made mistakes when meddling with time. Loads of them have killed themselves and it was a *mistake*. It wasn't what would have happened naturally. ***************************************************************************** Chancie again: (I took the liberty of looking this quote up in the American version too so that you can look at it for you self, Chapter 21, page 399 paperback) This quote 100% verifies (to myself at lest) that time CAN be changed! It's stated by Hermione who obtained this information from McGonagall. I think that makes this a VERY important and reliable quote. If you have any contradicting evidence I would like to see it so that I can beable to see your point of view. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scraft at dustshield.com Thu Sep 9 12:30:51 2004 From: scraft at dustshield.com (Scott) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 12:30:51 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner analysis Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112491 I am suprised that no one has come up with this yet, but here it goes. In PoA, if the person who cast the patronus was Harry then he would of have to survive by other means the first time, because the stag chased the Dementors away. So the question becomes what would have happened to Harry if the stag did not chase the Dementors away? Would they have given Harry the Kiss or would they have left him alone after they kissed Sirius. When JKR put this in the book, I don't believe at the time she knew that it was going to be analysed so deeply. I think that we were supposed to look at it like "Oh that was Harry who cast the Patronus Stag" and then move on with the story. From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Thu Sep 9 13:37:16 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:37:16 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... (Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112492 Alex: > Dumbledore says at the end of OoP that he thought Snape would have > been able to put aside his feelings about Harry enough to teach him > Occlumency--this is a reasonable assumption on Dumbledore's part > because Snape *has* put his feelings aside in order to save Harry from > mortal peril in the past. Why he doesn't this time is up for grabs > (I'd say, either A) Dumbledore didn't give him all the information, > either, just said "I want you to do this." or B) He just can't handle > the intimacy of looking into Harry's mind and having Harry look into his.) Or it could be a bit more complex, and that the few times he *helped* Harry he did it because he wanted to prove to James that he repayed him, and that he wasn't weak. After all, even if Snape sometimes *help* Harry, he does it in such a way that humiliates Harry. Plus, we know from canon that Snape is unable to think, even in extreme sitiuations, when harry or one of the marauders (Lupin, Sirius..) are concerned, as is shown by the numerous times Snape refused to heed Harry's warning (maybe they could have caught Crouch in gof, or Quirrel in ps, or......). *toto* From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 14:28:08 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:28:08 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <12d.4ac6a906.2e71263b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112493 Chancie, > WOW, well I guess that pretty much settles this debate as to if you can change time!!! Pure canon evidence that time CAN be changed!!!! I don't think anyone can argue with that! All I can think of left to debate is the "Can you go back in time BEFORE your were born." thing. Which since it is proven that you > can change time to have a time traveling time limit...(does that make since?) And as far as PoA being the introduction, I think exactly the same way. I wonder still (despite posts from others) that the end book will have something to do with Harry going back in time to change the past. Tonks here: Hey!! Remember the mistake in one of the book about TR/LV being the "ancestor" and JKR said that was a mistake and then in other editions of the book it is still there. Do you think that Tom Riddle did something with the TT? From amgolden22 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 14:39:41 2004 From: amgolden22 at yahoo.com (amgolden22) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:39:41 -0000 Subject: Flitwick In-Reply-To: <20040909024317.42462.qmail@web80810.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112494 theotokos: > What is Prof. Flitwick? Is he just a short wizard? In the forbidden media they portray him with pointed ears like a goblin. I've been wondering about this myself. I tend to think he must be half *something* because he is so short. Or, he could just be a dwarf/midget (but in the normal sense of the word, not as in dwarves that live in caves). I'm guessing he's half elf (sort of a disturbing thought), half-goblin (again, disturbing), or something else entirely. For me this also brings up the question of "half breeds" and the laws regarding them. For example, we know from GoF that house-elves are not allowed wands. Neither, it seems, are centaurs or goblins. Hagrid is half-giant, and he was allowed a wand (although whether or not the Ministry knew of his parantage is questionable). I wonder when the line between "magical being" and witch/wizard become blurred. Then again, it's all based on Ministry definitions, which are faulty and bigotted at best, in my opinion. -Phabala From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 15:12:36 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:12:36 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112495 > > Potioncat: > Do we have canon that says that Pomfrey didn't have the information she needed to remove the hex? Or canon that says she chose not to remove it? I know, I know, she can re-grow bones, but she can't cure the common cold. (Pepper-up Potion sounds worse than the cold to me.) > > "Yes, dear, a powerful hex. Use this ointment for 8 weeks and it > should clear up." Tonks here: So Pomfrey did treat her as best she could. For heavens sakes, it is just a little outbreak on her face. Not much in comparison to what she DID. She betrayed the group. And not an EVIL group, a group fighting for the good. What she did was wrong!! What Hermione did to protect the group was totally acceptable!! And the other teachers have more important things to worry about that a little thing like this. Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 16:14:42 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:14:42 -0000 Subject: George and Diana and T-Bay wasRe: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112496 Nora wrote: > 4. I'm a self-admitted fan of George and Diana; the alternative is > something BANG-y, which is also eminently possible. If fifth-year > Snape is not already on the path to being a DE, then it logically > follows that either the gradual process is compressed into two years, > or something really big kicked him over the edge (and I know what > everyone is going to say and still don't buy it). Potioncat: Help! I cant find them! I've looked, honest I have. The most I can find is the long line of words the names spell out. So can someone please, tell me about George and Diana? Maybe we could share lollipops while we discuss it? And warn me about any BANGS (is that like fringe?) BTW, I'm sure Severus was on the path, I'm just not sure when he arrived. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 17:01:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:01:58 -0000 Subject: A thought popped in my head one night... (Lily and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: Plus, we know from canon that Snape is unable to think, even > in extreme sitiuations, when harry or one of the marauders (Lupin, > Sirius..) are concerned, as is shown by the numerous times Snape > refused to heed Harry's warning (maybe they could have caught Crouch > in gof, or Quirrel in ps, or......). > Alla: OK, I grant you that Snape is emotionally challenged where Marauders and Harry are concerned. I had been arguing that often too. But where, oh where did you find in canon anything about Snape refusing to heed Harry's warning? Maybe my memory is poor, but I don't remember Harry EVER suspecting Quirrel in PS/SS and WARNING Snape about Quirrel. Could you refresh my recollection, maybe? Harry wanting to get Dumbledore to talk to him about Crouch in GoF. I grant you that this was one of the most strong showing of Snape's psychological abuse of Harry (denying Harry the thing he wanted, when he was so panicky - I am paraphrasing the quote, so if someone corrects it, I 'll be grateful). But , if you reread this scene carefully, you will also see that it is quite possible that Snape knew that Dumbledore is going to show up ina second from his office.Because Snape was coming from Dumbledore's office. Granted, it would be much nicer of him to tell Harry something like - Wait , Potter, Dumbledore will be here in a second. But, he would not have been Snape, if he did so. He never loses the possibility to have a go at Harry. There is also one incident, when Snape definitely listened and understood Harry's warning correctly. "They got Padfoot" - rings any bell? :o) From mnaperrone at aol.com Thu Sep 9 17:13:44 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:13:44 -0000 Subject: Snape softening Harry up for V (Was: (Lily and Snape)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112498 > Alex: > > Dumbledore says at the end of OoP that he thought Snape would have > > been able to put aside his feelings about Harry enough to teach him > > Occlumency--this is a reasonable assumption on Dumbledore's part > > because Snape *has* put his feelings aside in order to save Harry > from > > mortal peril in the past. Why he doesn't this time is up for grabs > > (I'd say, either A) Dumbledore didn't give him all the information, > > either, just said "I want you to do this." or B) He just can't > handle > > the intimacy of looking into Harry's mind and having Harry look > into his.) Toto: > Or it could be a bit more complex, and that the few times he > *helped* Harry he did it because he wanted to prove to James that he > repayed him, and that he wasn't weak. After all, even if Snape > sometimes *help* Harry, he does it in such a way that humiliates > Harry. Plus, we know from canon that Snape is unable to think, even > in extreme sitiuations, when harry or one of the marauders (Lupin, > Sirius..) are concerned, as is shown by the numerous times Snape > refused to heed Harry's warning (maybe they could have caught Crouch > in gof, or Quirrel in ps, or......). Ally: Arrgh, just accidentally deleted this before posting, I hate that!! Anyway, Toto, you'll have to explain to me how Snape failed to heed warnings from Harry in PS or GOF - I'm not sure Harry was handing out hints as to the real villian in either of those. As for what DD said, I used to find that passage very confusing, but its occurred to me that when DD says that Snape couldn't get past his feelings with James, he isn't referring to Snape stopping occlumency, he's referring to Snape softening Harry up for Voldie: * * * `Snape stopped giving me Occlumency lessons!' Harry snarled. `He threw me out of his office!' `I am aware of it,' said Dumbledore heavily `I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence - `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.' * * * DD's response in this passage about Snape being unable to overcome his feelings about James is in direct response to Harry's accusation that Snape was softening him up for Voldemort. Well, what if Snape DID do that but did so INADVERTENTLY just by being his usual malicious self? Snape himself says that Voldemort can easily enter the minds of fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves, and Harry isn't exactly emotionally serene when he walks out of those occlumency lessons. Because Snape can't ratchet down his hatred of James, he approaches Harry with a particular bitterness and anger that surpasses his normal nastiness. Because Harry is who he is - a strong-willed person who responds emotionally to many situations - he reacts negatively and emotionally. Its those negative emotions, stirred up stirred up in occlumency lessons, that may have made it easier for Voldemort to enter Harry's mind than if Harry hadn't had any lessons at all. Sorry if this idea has been posted (and perhaps debunked?) before, but I haven't seen the idea that the occlumency lessons ACCIDENTALLY made Harry worse off before. It's usually either that Harry was worse off because the lessons stopped or that Snape was intentionally softening him up. Ally From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 9 17:16:33 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:16:33 -0000 Subject: A thought ....Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112499 Alex wrote: > > > Dumbledore says at the end of OoP that he thought Snape would have > > been able to put aside his feelings about Harry enough to teach him > > Occlumency--this is a reasonable assumption on Dumbledore's part > > because Snape *has* put his feelings aside in order to save Harry > from > > mortal peril in the past. Why he doesn't this time is up for grabs > > (I'd say, either A) Dumbledore didn't give him all the information, > > either, just said "I want you to do this." or B) He just can't > handle > > the intimacy of looking into Harry's mind and having Harry look > into his.) > > > *toto* writes: > Or it could be a bit more complex, and that the few times he > *helped* Harry he did it because he wanted to prove to James that he > repayed him, and that he wasn't weak. After all, even if Snape > sometimes *help* Harry, he does it in such a way that humiliates > Harry. Plus, we know from canon that Snape is unable to think, even > in extreme sitiuations, when harry or one of the marauders (Lupin, > Sirius..) are concerned, as is shown by the numerous times Snape > refused to heed Harry's warning (maybe they could have caught Crouch > in gof, or Quirrel in ps, or......). > Karen adds: I agree Snape's method of teaching Occlumency left much to be desired. But I think we need to lay some of the blame on Harry's curiousity. During the Occlumency lessons, I was reminded of Harry's Patronus lessons in POA. (don't have my books so I will paraphrase from memory). During the Patronus lessons, Harry scolds himself about wanting to hear his mother's voice. Harry has to decide which is more important. Hearing his mother's voice or learning the Patronus, he realizes that if he was ever going to master a Patronus he had to stop anticipating hearing his mother's voice. I think the event is described in the books as "She's dead and nothing is going to bring her back."...The very next time he tries a Patronus, Lily's voice is muted "an echo of a scream". In OotP, Harry wants to know what is at the end of the tunnel. He never really tries to prevent the dreams. I also think the other adults, Sirius, Lupin, DD, etc., need to take most of the blame because they never really explain to Harry that LV may be planting false visions in Harry's dream to make him go to the MoM. In fact, at the end of OotP, I agree with DD that he is mainly to blame for the whole MoM fiasco. IMO, he is also to blame for the failure of the Occlumency lessons because he did not give Harry a reason to learn. - Karen From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 9 17:18:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:18:45 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112500 > Potioncat: > Good memory, I remembered it differently, that he was interested in > DADA, but here it is. Percy in SS/PS chpt 7, "He teaches Potions, > but he doesn't want to--everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. > Knows an awful lot about the dark arts, Snape." > > After all these years that suddenly struck me as odd. How do the > students know this? Does Snape mutter it to his Slytherins? Have > parents whispered it within earshot of kids? Has a teacher let it > slip? Has it come up in NEWT classes when students study Dark Arts > to learn how to fight them? (I'm referring to the restricted section > of the library.) Is it true? For someone who is reported to > dislike teaching Potions, he seems to enjoy potion making and is > very good at it. > > TT Potioncat: I am reading GoF and came across something that erased the above post. Chapter 29: The trio are looking for Professor Moody: "When the bell finally rang, they hurried out into the corridors toward the Dark Arts classroom..." Here the phrase "Dark Arts" means Defense Against the Dark Arts. So, was Percy implying that Snape knew about Dark Arts the lessons or Dark Arts the magic? Potioncat From vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be Thu Sep 9 17:31:16 2004 From: vicky.gwosdz at group4falck.be (Vicky Gwosdz) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:31:16 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > I am suprised that no one has come up with this yet, but here it > goes. In PoA, if the person who cast the patronus was Harry then he > would of have to survive by other means the first time, because the > stag chased the Dementors away. So the question becomes what would > have happened to Harry if the stag did not chase the Dementors away? > Would they have given Harry the Kiss or would they have left him > alone after they kissed Sirius. When JKR put this in the book, I > don't believe at the time she knew that it was going to be analysed > so deeply. I think that we were supposed to look at it like "Oh that > was Harry who cast the Patronus Stag" and then move on with the story. I think that's the whole issue of going back in time and "interfering" with the future (or the present of your future self). By doing so, you create a sort of a vicious time-circle in which both actions depend on one another. (In the same sense as the chicken and the egg discussion). Just my 2 cts From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 17:41:27 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A thought ....Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909174127.61486.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112502 > I also think the other adults, Sirius, Lupin, DD, etc., need to > take most of the blame because they never really explain to Harry > that LV may be planting false visions in Harry's dream to make him > go to the MoM. In fact, at the end of OotP, I agree with DD that > he is mainly to blame for the whole MoM fiasco. IMO, he is also to > blame for the failure of the Occlumency lessons because he did not > give Harry a reason to learn. > > - Karen The biggest problem with the whole occlumency issue was that at no time did anyone sit down with Harry and ask him probing questions about what was happening to him when he had these visions/dreams. The closest anyone came was at Christmas time when Harry came up to Sirius in the pantry at 12GP and tried to explain how he was the snake and he was afraid he was going mad. Sirius - no doubt fearing that to dwell on it would be the Wrong Thing To Do - simply made calming noises and left Harry there "in the dark", literally and figuratively. What none of the Order members realized was that Harry wasn't only experiencing visions but that he was channelling Voldemort's emotions too: his longing to get through the door in the DoM; his anger at failure by the DE's; his glee when the DE's broke out of prison; etc. Harry can't always tell which emotions are his own and which are Voldemort's. And since he seems to be getting next to no sleep towards the end of the school year, he's not in any position to work out the difference. Had Sirius not felt constrained by Dumbledore's instructions and/or the fear of what Molly would say, he might have sat down with Harry and got a detailed description of the whole thing. That's something I fault Dumbledore for wholeheartedly: he was trying to understand this Harry/Voldemort connection with insufficient information. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 17:54:52 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:54:52 -0000 Subject: George and Diana and T-Bay wasRe: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Nora wrote: > > 4. I'm a self-admitted fan of George and Diana; the alternative > is > > something BANG-y, which is also eminently possible. If fifth- year > > Snape is not already on the path to being a DE, then it logically > > follows that either the gradual process is compressed into two > years, > > or something really big kicked him over the edge (and I know what > > everyone is going to say and still don't buy it). > > > Potioncat: > Help! I cant find them! I've looked, honest I have. The most I can > find is the long line of words the names spell out. So can someone > please, tell me about George and Diana? Maybe we could share > lollipops while we discuss it? And warn me about any BANGS (is that > like fringe?) > > BTW, I'm sure Severus was on the path, I'm just not sure when he > arrived. > > Potioncat Snow: Here is the link to everything you ever wanted to know about what has been said concerning Severus Snape including George and Diana. Good Luck! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html - lollipops From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Thu Sep 9 17:59:40 2004 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:59:40 -0400 Subject: Centaurs and choice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112504 I am listening to Sorcerer's Stone at the moment, and in the bit in the forest where Firenze chases off voldie, Bane says "We are sworn not to set ourselves against the Heavens." This strikes me as very intriguing considering the "choice" theme that pervades the books. Are *all* centaurs sworn not to set themselves against the heavens or are Firenze, Bane, and Ronin part of some subset of centaurs that have sworn this oath. There doesn't seem to be any canon to support the notion that they are part of a subset. On the other hand, if all centaurs are required to swear this oath, what happens to those who don't? I would suggest that they are probably executed the way Firenze would have been if Hagrid hadn't interfered. This, needless to say, is very anti-choice and one of the major themes of the books is that we are what we decide to be. How do you think this will play out? Obviously Firenze has made his choice and to that extent it has already played out but what about the rest of them? Will the centaurs do something that helps Voldemort because they have chosen not to interfere? If so will it be a willful aiding of Voldemort or an act of remaining neutral? Just something to ponder. -- Gregory Lynn From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Sep 9 16:15:00 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:15:00 EDT Subject: Lucius and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112505 As I was reading some of the posts on Snape, I started to think. Is there really any proof that Snape reports his "spying" (sorry can't think of a better word) directly to Voldemort himself? It has been asked how Snape gets by lieing to Voldemort when Snape himself says he is very skilled at occlumency. It seems to me that if Snape can tell when Harry's trying to block thoughts durring his lessons, then wouldn't Voldemort know Snape was trying to hid something from him? So what I was thinking was this (yes there is a point and I'm getting to it), what if Snape reports to Lucius? It would explain why he is so "fond" of Draco. Perhaps this is also why Snape always seems to insult Harry more so when Draco is around, in order for him keep from being "found out". We know that Lucius is in with Voldemort's inner circle, and I think it is very plausable that Lucius is a go between with Snape and Voldemort. Please let me know if you have any examples that can disprove this theory so that I might be able to move on to my next! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Thu Sep 9 18:25:54 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:25:54 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: [snip In PoA, if the person who cast the patronus was Harry then he > would of have to survive by other means the first time, because the > stag chased the Dementors away. So the question becomes what would > have happened to Harry if the stag did not chase the Dementors away? > Would they have given Harry the Kiss or would they have left him > alone after they kissed Sirius. When JKR put this in the book, I > don't believe at the time she knew that it was going to be analysed > so deeply. I think that we were supposed to look at it like "Oh that > was Harry who cast the Patronus Stag" and then move on with the story. Pat here: Well, that's precisely where I had the most trouble with POA. Time travel, in any story, is always hard for me to follow. And with this one, it always sounds right when I'm reading it, but then later when Harry explains it to Hermione and asks if that makes sense, she says "I don't know". Which has always made me a bit curious about the whole thing. If anyone understood what was going on it should have been Hermione since she'd been using the Time Turner all year. I do think you have a point about JKR including this in the story-- we were supposed to read it and move on, but of course, we all like to analyze every detail to death. The other thing is, someone tried to explain this to me before, that Harry sees himself because there are two time lines parallel to each other. And by using the Time Turner he sees what is happening in both--or something like that. I'm going now, my brain is once again befuddled by Time Turners--and I don't even want to think about Time in the Dept. of Mysteries. Pat From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 17:08:15 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:08:15 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112507 Valky (I think, I'm a little confused) wrote, among other insightful things, >-- James saw a Dark man in Snape, and > he was *not* all that wrong. I have to say, I'm not sure where you get this. I think if we were "supposed" (there's that word again....) to read James as acting out of conviction that Snape is a Bad Man and has it coming to him for those reasons, we'd have heard him say *something* that's open to that interpretation. Perhps when Lily asks him "What's he ever done to you?", if not before. Maybe he'd say "Hey, there's that evil git Snape, who we saw knocking a muggleborn student down the stairs last week, let's get him," instead of "Excellent. Snivellus." His remarks are a bit of puerile wordplay with Snape's name, not a condemnation of his existence on moral grounds. Alex From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 18:40:36 2004 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:40:36 -0000 Subject: Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: <20040909111354.20308.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112508 > > ~His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto > > the table... > > (during the O.W.L. exam). > > OoP/Ch 28/pg 641/us > > > > ~A greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark > > bedroom... > > OoP/Ch 25/pg 592/us Miz Storge': These two passages are my basis for ProtoGoth!Snape. At the time Snape and the Marauders (please, don't ever name your band that!)were at Hogwarts, Punk was leading into other styles, like New Romantic and Goth. IMHO, our young Severus started affecting the greasy hair and black robes as a fashion statement, and just never changed. Maybe Severus still hangs out at Goth clubs and the chicks are all over him because of the cool evil sorcerer look, just like some fans are rather fond of Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape. And try to hold that image in your mind for a few seconds... Lynette, who's more a fan of the big-hair Gryffindor look herself. From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 19:02:50 2004 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:02:50 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112509 > Snippet > Geoff: > Possibly because you're not actively looking for them.... I see many > themes in the books which are Christian. As I have often said, it > doesn't have to be Bible bashing. Tolkien's books are also written >by a Christian and the ideas are there to be found although the >books are set in a pre-Christian age. > Geoff Read LoTR lots of times. Found Beowulf, found the historic landscape of Great Britain, found Anglo-Saxon ideas of Kingship, found Jacobite Rebellions, but NEVER found Christianity per se there. When I read The Chronicles of Narnia for the first time, I thought C.S. Lewis was being heavy-handed with the Christian symbolism. As I began to study religion and mythology, I realized that much of the symbolism in Narnia (and in Christianity and other faiths) comes out of the collective unconscious. Later, when I learned Lewis admitted praying to Apollo at Delphi, I realized how Aslan was much more like Sol Invictus or Mithras than Jesus. Now, Christians (or believers in other faiths) can counter that the collective unconscious is inspired by their deity. I'm Asatru, and I would say it springs from the Well of Wyrd when I'm of a poetic frame of mind. From my particular religious view, I can even see reference Odin's self-sacrifice in Rowlings books. It is diplomatic to conclude that J.K.Rowling's imagination is a joint product of the collective unconscious, her culture, and her accumulated personal experiences. I am of the school of thought that things can be found in artistic works which the author didn't actually realize she/he was intentionally putting in at the time. If you want validation for your religious beliefs from her books, I don't think she minds as long as your beliefs run in the general vein of: love your fellow beings as yourself. From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 19:07:28 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:07:28 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112510 Kneasy wrote: > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the > books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - > how primitive can you get? Admittedly, the word "beautiful" isn't used often in the books, but I can think of a few instances off the top of my head: The first time Harry sees Dumbledore's office in CoS: "It was a large and *beautiful* circular room..." (Ch. 12). When Dumbledore describes what we later learn to be the Room of Requirement at the Yule Ball: "I took a wrong turning on the way to the bathroom and found myself in a *beautifully* proportioned room I have never seen before..." (GoF, Ch. 23). The statue of the witch in the Fountain of Magical Brethren is described as "beautiful" (OotP, Ch. 7). ~Phyllis From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 19:14:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:14:52 -0000 Subject: Mud, blood & poppycock Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112511 List elves, PLEASE forgive me this little giggle fit! ***************************************************** I buy books for a living for an academic library, and a review of the following title passed under my nose today: Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the First World War by Gordon Corrigan. Now, if we just change the word "World" to "Voldy," I think we have a pretty cool title for a new analysis of some sort. Anyone want to take this and run with it? ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 9 19:24:01 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:24:01 -0000 Subject: Snape softening Harry up for V (Was: (Lily and Snape)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112512 Ally: > As for what DD said, I used to find that passage very confusing, but its occurred to me that when DD says that Snape couldn't get past his feelings with James, he isn't referring to Snape stopping occlumency, he's referring to Snape softening Harry up for Voldie. Pippin: It's Harry's argument that's confusing. First he blames Snape for stopping the lessons, then he accuses Snape of trying to soften him up for Voldemort. That's contradictory, if you think about it. Dumbledore doesn't try to answer either charge, IMO, he simply says that he trusts Snape and that the lessons failed because Snape was unable to overcome his feelings about James. I think when he says that lessons with him, Dumbledore, would have opened Harry's mind to Voldemort even more, he is confirming that this was, as Hermione theorized, an effect of the lessons, and not of some betrayal by Snape. Pippin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 19:18:47 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:18:47 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112513 Alex wrote: > Valky (I think, I'm a little confused) wrote, among other insightful > things, > > >-- James saw a Dark man in Snape, and > > he was *not* all that wrong. > > I have to say, I'm not sure where you get this. I think if we were > "supposed" (there's that word again....) to read James as acting out > of conviction that Snape is a Bad Man and has it coming to him for > those reasons, we'd have heard him say *something* that's open to that > interpretation. Perhps when Lily asks him "What's he ever done to > you?", if not before. Maybe he'd say "Hey, there's that evil git > Snape, who we saw knocking a muggleborn student down the stairs last > week, let's get him," instead of "Excellent. Snivellus." His remarks > are a bit of puerile wordplay with Snape's name, not a condemnation of > his existence on moral grounds. Hannah now: I think the name 'Snivellus' is significant in the whole marauders/Snape feud. The name implies 'snivelling' - crying, whining, being weak. It's the sort of name a bully might give a pathetic, greasy haired kid with a rather dodgy background, who cries when he gets teased by the handsome, popular bully (not naming any names, but you get the picture...) during his first years. It's not the sort of name that you give someone you suspect to be evil. Would Harry and co. call Malfoy that (if his first name was something like Severus)? I don't think they would, and they really do have good reason to suspect Malfoy's up to his eyeballs in the dark arts and likely to become a DE one day. They don't give Malfoy any sort of nickname (correct me if I'm wrong), although they might refer to him as a 'git' or some similar generic insult. The way they use the name is also interesting. They emphasise it, using it as a deliberate taunt - maybe harking back to some time they made Snape cry (snivel). Taunting someone with a name, IMO, is the behaviour of a bully picking on a weaker victim, not a brave Gryffindor challenging a suspected Junior Dark Wizard. Hannah From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Thu Sep 9 19:35:10 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:35:10 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: <413F56B2.8040106@tds.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, squeakinby wrote: > juli17 at a... wrote: > > Regarding whether HP reflects "Christian values" > > (who dislikes seeing sacrifice, love, morality, etc, co-opted by ANY religion or belief system) > > Wouldn't this be a good time to end this thread then? > > Jem Pat here: You are probably right, but I want to add my thoughts, having just read all the posts on this topic. >From my definitely Christian point of view, I see many Christian themes and symbols. They really aren't hard to find. (Think of Fawkes sacrificing himself to swallow up the snake, and then being re-born--hmmm.) That's not to say that the same things don't exist in other religions. Joseph Campbell had a lot to say on this whole subject, where he talks about the hero and his universality. But I, like all of you, read the books from my own understanding and perspective. It's just that having read or heard the interviews where JKR says that she is Christian and does attend church for more than weddings, funerals and Christenings, it seems to me that her perspective is from the Christian point of view. I don't think, however, that she has done this intentionally, as C.S. Lewis did with the Chronicles of Narnia. When we have a certain belief system and a way of seeing how the world around us works, it is only natural that anything we say or write is reflective of those beliefs. More than being specifically about religion, I have always seen the books as being about good and evil, plain and simple. Throughout, we see Harry fighting evil and choosing good--and that is the theme that is expounded over and over by Dumbledore--that we always have the ability to choose our actions and reactions, and that is what shows who we are. I see the story in the context of my Christian beliefs, but I understand that everyone else sees that message in the context of their own beliefs. And I think that is what JKR has intended. The use of the specific holidays are, in the way the books are written, more of a cultural thing than anything else. Had she set the books in Japan, I would think she would have used holidays specific to the Japanese culture. I think when we get to the end of the 7th book, we will each be allowed to put the details into our own points-of-view. It is brilliant that JKR has allowed for such a universal appeal. Rather than avoiding these kinds of discussions, I find it to be enlightening and extremely interesting. One of the best things about the Harry Potter books, aside from so many people reading, is that people are talking to each other about their opinions, emotions, and yes, even their religious beliefs. That's a good thing--communication is the best way for us to understand each other. (And I think that's is a rather subtle theme throughout the books, as well--if DD had talked to Harry... if Hermione had really listened to what the house elves were saying.... if the three of them had been more open with their ideas with any of the professors in any of the books....) Pat, who commends everyone who has posted for presenting their ideas respectfully From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Sep 9 19:49:22 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:49:22 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112515 Valky wrote: >>1 Marietta Joined Dumbledores Army at the behest of her good friend Cho Chang. (No pushing from Hermione)<< HunterGreen: (hello Valky!) I agree with you on that point, and I've mentioned in a past thread on this topic that Cho is at extreme fault for dragging Marietta in in the first place. She should have known better than to put one of her friends in that position. Valky: >>2 Voldemort is alive and kicking and mortally dangerous to every last inhabitant of the Wizard World. Someones gotta fight him! Dumbledores Army is doing the WW a service beyond anything else..<< HunterGreen: How so? Most of the students are not personal targets of Voldemort, and are unlikely to encounter him unless they join the Order or become aurors, and in either case they'd be around older wizards who can train them. I know its always *possible* that one of them will encounter Voldemort or a DE, but how likely is it to happen that year? (if the DA had waited to be an allowed group, it would have only needed to wait a year). The only members of the group who end up using the spells are the ones that *willingly* go with Harry/Ron/Hermione *because* they know the spells. It almost became a danger more than anything else, because it gave them all a false sense of capability against DE's (and its a miracle none of them weren't killed in the DoM battle). Valky: >>3 Hermione was aware that she was dealing with the most sinister, vile authoritative figures ever to walk Hogwarts in her few years there. DA is too important to be left to chance under Umbridges regime. Hermione chooses an effective and powerful protection for the group.<< HunterGreen: But she doesn't even TELL the group this! Marietta signs the form before the group is even against the rules, and at no time was it mentioned that telling Umbridge would enable a jinx across her face. Perhaps if she'd known that she wouldn't have told. On top of that, the DA wasn't *so* important that it was worth risking all of them getting expelled (although, IMO, it would have worked MORE against Umbridge if they all had been expelled...can you imagine the parental backlash?). It wasn't even that much of a fight against Umbridge, not in the way that the fireworks and the swamp destabiltized things. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 19:57:34 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040909195734.64091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112516 --- huntergreen_3 wrote: > HunterGreen: > But she doesn't even TELL the group this! Marietta signs the form > before the group is even against the rules, and at no time was it > mentioned that telling Umbridge would enable a jinx across her > face. > Perhaps if she'd known that she wouldn't have told. Well, the problem I have with Hermione's actions isnt' the SNEAK-thing on Marietta's face or even signing the document at the first meeting: if everything is so important and it's so vitally crucial that no one fink or rat out the group, then why on earth wouldn't you take more care in selecting who gets invited to join the group in the first place? Instead it was a kind of "invite your pals, invite your friends" and then when they got there, "oh, by the way, we're a secret society now so sign this". Hermione and Harry didn't know who Marietta or Zarariah Smith were; would you really feel that trusting towards someone you'd just met? That's where I think Hermione really went wrong; she should have only asked a couple of people she trusted to recruit members and checked each one over before they were actually invited to any meeting. Then maybe the daughter of a MoM employee might have been weeded out at the beginning. I know, I know...plot device...but still.... Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 9 20:25:50 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:25:50 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > Having begun my schooling in the States in the mid-'60s, I am asking > for clarification: You're saying that with the '50s model, schools > did not put the content of "learn this" into the context of a moral > code or ethics? It seems to me that, as you argue later-- > > >>> And (no doubt to the distress of Nora) little class-time was spent > discussing ethics or morality. We got that at home or at our local > church. Generally speaking it was a parents responsibility to ensure > that a child understood the moral guidelines that govern society, it > wasn't abrogated over to the educational system. And it was > seen as a parental *duty*, laxity was frowned upon - if a child > misbehaved persistently the parent was first in line for blame. <<< > > --you're saying that it was NOT placed in such a context, but rather > that was an expectation for teachings in home/church life. (As an > aside, I find it interesting that many of us "modern educators" would > LOVE to see a return of this particular aspect of education to those > roots, but with the frequently cited concept of _in loco parentis_, > it's ALL expected to come from the schools. Just don't cross the > line and teach them TOO much "morals" or the parents will complain > about that, too.) > Kneasy: Yes, the main burden fell on parents - though there were R.I. (Religious Instruction - non-denominational) classes that most pupils took for the first couple of years. Mostly it was back-up for what it was assumed you had learned elsewhere. However, after then you could opt out unless you wanted to take an exam in it (in which case it was back to the pedantic mode again - just another qualification.) Whatever - ethics didn't take up much of the curriculum even so. I agree; it shouldn't be left to the schools - but I have a sneaking suspicion that if you check back the situation will mirror that in the UK - it was the professionals that first suggested that the subject be dealt with in schools; and now they're stuck with it. > > SSSusan again: > I agree with this assessment of DD and of what we're being invited to > do by JKR. (And I think it's how we often get "bogged down," Kneasy, > in discussing modern sensibilities & standards.) Yet, there's still > that niggling annoyance in wondering how & when our little witches & > wizards are being exposed to these concepts. H/R/H have fairly > routine encounters with DD, enough for Harry, at least, to have heard > & begun to assimilate the "it's our choices" motto. > Kneasy: He may whitter on about choices, but how often does he offer guidance as to which choice is best, most efficacious, most moral, most ethical, or even most likely to cure dandruff? It seems to me he doesn't. It seems to me that *we* are the ones demonstrating practical ethics rather than the characters in the books. > > > SSSusan again: > So, that leads me to this question: Is JKR's model so recognizably > a '50s system that we should all just be *assuming* that the > moral/ethical considerations are being handled at home? And how does > that mesh with the kids' not BEING at home 10 months out of each > year? (Sorry, Kneasy, I don't think age 11 is or ever has been > adequate for the more complex issues here.) And how does it mesh > with JKR's "invitation" **to us** to consider all the things Nora has > pointed out that she's inviting us to consider? We're "modern," and > so we're invited to consider? while the kids are old school, and so > it's just not done? > Kneasy: I'll admit it's dangerous to assume anything - though in defence I'll point out that the books are set in the UK and UK law has an opinion on this. Any child over the age of 10, is assumed, in law, to know the difference between right and wrong. In the UK 10 is the age of criminal responsibility. OK; I don't believe they'll appreciate the nuances and subtleties, but they should have a firm grasp of basic legal (which covers most ethical and moral) concepts of responsibilities towards others. SSS: > I really don't think I'm trying to IMPOSE modern standards onto > Hogwarts; I think Nora has shown that JKR DOES want moral & ethical > considerations to be important to the WW kids, too. It just begs the > question of how the kids are supposed to be considering it all, when > there's precious little presentation. > Kneasy: Mostly I don't think they are considering it. The phrase "You can't" (meaning it's not possible) appears much more often than "You shouldn't." Or am I mistaken? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 9 20:48:19 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:48:19 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > Kneasy: > > Oh dear. Look out everybody - Nora is channeling Hermione. > > Actually, it's more like a particularly unholy alliance of Karl > Popper and E. O. Hirschmann, the only economist ever with a sense of > humor. > > Fudge sure thinks of Dumbledore as something of a radical, and DD > certainly is an intellectual radical compared to the rest of the WW. > Actually bothering to read the Muggle papers and understanding Muggle > society (as opposed to the ineffectual yet charming efforts of an > Arthur Weasley) mark him as different. > > And you've read Popper, right, Kneasy? You're old enough, right? :) > One of his main ideas is 'piecemeal' political reform, as opposed > to 'utopian'. Kneasy: Yep - I'm old enough to have read Popper. None too sure about his 'falsifiability' ideas, but his views on historicism and the rights of the individual sit snugly on my bookshelf alongside Isiah Berlin, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Unfortunately most writers are silent on what to do if a significant proportion of a population doesn't want change. And this is, IMO the situation that pertains in the WW. Oh, I'm not claiming that they're all Muggle hating, Elf baiting, "I may not agree with his methods, but you must admit Voldy has some good ideas" proto- supremacists, far from it. But every witch and wizard has enough personal magical power to become so if they are so inclined. The potential is there and will always be there so long as magic exists. And they'd be most reluctant to have their magical boundaries curtailed, even in the cause of a just society. DEs and their supporters apart, the WW is presented as a bunch of individualists. They'll probably toe the line if the Ministry (or whoever) pass sensible legislation - all well and good. But there are already laws in place to outlaw the use of the Unforgivables and to what effect? More or less the same as any law anywhere; it 'works' until somebody sees an advantage in ignoring it. Enter Voldy and his little pals. Freedom implies risk - that someone will use their freedoms in anti-social ways (but individual freedom, even with that risk, still produces a society streets ahead of any of the so-called 'ordered' variety IMO). So far as I can see, there is a choice - either stick with the status quo and face the certainty of the perpetuation of the likes of Malfoy (and by extension fresh Voldys) or remove (not ban) the capability of using personal magical power for the benefit of the individual. Some people are not persuadable; the 'pureblood supremacy' is a fiction, we already know that - so I suspect do some of its more opportunistic adherents - but reasoning with them will make little difference; their attitude is not based on reason or logic, it's a belief almost religious in its fervor, an article of faith. > Nora: > If you force people to actually face (unlike what happened at the end > of VW1, with the coverups and denial and 'oh, nothing happened) the > results of their own actions, that their precious blood ideology > helped a Voldemort rise, you have the start of changing the dominant > ethos of a population. Pureblood supremacy is what let Voldemort > rise and collect followers--but I've posted about this before, too. > Kneasy: Maybe. But it's my contention that he doesn't subscribe to the 'pureblood manifesto' himself. Doesn't like mudbloods much, but so what? It's a means to an end; a lever with which to manipulate others. All he's after is power; I can't imagine him sharing it with purebloods out of philosophical solidarity. > Nora: > I actually think JKR is a rather moralistic writer. I suspect that > all the bad guys are going to get theirs in the end, really. We know > we're not going to have Tempted-by-evil!Harry (per interview), as > much as you and the rest of the FEATHERBOAS might like to see it. > Voldemort's not going to win, either, and I doubt we're going to get > a completely and utterly full of angst and pain and terror ending-- > although I'll be damn disappointed if we don't get at least some > angst and pain. > > Dumbledore is JKR's self-admitted moral voice, and I think she's > going to *make* things fall out so that he's fundamentally right > (although I suspect that the prophecy resolution is going to end up > being some special thing of Harry's that DD doesn't have the solution > to, though). Just a suspicion on my part. > Kneasy: Huh! In which case I'm disappointed in him. The most powerful wizard in the world and he acts like a political candidate who doesn't want to upset anybody. No firm stance, no outspoken views, no castigation of offenders - some moral voice. If, in fact he is. I thought JKR said that she used DD and Hermione when she wanted to impart *facts*? Can you provide a reference for the 'moral voice' bit please? I'd be interested to see it. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Thu Sep 9 20:57:25 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:57:25 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112519 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Chancie, > > WOW, well I guess that pretty much settles this debate as to if > you can change time!!! Pure canon evidence that time CAN be > changed!!!! [snip] All I can > think of left to debate is the "Can you go back in time BEFORE your > were born." thing. Which since it is proven that you > > can change time to have a time traveling time limit...(does that > make since?) And as far as PoA being the introduction, I think > exactly the same way. I wonder still (despite posts from others) > that the end book will have something to do with Harry going back in > time to change the past. > > Tonks here: > > Hey!! Remember the mistake in one of the book about TR/LV being > the "ancestor" and JKR said that was a mistake and then in other > editions of the book it is still there. Do you think that Tom Riddle > did something with the TT? Pat here: That has always fascinated me. I have a hard back and a paper back that have both versions of it--descendant in the hard back (older version) and ancestor in the paper back (newer version). The part that interests me about this change is that it was a "mistake" in the first printing, was corrected in the next printings, and then was put back as the mistake in still later versions. And in one of the interviews, I think JKR refers to that as a "deliberate" mistake. Huh? I'm dying to know what she means by that. And then add all that to Tom Riddle saying that Voldemort is his past, present, and future. The connection to time turning is the most obvious, but do you think that this might be a red herring that she put in to throw us all off? Hmmmm. Pat From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 21:08:26 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:08:26 -0000 Subject: The Veil - Who in WW knows what? (was Re: Lupin's touch/Veil/summer in book6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112520 --- In Message 112336 HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Alla: > > > NO, I don't find strange that Remus wants to save Harry from falling > > too. What I do find strange is how did he know that Veil is deadly > > that FAST? > > Finwitch: > > Well, I have a theory about the Veil - it's NOT, in itself, lethal. > What's behind it, is not where the dead go - it's a werewolf- place! So > just about everyone who enters, will die or at least be bitten, thus > becoming a werewolf, given a new, wolf-related name etc. Clearly Lupin knows something about the veil, but so to do the DE's if you read the chapter (they are highly surprised to see Harry step onto the dais). None of the youngsters, very bright Hermione included, seem to know what it is although it's for her the most alarming place of all the weird places they get to on the way into the department of Mysteries and each of the heroic six (HP,RW,HG, GW, NL and LL) has a strong response of either revulsion/fear or (fatal?) attraction - almost along the same lines as which of them are most dementor-prone and can also see thestrals. Perhaps only DE's 'know' - which would suggest DE!Lupin or ESE!Lupin - theories I just can't hold with - but perhaps most WW adults know (for unrevealed reasons, just as JKR says she imagines most adults would be able to see thestrals. It isn't clear why (if this were so) Sirius would be so blase in its presence - that is, he doesn't take special measures to go nowhere near it as Lupin does. The veil is really odd. Not only does it take our beloved Sirius to seeming nothingness but it is described as ancient and crumbling (and not a little sinister) in the middle of a bright and sterile chamber that sounds almost like an execution room akin to a dementor's kiss excepting that instead of sucking away the soul it takes body too. It perhaps is not insignificant that the courtrooms used for 'serious trials' are not far away. These are my impressions. Feedback and discussion welcomed. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 02:58:57 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (N. Tonks) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:58:57 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112521 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > > "K": > It's obvious one can interfere with time. > > "'Hermione-what'll happen-if we don't get back inside-before Dumbledore > locks the door?' Harry panted. > > 'I don't want to think about it!' Hermione moaned, checking her watch > again. 'One minute!'" > PoA/Ch 22/pg 305/UK > > What would happen if Harry and Hermione did not get back in time > before the door was locked? > > I'm not particularly fond of time travel but I do feel PoA was just > the introduction. > > "K" I just had a thought. What if part of what LV did to keep himself alive thus far, but only a half life, has something to do with using the TT. Maybe he as Tom Riddle used it and it went wrong somehow??? Any thoughts?? Tonks_op From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 21:09:21 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:09:21 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > Huh! In which case I'm disappointed in him. The most powerful > wizard in the world and he acts like a political candidate who > doesn't want to upset anybody. No firm stance, no outspoken views, > no castigation of offenders - some moral voice. If, in fact he is. > I thought JKR said that she used DD and Hermione when she wanted to > impart *facts*? Can you provide a reference for the 'moral voice' > bit please? I'd be interested to see it. Eh, short reply--I'm supposed to be workin', here... My words, and thank you for nailing me, Kneasy. But she did say (and I so forget where) that 'Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness'. Now, unless you think that she's deeply trying to problematize (I hate that word, but it works) what Dumbledore has been self-admitted to represent...I don't, and I'll make bets with you on it. -Nora gets back to Vogel, 'Weltliche Vocalmusik Italiens' From Lynx412 at AOL.com Thu Sep 9 21:09:49 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:09:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112523 In a message dated 9/8/2004 10:03:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: > > >"Harry, I don't understand what Dumbledore wants us to do. Why > >did he tell us to go back three hours? How's that going to help > >Sirius?" > > > >Harry stared at her shadowy face. > >"There must be something that *HAPPENED* around now he wants us to > >*CHANGE*" he said slowly. > > > >(The emphisis is mine of course) > >POA, Chapter21 page 396 American Paperback. OK, here's my least/most favorite debate again. ;-) We're confused because we're seeing the events through Harry and Hermione's eyes. Look at the events through Dumbldore's eyes and listen to his words: "More than one innocent life." Dumbledore was at Hagrid's hut to oversee Bucky's execution. Instead he witnessed a missing hippogrif. Knowing his students, he assumed that the trio had found a way to save Bucky. The NEXT time he sees them is in the hospital wing. He talks to Sirius. He, most importantly, BELIEVES Sirius. He also realizes that the trio DID NOT rescue Bucky, there simply wasn't time between the disappearance of Bucky and the events in the Shrieking Shack. He has also seen just what Harry's Patronus looks like. He even mentions the 'unusual form' Harry's Patronus takes. Snape saw the Patronus retreating and told DD what form it took. Since we are led to believe that no two Patronuses are the same Harry HAD to have cast that stag Patronus. DD knows, furthermore, that Hermione has a TT. Logically, therefore, she must have used it. If the Ministry had listened to Sirius' story and begun a search for Scabbers/Pettigrew the distraction would have allowed time for the rescue of Bucky and DD would have given the trio a hint. Since the Ministry refuses to listen to '13-year old wizards', they must use the TT to save 'more than one innocent life'. To everyone outside the loop, Bucky has already escaped, but H/H don't know that. To them, they have to change something. So, they rescue Bucky. Doing so places Harry in position to see who cast the Patronus, and to realize that HE did. The whole time from just before the would-be execution of Bucky to DD's locking the door to the Hospital wing there are TWO Harrys and TWO Hermiones doing two separate things just like there are two Hermiones attending two separate classes at the same time. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 9 15:48:05 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:48:05 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape + totally a shallow Snape q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112524 > Carol said (re: Snape): > > re:Snape's hair: > Has anyone come up with an explanation for Snape's greasy hair? > I'm not trying to be an apologist, it just seems absurd to me that an > adult who has a good grasp of professionalism wouldn't be a > sleezeball. :) People have some fantastic theories about this, it's been great reading them. Snape's hair seems significant, virtually every time he is described by a character or in the narrative it's mentioned. Is JKR trying to tell us something about the character of Snape, that he doesn't take very good care of himself? Maybe she's trying to say, 'He's got low self-esteem, he just doesn't think he's worth making the effort over.' Or maybe he does wash it, but it just doesn't get rid of the grease. I reckon he's in need of that range of Gilderoy Lockhart hair care products! :-) Hannah From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 21:12:24 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:12:24 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112525 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pat" wrote: Pat here: ..<> And then add all that to Tom Riddle saying that Voldemort is his past, present, and future. The connection to time turning is the most obvious, but do you think that this might be a red herring that she put in to throw us all off? Hmmmm. Pat Inge: How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort is - at that point - not in his past or present - only in his future... From sixsunflowers at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 21:19:36 2004 From: sixsunflowers at yahoo.com (Bill and Diana Sowers) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:19:36 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: > Read LoTR lots of times. Found Beowulf, found the historic landscape > of Great Britain, found Anglo-Saxon ideas of Kingship, found Jacobite > Rebellions, but NEVER found Christianity per se there. And as much as I respect your view here I would say that many others would disagree with you. Tolkien was not only wrapped up in pre- Christian myths/religions/legends but there have been several studies of Christian themes in his books as well. Tolkien's religious background, Roman Catholocism, is rich with it's own legends, stories, saints and sinners. Some of these themes supplanted earlier pre-Christian mythic tales. I would say that Tolkien's tales weren't Christian on the surface but many of the ideals of that religious belief system are present in his works... a product of the author's own devout beliefs. >Later, when I learned Lewis admitted > praying to Apollo at Delphi, I realized how Aslan was much more like > Sol Invictus or Mithras than Jesus. C.S. Lewis, a classicist and medieval and Renaissance literature scholar, had a great respect for pre-Christian religions, notably the Greeks and Romans. Somewhere in his writings he says that many of these old religious belief systems had great similarities to Christianity... Struggle, death, resurrection (notably present in the change of seasons) are themes of many faiths. In fact there are many similarities between the story of Mithras and Jesus. But I have a feeling that Mr Lewis, though smiling, would have told you that he was writing about Jesus when he wrote about Aslan. This doesn't mean that you can't interpret the stories however you like... no more than those who read Harry Potter and see a Christian theme in the books. > if you want validation for your religious beliefs from her [J. K. Rowling] books, I > don't think she minds as long as your beliefs run in the general vein > of: love your fellow beings as yourself. I would agree with you except that I'd use the words, "find a reflection of", rather than "want validation for".... sounds a bit more positive, no matter what the reader's religious/nonreligious beliefs. Bill Sowers From eleanor at dreamvine.org.uk Thu Sep 9 21:35:02 2004 From: eleanor at dreamvine.org.uk (iamvine) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:35:02 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > I am suprised that no one has come up with this yet, but here it > goes. In PoA, if the person who cast the patronus was Harry then he > would of have to survive by other means the first time, because the > stag chased the Dementors away. So the question becomes what would > have happened to Harry if the stag did not chase the Dementors away? > Would they have given Harry the Kiss or would they have left him > alone after they kissed Sirius. When JKR put this in the book, I > don't believe at the time she knew that it was going to be analysed > so deeply. I think that we were supposed to look at it like "Oh that > was Harry who cast the Patronus Stag" and then move on with the story. No, no, forget about "the first time". This isn't Back To The Future, where the past keeps changing. It has totally different rules, and it stands up pretty well to analysis, generally speaking. There was no "first time" and "second time". It's just that for a while, Harry was in two places at once. Time travel allows many unexpected things to happen, such as a person being able to save their own life, but it doesn't make any less sense than certain areas of real physics. If the stag had not chased the Dementors away, I expect Harry would have had his soul sucked out. Then he would not have been able to do any time travelling, which would explain why the stag hadn't turned up. One thing that does worry me is what would happen if Harry tried to talk to his other self or make something else happen that he knew for sure had not happened. I have decided that this would only be a problem if he had free will. He doesn't have free will, because JKR dictates his every move and makes sure he doesn't do anything that would cause a paradox. Eleanor From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 21:43:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:43:57 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112528 Asian_lovr2 (Steve) wrote: > > > > As a matter of fact, I do have a theory, I don't think Voldemort > would have spared Lily. I think at that moment, he had his main > objective in sight, and everything else was just a distraction. So, when Voldemort told Lily to stand aside, he was really say, stand aside I've got more important things to do than bother with you, rather than saying, stand aside because you don't /have/ to die. > > > > At that point in time, Lily was inconsequential, but she became so much of an annoyance and distraction from his real objective that Voldemort killed her just to simplify things. > > > > GEO: Then why did he tell her to stand aside? So far the Voldemort > we've seen also tries and takes care of the messy details such as > those standing in front or alongside his target such as in the > instance of Cedric and probably Lily and James imo. Yet in this > instance he told her to stand aside instead of just using the > killing curse on her. > > Second if he was going to kill her anyways, why exactly would it be > a sacrifice on Lily's part if she was going to die anyways? Most > sacrifices usually entail you relinquish something of value and I > hardly see her few more minutes of life after Voldemort kills Harry > as something to be sacrificed. And why hasn't this sort of love > sacrifice happened more often. The WW is again a violent world and > putting children and parents to the wand it seems is a common > enought practice even during Voldemort's reign and seeing how > parents being parents wouldn't there have been a more regular > occurance of such a thing if all it entailed was the parents > standing in front of their children and protecting them by dying > first? > > And lets not forget if he was going to kill her anyways why was this > detail repeatedly put in three of the HP books(PS, POA, GOF) and why > has Rowling herself said that we were going to learn something > important about Lily in the finale unless. > Steve: > > Had Lily stepped aside, Voldemort may or may not have killed her on his way out based on nothing more than his mood at the moment. > > GEO: Why? Aside from being a potential victim, she was one of his > major enemies in the Order who survived three encounters against him > and aside from that she was a muggle born which Voldemort seem to > have a special place in his heart for. > Steve: > > I also have this theory that Voldemort and the DE's like to leave at least one person standing to bear witness and tell the chilling horrific tale of the mighty Voldemort and his clan of spineless but ruthless toadies. > > GEO: So far the evidence seems to point out that the DEs guts the > entire household or at least in the instances of OOTP members. He > seems to have killed Edgar Bone's family and also the McKinnons it > seems without leaving survivors. Carol responds: Granted that the DEs generally destroy whole households, but this is no ordinary circumstance (and it's Voldemort himself, not one of his henchmen, if that matters). *In this instance* Voldemort was trying to thwart the Prophecy--ALL that mattered to him was killing Harry, the only one who could potentially destroy him. Lily didn't matter because she wasn't the One. (James *had* to be fought because he was armed with his wand and offering resistance. Lily was just in the way, unarmed, as far as we can tell, and was merely blocking his path to Harry--a nuisance and an obstacle but not a threat (a "foolish girl," to use his own words.) Maybe at some other time he would have thought it necessary or desirable to kill her as a member of the Order who had previously defied him (whatever that may involve). Certainly he would have done so had she attempted to duel with him as James did. But there was, in this instance, no need to kill Lily. He just wanted to get to Harry to kill *him*. Then he could have considered what to do with the weeping and hysterical Lily. Kill her, too, or leave her to suffer, lamenting her irreparable losses as he flouted his invincibility? I think he'd prefer the second option because it's crueler and more arrogant. What he didn't know, of course, is that Lily *had* to die *before* Harry, offering her life for his, for the "ancient magic" to work. (Obviously if Harry died first, her death would no longer be a self-sacrifice. It would just be a second murder that would not restore the life of her dead child.) And I agree that more was involved than the sacrifice itself since such sacrifices must be fairly common, probably some charm previously placed on Harry by Lily herself that would be triggered by the combination of her own self-sacrifice and an AK aimed at Harry. (The charm would have created the scar at the moment of impact and deflected the curse onto Voldemort. Whether it will provide additional protection in the future, I can't say.) To return to Voldemort, who most certainly did not hesitate to kill Lily out of benevolence or affection or respect, none of which he's capable of feeling: Maybe, just maybe, he was vaguely suspicious of Lily's urgent pleas to kill her instead of Harry. Maybe he had heard of her skill with charms and some instinct at first held him back from killing her. But two things (IMO)--his contempt for her as a Muggleborn and his obsession with killing Harry--prevented him from acting on this instinct. His underestimation of Lily very nearly destroyed him. Even though she was not the One who could destroy him, she enabled Harry to become that One--by saving him in his infancy and giving him time to gain the strength and skill to confront Voldemort when the time finally came, and meanwhile hindering Voldemort by deflecting the curse onto him. I think Lily knew exactly what she was doing (except that she didn't intend a transfer of powers to Harry or a bond of communication created by the scar), whereas Voldemort understood nothing--neither the power of love that would never allow any mother to "stand aside" so her child could be murdered, nor her courage, which seemed to him like hysteria and folly, nor the extent of Lily's skill with protective charms. Carol, who apologizes for the three typos in her previous post, which she didn't have time to proofread because someone was at the door From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 21:51:52 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:51:52 -0000 Subject: Lupin's touch (also Dumbledore's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112529 --- In Message 112339 (and before) HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > I think there's more going on here than teacher / student or the > development of Harry's relationship with Lupin. > > In PoA, we see more of Lupin's thought process --he wanted to reach > out to Harry but thought better of it--than we do in OotP where he > is less central to that part of the story. So Lupin thought better > of touching Harry. In that context, the reader accepts the statement > and doesn't question it. But this peculiar characteristic--unique to > LUpin and unique to Lupin's relationship to Harry--continues in > OotP. I will continue to maintain that there is something > interesting in Lupin's parting words to Harry in OotP. > > mhbobbin If Lupin has a reluctance to touch (or be touched by) Harry - and I'm by no means convinced - then could it not be because he has a low view of himself (or knows most in the WW do because he's a 'dangerous' werewolf) and expects to be treated like a leper.Does anyone else get to touch Lupin any more frequently than Harry (i.e. is it Harry-specific?). Lupin can't be that used to being touched, only shunned and yet he cares deeply for Harry it is clear. Barring Mrs Weasley I think that Lupin, in the absence of Lily, James and now Sirius (who was also absent for most of PoA during which Lupin first met and then was wonderfully supportive of Harry) remains the closest connection Harry had to someone who should love him for who he is and not what he has done (if one excludes Petunia who has done her duty but shown no apparent love to Harry). I believe Lupin identifies deeply with Harry as someone who 'has nobody', but his 'disease' prevents him from taking this to a physical level. Imagine Lupin as a metaphor for someone who is HIV+. If not that then maybe Lupin feels he can't even protect HIMSELF from the nastier/pettier/most prejudiced members of the WW (he has no job, abode or income), so can offer Harry nothing and 'loves him enough to let him go'. I cannot recall DD EVER touching Harry since that very first night on Privet Drive (when baby Harry was swaddled), but perhaps I just haven't thought to look - He (DD) is someone else who cares deeply about Harry but perhaps has reasons not to touch him (or be seen to). I really think 'keep in touch' means just that - don't be a stranger. Send messages. It's rather pathetic really because it suggests Lupin might be saying 'I like you. Please don't abandon me like most others have'. JKR says the next spell (period!) at Privet Drive is the shortest and this is predicted by Molly, Hermione and Ron ALL saying it won't be too long (to balance the horribly prolonged summer leading into OotP which clearly in hindsight everyone realises must have been hell for Harry and should not be repeated). From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 9 21:55:52 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:55:52 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112530 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: mizstorge: > Read LoTR lots of times. Found Beowulf, found the historic landscape > of Great Britain, found Anglo-Saxon ideas of Kingship, found Jacobite > Rebellions, but NEVER found Christianity per se there. > Geoff: Perhaps you should extend your reading to "The Silmarillion" if you haven't already done so. For example, Iluvatar (or Eru, the One) created the Ainur (the Valar and the Maiar). Of the Valar, Melkor (he who arises in might) fell from grace and became Morgoth (the black enemy). This parallels the stories of creation and the fall of Lucifer. You may not find Christianity per se in the books in the same way that JKR doesn't overtly refer to it. But the basic foundation of Christian faith - loving God and loving your neighbour as you would love yourself - is present. It is present when Dumbledore speaks of our choices; it is present when Gandalf speaks of Frodo having been meant to have the Ring. This is the very bedrock of faith, no more, no less. Christian belief is the relationship between God and a person and that person and their human contacts. It does not ultimately involve rituals or prayers or fasting or whatever. It is simply an expression of true love (agape) and this we see in Harry Potter in various forms. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 22:26:16 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:26:16 -0000 Subject: Molly's touch (was: Lupin's touch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Finwitch: > > And it's quite right that there's little touching between them. I > > suppose it's a cultural thing - I see nothing wrong with it, myself, > > nothing odd certainly... Customs here are that handshake is somewhat > > formal greeting, there's also hugging between close > > friends/relatives who see each other after a long time - all other > > forms of greeting don't involve touching. > > > > Sirius comforts Harry by holding his shoulder so tight it hurts (to > > make sure Harry knows he's there) in GoF when Harry's reliving the > > graveyard scene. Molly hugs Harry just a bit later (and Harry feels > > more embarassed and surprised than comforted, but is too polite to > > say anything about it). > > > SSSusan: > While I don't disagree at all with your point that there isn't a lot > of touching going on in the HPs, I *really* do take exception with > your characterization of the Molly-Harry hug at the end of GoF. > > Here's the scene: > > The thing against which he had been fighting on and off ever since he > had come out of the maze was threatening to overpower him.?@He could > feel a burning, prickling feeling in the inner corners of his eyes.?@ > He blinked and stared up at the ceiling. > > "It wasn't your fault. Harry," Mrs. Weasley whispered. > > "I told him to take the cup with me," said Harry. > > Now the burning feeling was in his throat too. He wished Ron would > look away. Mrs. Weasley set the potion down on the bedside cabinet, > bent down, and put her arms around Harry.?@He had no memory of ever > being hugged like this, as though by a mother.?@The full weight of > everything he had seen that night seemed to fall in upon him as Mrs. > Weasley held him to her.?@His mother's face, his father's voice, the > sight of Cedric, dead on the ground, all started spinning in his head > until he could hardly bear it, until he was screwing up his face > against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him. > There was a loud slamming noise, and Mrs. Weasley and Harry broke > apart. > > > Note that Harry was embarrassed [wishing Ron would look away] > *before* Mrs. Weasley hugged him. Note also that Harry didn't break > away from her until there was a loud, slamming noise. We do NOT see > him resisting her hug. In my opinion, this hug was JUST what Harry > wanted & needed; and even if all don't agree with me about that, I > still do not see how you can come to the conclusion that he was "more > embarrassed and surprised than comforted." *Where* does it show this? > > There may be another scene--in OotP, likely--where Harry is somewhat > embarrassed by Molly's fussing over him. But in *this* scene in GoF, > I just don't see how one can come to the conclusion from the text > that Harry was just too polite to complain about Molly's hug! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, who counts this scene as among her very > favorite. Mac now: I absolutely agree. This scene was SO poignant that it bought a tear to MY eye too. This is why I was so shocked by an earlier thread that suggests Molly is horrible as a mother. In my last post in which I responded to the Lupin's touch thread it occurred to me (dur - sorry for being so absolutely dense - I'm a bloke after all) that Harry NEVER in his life since GH received such a hug - certainly nothing from Petunia nor at Hogwarts. Hermione would have come closest (hence the SHIp theories) but always absolutely platonically as a deeply caring friend. Imagine...15 months of absolute unquestioning love, cuddles, joy, being spoken to lovingly, played with, smiled at etc and them bam! green flash, painful scar, possible even possession and no more hugs, ever, only dutiful begrudging servicing of an absolute minimal nature (Dursley regime). Then Hogwarts - treated as an untouchable celebrity or freak show. So, by the time Molly's hug was offered, when Harry's heart was in any case fit to burst in sorrow, it wasn't unwelcome, it didn't mean nothing and it certainly wasn't embarrassing. Why he wanted Ron to look away was because he didn't want his mate to see him cry/vulnerable and/or to be jealous. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 22:49:31 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:49:31 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112532 SSSusan: >>> Having begun my schooling in the States in the mid-'60s, I am asking for clarification: You're saying that with the '50s model, schools did not put the content of "learn this" into the context of a moral code or ethics? It seems to me that you're saying that it was NOT placed in such a context, but rather that was an expectation for teachings in home/church life.<<< Kneasy: >> Yes, the main burden fell on parents - though there were R.I. (Religious Instruction - non-denominational) classes that most pupils took for the first couple of years. Mostly it was back-up for what it was assumed you had learned elsewhere. However, after then you could opt out unless you wanted to take an exam in it (in which case it was back to the pedantic mode again - just another qualification.) Whatever - ethics didn't take up much of the curriculum even so. I agree; it shouldn't be left to the schools - but I have a sneaking suspicion that if you check back the situation will mirror that in the UK - it was the professionals that first suggested that the subject be dealt with in schools; and now they're stuck with it.<< SSSusan now: Not that this matters for canon discussion necessarily, but out of curiosity, in your perspective (or other UKers' perspectives), has the trend many have remarked upon in the U.S.--that less & less moral/ethical training is occuring in the home--also been mirrored in the UK? Was this a transfer of that role to the schools or a supplementation by the schools? Is woefully little attention being paid to such "training up" in homes in the UK, or other nations represented here, as I would argue is the case in the US? SSSusan: >>> I agree with this assessment of DD and of what we're being invited to do by JKR. (And I think it's how we often get "bogged down," Kneasy, in discussing modern sensibilities & standards.) Yet, there's still that niggling annoyance in wondering how & when our little witches & wizards are being exposed to these concepts. H/R/H have fairly routine encounters with DD, enough for Harry, at least, to have heard & begun to assimilate the "it's our choices" motto. <<< Kneasy: >> He may whitter on about choices, but how often does he offer guidance as to which choice is best, most efficacious, most moral, most ethical, or even most likely to cure dandruff? It seems to me he doesn't. It seems to me that *we* are the ones demonstrating practical ethics rather than the characters in the books.<< SSSusan now: Indeed, precisely my point. Harry gets the benefit of DD's moral spoutings, but who else amongst the Hogwarts student masses does? Kneasy: >> I'll admit it's dangerous to assume anything - though in defence I'll point out that the books are set in the UK and UK law has an opinion on this. Any child over the age of 10, is assumed, in law, to know the difference between right and wrong. In the UK 10 is the age of criminal responsibility. OK; I don't believe they'll appreciate the nuances and subtleties, but they should have a firm grasp of basic legal (which covers most ethical and moral) concepts of responsibilities towards others.<< SSSusan now: Fascinating. Can't speak w/ full knowledge of the U.S. Code, but as best I know we have no such expectation in the legal system (and certainly among the prevailing social mores, I'd add). *TEN*. Wow. Typically it's only 16-18 year-olds who would be tried as adults, for instance, and the younger only if the crime is heinous. [Any US attorneys feel free to correct me here!] SSS: >>> I really don't think I'm trying to IMPOSE modern standards onto Hogwarts; I think Nora has shown that JKR DOES want moral & ethical considerations to be important to the WW kids, too. It just begs the question of how the kids are supposed to be considering it all, when there's precious little presentation.<<< Kneasy: >> Mostly I don't think they are considering it. The phrase "You can't" (meaning it's not possible) appears much more often than "You shouldn't." Or am I mistaken?<< SSSusan now: I don't think you're mistaken at all. And it's part of what concerns me. Why is the reading audience being so invited [if we're right about that] if the little urchins aren't even being told "you should" or "you shouldn't" as part of their educations? Or perhaps that's the point you were trying to make originally--that BECAUSE Hogwarts seems to operate along the UK '50s model of education, the expectation IS that the urchins received their moral grounding before arrival at Hogwarts, so it needs little addressing [beyond punishments & rewards] in their lives there. Pity, I'd say. Even assuming the grounding did take place in the home, it still seems-- since the subtleties & more abstract concepts need fleshing out as children grow older & more capable--it would be good to see some instruction or at least discussion or ethics & morality in their classes. Siriusly Snapey Susan From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 23:08:10 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:08:10 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: <001f01c495ee$70761b40$acc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > Siriusly Snapey Susan > "Not to mention what kids think of it. I've explained several times > to my 8-year-old daughter about how Buckbeak never did die. But in > her mind, he DID, and Harry & Hermione simply went back and CHANGED > THE PAST so that he didn't die the second time. Now, THAT much of TT > I understand--that she is wrong about Beaky--but I can't seem to find > the language to help her grasp it. <> hoping this was helpful to someone besides > myself." Mac interjects: I always saw this as a 'Schroedinger's cat' thing (not that I ever understood this either!!!!), but esentially buckbeak is in an unknown state when they TT - dead or alive? By intervening they change this to alive. I think JKR gives a few suggestions that before TT the state was in fact dead, but yes we don't know. the reality (sic) was that for a period of time there were two Harrys and Hermiones, Harry 1 and Hermione 1 *believed* buckbeak dead but because Harry 2 and Hermione 2 rescued him he wasn't, in fact. Should a pupil or teacher check in two classes that Hermione was taking simultaneously during the PoA year they would see her in both and perhaps wonder how, but of course it doesn't happen because (a) it shouldn't because it's unlikely and (b) it wouldn't serve the plot. > DuffyPoo: > I would like to poll kids in the reading age of these books. I would just bet most of them are thinking like your daughter. None of this helps me, however. I think because it doesn't exist in reality (for those of you who think it does, humour me) everyone who writes TT writes it to their own specifications. In the most recent Time Machine movie, the Time Traveller went back in time to save his fiance. He could not do that because, without her death, he didn't invent the Time Machine (or didn't invent it that quickly, at any rate). But there were not two of the Time Traveller existing in the same place at the same time. When he went back to the park to save his fiance from death, there was only one of him...at least that's how I remember it. > Hmmm TT is always difficult - e.g. back to the future. But in Jean- Claude Van Damme's TimeCop a future and past version of the same person DO meet and catastrophically obliterate one another. A kind of matter/anti-matter thing. In HP of course Harry sees himself but his past self sees his future self as being his father and, moreover, rescues himself - always thought that was a VERY clever bit of the plot because without TT HP would be no more and this is one of the most significant reverberations of DD's comment 'you may just save more than one life tonight' just before he asks them to do it. Indeed, he must have known that TT was necessary because he will have known that otherwise Harry would have been dead - kissed by a dementor (assuming that HP CAN be killed by a dememntor - not sure If I believe this - i.e. only LV has the power to vanquish HP). From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 9 23:35:50 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:35:50 -0000 Subject: Who joined the DA (Re: "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040909195734.64091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > Well, the problem I have with Hermione's actions isnt' the > SNEAK-thing on Marietta's face or even signing the document at the > first meeting: if everything is so important and it's so vitally > crucial that no one fink or rat out the group, then why on earth > wouldn't you take more care in selecting who gets invited to join the > group in the first place? > > Instead it was a kind of "invite your pals, invite your friends" and > then when they got there, "oh, by the way, we're a secret society now > so sign this". Hermione and Harry didn't know who Marietta or > Zarariah Smith were; would you really feel that trusting towards > someone you'd just met? > > > > Magda I disagree, all in all, it was a pretty close group. I mean, it could have been smaller, I guess. But even more important than keeping this secret is to prepare everybody for Voldemort's return, and therefore they should have included as many students as possible, and still keeping the group as small as possible. We have of course Harry, Ron and Hermione, and Fred, George and Ginny, who showed support towrads Harry during the whole summer and who know about the Order. And than we have: - Neville, Cho, Luna and Ernie who defended Harry in public and said, that they believed him. We have Dean, Lavender and Parvati, who know the trio for several years and who can be trusted that they would keep quiet (and if one of them had become a traitor, I wouldn't have blamed the Trio for trusting them at first. And I am sure Seamus was told as well, but didn't want to come because he was cross with Harry). And all the other DA members were close friends or relatives to any of the above, and were basically vouched for by a trusted DA member. The one exception is Zacharias, who overheard Hermione and Ernie talking. But there was no way to exclude him after he found out the truth. That's what makes the betrayal that shocikng. That it can even happen in such a close group, were nearly everybody is close friend to at least one other member. Hickengruendler From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 9 23:45:28 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:45:28 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > Mac interjects: > > I always saw this as a 'Schroedinger's cat' thing (not that I ever > understood this either!!!!), but esentially buckbeak is in an > unknown state when they TT - dead or alive? Uh...no. Beaky is not in a box unobserved. Dumbledore, Fudge, Hagrid and the executioner all know they did NOT kill Beaky. the sound that the Trio mistakenly thought was Beaky dying was the executioner throwing his axe. But great physics reference! >By intervening they > change this to alive. I think JKR gives a few suggestions that > before TT the state was in fact dead, but yes we don't know. Hence the dramatic tension. >the > reality (sic) was that for a period of time there were two Harrys > and Hermiones, Harry 1 and Hermione 1 *believed* buckbeak dead but > because Harry 2 and Hermione 2 rescued him he wasn't, in fact. EXACTLY! > Should a pupil or teacher check in two classes that Hermione was > taking simultaneously during the PoA year they would see her in both > and perhaps wonder how, but of course it doesn't happen because (a) > it shouldn't because it's unlikely and (b) it wouldn't serve the > plot. > And Hermione has been warned to be very very careful about not letting anyone see her. I think she's slinking along to classes--remember Ron wondering how she suddenly appeared in a class? I think she just snuck in, but it's also possible that she went to the second classroom when it was empty, hid in a corner, and THEN time-turned her way into the class. Poof--she appears at the right time, walks out of hiding to her seat. I don't think Hermione's TT moves her forward in time. She "lives" her way back to that time. I do think JKR's world allows for forward time movement--we see that hummingbird move back and forth from egg to bird to egg in OotP--and truly bad things can happen when you mess with time--the DE with the baby head on the adult body. And the more we discuss PoA in depth, the more I really think that McGonnigal and Dumbledore were extremely rash in allowing Hermione to TT for more classes. Yes, she's the brightest wizard of her age. Yes, she obeyed the rules and nothing "bad" happened. But it cost Hermione roughly a month or so of her life (living 1-3 or more "extra" hours all school year--in effect 27 hour days in a 24 hour period). Sure a month isn't much time, especially to a teenager (and long-lived wizards), but it was a price. Why couldn't she just take summer school courses? Did anyone at Hogwarts consult with Dr. & Dr. Granger, explaining the "lost month" of life? There's no canon for it, so we just have to guess, but it bothers me that the "good guys" would do something so risky with a 13 y/o. I guess I don't think Muggle Studies and Divination were worth the price of a month of her life. Of course, giving Hermione a TT was necessary for the plot of a fun book and *Harry* is our protagonist. But I still don't like it. -TL From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 23:54:10 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:54:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > (Major snipage) > > Kneasy: > GH - a spell (probably a form of possession or mental intrusion) > that is repelled by the protection. Is the protection general or > specific to the spell used? > > > Snow: > > Going once going twice sold! Brilliant Kneasy! JKR has such a knack > at leading one into assumption. The spell used at GH has always been > referred to but never identified as an AK, it's always the spell that > was used that night or something as equally evasive. Jumping in late, as usual, I know, but this message caught my attention. Ok, I know someone else must have pointed that out by now, but Fake! Moody does name the spell as an AK, when he says to the 4th-year Gryffs that the only survivor to the AK is sitting in front of him. What interests me about the protection issue is how did LV know about it? And he did know, so much so that he was willing to put off his reappearance a whole year just to steal Harry's blood and get the protection himself. Harry does tell DT about his mother's sacrifice leaving a protection in him, but how did this bit of information pass from Diary!Tom to LV? Are they connected somehow? (This would also explain how DT knew so much about his future, apart from Blabbering!Ginny). Or did PP tell him? I don't remember if Scabbers was with them when the Trio discussed the subject. IIRC, Scabbers spent most of his time dozing on Ron's bed, rather than in his pockets. Romulus Lupin, who already asked this same question about LV in his very first post and was completely ignored. From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 00:43:14 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:43:14 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112537 Why does everybody think LV opened the CoS in 1942? I know 50 years before 1992 *is* 1942, but can we take the statement as meaning *exactly* 50 years? I mean, 50 is a round number, most people would say 50 to indicate any length of time between 45 and 55. The reason I doubt the date is Frank Bryce. Let me clarify. We know TMR was in his 5th year when he opened the COS, and 16. Which means he could have AK'ed his muggle relative the next year. After he's 17, nobody's ever going to pick up his spells (it's only underage magic that's regulated, right?) he could go on a killing spree and the MOM would be none the wiser. So, if he opened the COS in 1942, by the summer of 1944 he would have kill his father (I don't think he'd have waited one minute longer than necessary, so he turns 17 sometime during his 6th year and by the end of the summer holiday he's done the deed). Ok, now, Frank Bryce. The Little Hangletonians at the pub say that Frank hadn't been right in the head since his return form war. But the war ended in August 1945, and I got the impression Frank's odd behavior had been going on for a while before the Riddle died, nut just a few weeks. Romulus Lupin, wondering if he's just too sleep deprived to see straight From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 01:13:30 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:13:30 -0000 Subject: PoA Time-travel Question for those who think the past can be changed. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112538 There seem to be quite a few people who believe that there are more than one timeline and that the past WAS changed in PoA. The reasoning seems to be: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When the Trio hears the axe fall, Beaky actually dies. It's not just the axe hitting the fence, but hitting Beaky. The axe hits the fence in a future version of the timeline, and the Trio is only mistaken about Beaky dying in these "future" or "secondary" timelines. Because Beaky's really dead. Later, Harry and Hermione go back in time and prevent Beaky from dying. They CHANGE the past. There is "now" a brand new timeline where where Beaky never dies, but there was a previous timeline where he did. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We've all been debating using examples from science, logic, other stories, etc., but I firmly believe that in PoA the past is NEVER changed. Whether or not it CAN change in JKR's world may be an outside the novel debate. Maybe wizards *can* change the past, but they DO NOT CHANGE IT in PoA. My big question for The-Past-Changed-in-PoA-Believers--what happened to the future where Beaky died? Because if Beaky died, Harry did too. If there is more than one version of events--and multiples timelines and/or a changeable past are **REQUIRED** if Buckbeak ever dies and then doesn't die--why isn't Harry dead/kissed? How did Harry go back the "first" time to change anything and save Buckbeak if he wasn't already there? Who saved Harry, if there was a "timeline" *before* he went back and saved himself? If Buckbeak died, so did Harry. (OK, maybe he was just soul-sucked, same deal as that's worse than death.) A soul-sucked "Harry" isn't going back in time and doing anything. And the Harry we see go back in time has NOT been soul-sucked. I think JKR makes it very clear that there is ONLY one timeline in PoA. Harry "goes back" to the ***same*** time he was attacked. He's in the same time twice--there is no "second" time. There's just an older Harry casting a Patronus on one side of the lake at the same time a slightly younger Harry is being attacked by the Dementors on the other side. JKR even has Harry explain it--he knew he was able to cast a Patronus on his second time through b/c he (his younger self) saw himself (his older self) do it when the younger Harry lived through the attack. That's canon as events are written and as Harry describes it. (sorry again for the lack of books) The events happen once; Harry experiences them twice b/c he TTs back to the same time. James was NEVER there. Dumbledore confirms that James wasn't there when he tells Harry he found his father in himself. PoA is not "Back to the Future", which is fun, but logically inconsistent multiple timeline/changeable past story. Not that anything prevents JKR from changing the rules in a future book--the rules change between the first two Terminator movies, and both are entertaining. However, what happens in *this* book is that Harry goes back via a TT to the *same timeline.* PoA is firmly, consistently, and logically a one timeline book. Again, if you truly believe Buckbeak died and somehow that past was changed into a different timeline when H&H went back, then you need to explain HOW H&H could go back in time at all. Because if there is a timeline that exists in its entirety where Buckbeak dies and H&H go back and "change" it, then the Dementor attack also happens in that "first" timeline where there's no time-travelling. Harry, Sirius, and Hermione are killed/kissed in that timeline--b/c there is no Patronus to save them b/c they haven't TTed yet. Harry and Hermione never make it to the hospital wing; Sirius never makes it to Hogwarts castle. There are no Harry and Hermione to send back to change things if the older Harry and Hermione aren't already back in time in the same timeline. It only seems like there are two timelines b/c an older H & H are living them again, but they are *time-travelling* to the same past. Harry cast the Patronus after he'd been saved, but since Harry was TTed at the time, the Patronus and the attack happen simultaneously. Because of time travel, it seems like "after" to the older Harry. He's travelled back to that time. Which means Future!Harry was *there* the "first" time*--as JKR has Harry himself tell us. The **time** happens once. Harry happens twice. We may never agree on this issue, but if you really think Buckbeak died the "first time," you need to explain how Harry and Hermione survived long enough in this "first time" to go back in time and change things. And you can't explain it in canon, b/c it's not there. It *could* have been written that way. Other stories *have* been written that way. PoA is NOT written as a multiple timeline/changed past story. Buckbeak never dies. Neither does Harry. Not in this book, anyway. -TL From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 01:43:34 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:43:34 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" > Romulus Lupin wrote: > Ok, now, Frank Bryce. The Little Hangletonians at the pub say that > Frank hadn't been right in the head since his return from war. But > the war ended in August 1945, and I got the impression Frank's odd > behavior had been going on for a while before the Riddle died, not > just a few weeks. > Frank Bryce may not have been in the war till the end. He may have been discharged with "battle fatigue" (what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder) in '41 or so. Much earlier at any rate than VE-day. -TL From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 02:07:18 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:07:18 -0000 Subject: PoA Time-travel Question for those who think the past can be changed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112540 --- In Message 112538 HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" >what happens in *this* book is that Harry goes back via a TT > to the *same timeline.* PoA is firmly, consistently, and logically a > one timeline book. Mac: I agree (I think) BUT the single timeline REQUIRES Harry to timeturn, that is it can't happen this way unless he does. And there's the paradox because if he doesn't TT he gets dementor kissed but if he gets dementor-kissed then he isn't there to time turn later. As usual it makes beautiful sense as a gripping story (JKR's intent) but is nonsense when over-analysed (she rarely apologises for this - she writes for her she says and has an excellent feel for what will appeal to an audience). By this logic hermione MUST TT throughout PoA because she already has and she can't get to charms after she slaps Malfoy because she missed the opportunity (blew it). Also, has H&H materialised early there would have been two pairs of them in the Hospital Wing (but rules say they can't see themselves) and had they been late getting back then there's be a period when they were gone but not yet returned - i.e. literally disappeared. Maybe this is what happened to that OotP member who disappeared without trace? TT also works because people obey the rules and when they don't things go awfully wrong (killing past or future selves). What if DE's who care little for rules (e.g. wanton so-called 'forbidden curse' use) were to time-turn? it seems there are similar perils in mis-apparating. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 02:09:45 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:09:45 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112541 huntergreen wrote: > > Valky: > >>2 Voldemort is alive and kicking and mortally dangerous to every > last inhabitant of the Wizard World. Someones gotta fight him! > Dumbledores Army is doing the WW a service beyond anything else..<< > > HunterGreen: > How so? Most of the students are not personal targets of Voldemort, and are unlikely to encounter him unless they join the Order or become aurors, and in either case they'd be around older wizards who can train them. Valky Replies (Hi Hunter ;D): I do see your point. The students are not personal targets, most of them anyway. Yet they all have reason to believe that in Voldemorts war its not personal. Cedric was lost to Voldemort in a sudden and entirely impersonal instant, and the attacks of the Basilisk were barely personal. I am sure you will agree that prejudice doesnt spare intimacy or get personal before it unleashes it's rage. The fact that everyone in WW is aware of is that noone needs LV to personally begrudge them if they stumble across his path. And as much as we'd like to believe that most accomplished wizardkind adults would have themselves equipped for protecting their children in a dire emergency the fact is, we know most of them are not prepared for LV right now. Most of them believe he is a figment of Harry's imagination. This is all without mentioning Hermione's partially selfish and personal motivation to learn from Harry because she has a pair of Dentists for parents with no such equipment if they were to find themselves by chance in the way of Voldemorts flight. I am in not trying to say that Harry's teaching could prepare the students for a battle with LV, far from it. We all see how the battle between himself and DD plays out in the MOM. What student could even begin to claim such glory as Dumbledore displays in this battle. However, the service is done for the WW by Harry showing students how to understand defence in practice and by giving them reasonable preparation for mortal danger. Something that they should be learning in the DADA classroom certainly it is more dangerous for them to capitulate to Umbridge's self interested blindness. Furthermore Harry is offering an insight into Lord Voldemort, a now mythical creature who has become over the course of fifteen years a mystery shrouded in fearful hushing and rumour. What use to the WW that Harry's knowledge and experience be shut in the doors of Grimmauld Place ne'er to be uttered to a man in purple robes on the street. Harry is passing information, giving members of the WW a clear advantage in the war against Voldemort. Later when his story is published in the Quibbler and later in the Daily Prophet some of this advantage is extended to the greater wizard community, but those kids in DA have the first hand account better than the newspapers do. Each have gleaned a gem of Harrys wisdom that they now carry with them, even Marietta. >From little things big things grow. I know I am somewhat reasoning this into a speculative fanfic, but to some degree I believe that at least it is rational to imagine something worthwhile will come of Dumbledores Army. And that the teachers who appear to have some inclination to support or protect it's interest are aware/faithful that it is a right seed to plant in Hogwarts. Hunter: I know its always *possible* that one of them will encounter Voldemort or a DE, but how likely is it to happen that year? (if the DA had waited to be an allowed group, it would have only needed to wait a year). Valky: They can't necessarily know this. Umbridge is by chance removed from Hogwarts at the end of the year, she may never have left, and may even be Headmaster into book six had things gone differently. Nor can they know that LV isn't going to be walking the streets flagrantly declaring mayhem in the coming Holiday season. For that matter neither do we. Hunter: The only members of the group who end up using the spells are the ones that *willingly* go with Harry/Ron/Hermione *because* they know the spells. It almost became a danger more than anything else, because it gave them all a false sense of capability against DE's (and its a miracle none of them weren't killed in the DoM battle). > Valky: This I agree to entirely. By miracle mostly and a few things Harry taught them about battle thrown in, the DA members at the MOM survived. DA training did give them a false sense of their abilities. But Harry learned this lesson himself in the same terrifying way. Hermione Ginny Ron Luna and Neville are now much wiser people as well as lucky, though. Well maybe not Ron, he's just got a knack of wandering in over his head before he knows he's doing it. Runs with his eyes closed that one, LOL. The DA did not become the danger though. It was their love of Harry that propelled them into danger. The DA brought people who were already quite fond of Harry close enough for them to be given an opportunity to go laying their lives down for him. It is those three people Ginny, Luna and Neville who, personally, already had an inclination to throw themselves at the gauntlet for something they believe in anyway. DA was merely a mechanism that brought them closer to Harry and his danger. > Valky: > >>3 Hermione was aware that she was dealing with the most sinister, > vile authoritative figures ever to walk Hogwarts in her few years > there. DA is too important to be left to chance under Umbridges > regime. Hermione chooses an effective and powerful protection for > the group.<< > > HunterGreen: > But she doesn't even TELL the group this! Marietta signs the form > before the group is even against the rules, and at no time was it > mentioned that telling Umbridge would enable a jinx across her face. Valky: That's a fair enough statement. Still Hermione did tell them straight that her intentions were to oppose Umbridge not least of all in her denial that LV had returned. In this way Marietta already knew that Umbridge could not possibly approve. Hunter: > On top of that, the DA wasn't *so* important that it was worth > risking all of them getting expelled (although, IMO, it would have > worked MORE against Umbridge if they all had been expelled...can you imagine the parental backlash?). It wasn't even that much of a fight against Umbridge, not in the way that the fireworks and the swamp destabiltized things. Valky: I agree in hindsight, but we have a luxury of that now that the students simply didn't in the Hogshead that day. The looming threat of war was inciting them into swift action, I would be lying if I said I wouldn't do the same myself, right or wrong and at any risk of expulsion. Its only seems so irrational looking back on the events of the year from this side of it. Can you honestly say that while you were reading OOtP chapters 15-17 the first time round that you *didn't* support Harry blazing his usual trail into the throes, fully and unreservedly? I know I certainly wanted him to. From syroun at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 19:50:15 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:50:15 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040909143101.21485.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112542 Valky wrote: > Frankly, why do you disregard so entirely that Snape was on the > path to being DE at this time? James saw a Dark man in Snape, and > he was *not* all that wrong. and Magda responded: > Nonsense. James saw a convenient target in Snape; there is nothing > in his attitude that suggests he took Snape seriously as an > opponent. Syroun: In response to Valky and in defense of Magda, et. Al. I belive that JKR intended to present Harry's parents as multifaceted characters, in order to forshadow Harry's behaviour and/or reaction in particular circumstances. He exhibits both his father's recklessness, at times, as well as his mother's compassion. All humans are driven by multiple factors and experiences, whether they be nature or nurture based. I have posted the following observation before without response: I believe that Harry, through Lupin/Sirius/the Pensieve, comes to find that his father possessed some qualities that he would rather not have. I believe that I am safe in saying that Harry would not want to be regarded as a Dudleyesque bully, after having been the brunt of such contempt as a child and it must have been difficult for him to come to the realisation that his father was not far from Dudley's mark, in that regard. On the other hand, Harry highly values his father's more positive qualities whilst embodying other variant qualities from his mother. Harry becomes a hybrid of his parents with, in my eyes, make him a far more formidable foe to LV than even the mere prophecy invokes. Past that, we know little of how or why Snape became a DE. We do know from basic human nature that grudges die hard, if ever, and those that spring from adolescence often follow us throughout our adult lives. This appears to be the case with Snape and James/Sirius. Hopefully, it will not be the case with Harry... Syroun From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 02:23:32 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:23:32 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112543 > Syroun: > > In response to Valky and in defense of Magda, et. Al. > I belive that JKR intended to present Harry's parents as > multifaceted characters, in order to forshadow Harry's behaviour > and/or reaction in particular circumstances. He exhibits both his > father's recklessness, at times, as well as his mother's compassion. > All humans are driven by multiple factors and experiences, whether > they be nature or nurture based. > > I have posted the following observation before without response: I > believe that Harry, through Lupin/Sirius/the Pensieve, comes to > find that his father possessed some qualities that he would rather > not have. Alla: Yes, yes I totally agree with this paragraph you wrote, BUT that is not exactly what happened to Harry, IMO. It seemed to me that after hearing from many people for several years that his father was a Saint, he is now ready to think of his father as a Devil. He does not just think that his father possessed some qualities he would rather not have, he is wondering why Lily married him. It is a normal porcess of growing up - recognising that your parents are not perfect, BUT since Harry's reactions here are so extreme (Don't get me wrong - I applaud him for empasizing with Snape), and there are two more books coming, I tend to think that in the next books JKR will flip the coin again, that few more surprises are coming for Harry, which will again change his picture of his father in a more positive way. Definitely, the thought of him or Sirius feuding with Snape for many years is built mainly on inferences so far. But inferences are there (Snape knowing dark curses early in life, James being a light wizard, who fought against Voldemort, whose family gave refuge to Sirius, when he escaped from his Dark family. Sirius and Remus saying that James always hated Dark Arts, etc. Of course, James' actions in the Pensieve were despicable. I just think that we don't see the complete picture yet. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 02:23:56 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:23:56 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" > > > Romulus Lupin wrote: > > > Ok, now, Frank Bryce. The Little Hangletonians at the pub say that > > Frank hadn't been right in the head since his return from war. But > > the war ended in August 1945, and I got the impression Frank's odd > > behavior had been going on for a while before the Riddle died, not > > just a few weeks. > > > > Frank Bryce may not have been in the war till the end. He may have > been discharged with "battle fatigue" (what we now call post- traumatic > stress disorder) in '41 or so. Much earlier at any rate than VE- day. > > -TL in GoF it is said of Frank by the villagers that 'he had a hard war' and that 'war turned him funny' and in the text that he 'had come back from the war with a very stiff leg ..." - all statements that I believe have led most readers, certainly me, to assume that 'the' war referred to is in the past/over. I don't think this is incorrect. However, if we are (yet again) nit-picking JKR's dates it will be no surprise at all (to me for one anyway) to find discrepancies. IMO too many of her statements of time are to create an impression rather than intended to be accurate, to withstand scrutiny - obvious examples include youngest seeker in a century, haven't won the cup in (however long it was) since Charlie Weasley's time, old and valuable Whomping willow etc. Some of JKR's dates WILL be significant, but many won't be - read them for their sense - literaryness not literalness. From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 9 20:19:37 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:19:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: <20040909.163940.3256.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112545 Marcela said: > "There was an odd feeling in the > group now. It was as though they had just signed some kind of > contract."... page 347. > Once again, Hermione didn't force anybody to join the group, she > invited them to meet with Harry and to associate with him, whom at > that moment was considered a 'pariah', they decided to sign by > themselves after Hermione's words of caution. Plus, if you're in the wizarding world, I think you would know that signing your name to a contract like that has some kind of magical implication, especially given Hermione's warning and the general mood. This is just supposition, but I would really expect that contracts are *binding* in the WW, and not by consequence of being sued. :) > If someone forced Marietta to sign or > attend the meeting, I would say it was Cho, Agree. Reason 101 of why I hate Cho is that she used extremely poor judgement in this, for inviting an insincere friend, not keeping tabs on her friend's true feelings, and not reporting any suspecions to Hermione or Harry. Cho, a Ravenclaw, is not an idiot; she knew that the DA was not just a little school club, and discovery of it would have extreme consequences. This is very rare for me to say, but, for once, I don't care that Cho is just a kid; In OOtP, the kids aren't really kids anymore, they're fighting a war. Time to grow up and take responsibility for your decisions. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 9 20:09:32 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:32 -0400 Subject: Snape, rescuing Harry, and occulamency (was: A thought popped in my head one night... ) Message-ID: <20040909.163940.3256.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112546 Alex said: > but he draws the line at leaving > him to die simply because he doesn't like him very much. > Why he doesn't [put aside his feelings to help Harry during Occulamency] > is up for grabs Aura now: Well, the times Snape did save Harry's life, it was a spontaneous thing. I see it less about rescuing *Harry* and more about doing his job to protect a *student*. Hogwarts is a dangerous school, as has been mentioned; the teachers have to look out for the kids. Snape did make a sincere effort to attempt to teach Harry Occulamency, but the sense of rescue or protection in that situation is very far-off and indefinate. Snape only intellectually knows that Harry knowing Occulamency is, probably, good for the Order; which is a very different thing than the emotional reaction of, "Oh, shit, a kid is about to be thrown from his broom and have his head split open like a melon." Plus, Snape only lost his temper after Harry humiliated him by looking into his penseive. After that, I think Snape's bruised ego -- both over the memory Harry saw and how Snape behaved afterwards -- plus quite a bit of resentment prevented Snape from reinstituting Occulamency lessons. PS: I just looked at a Far Side called Graffiti in Hell, i.e. "Satan is a nice guy," a smily face with horns with "Satan" arrowed at it, etc, and Satan looks furious. Replace "Satan" with "Snape" and the pitch fork with a wand and it's soooo apropo. LOL! Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 02:45:46 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 22:45:46 -0400 Subject: Changeling Hypothesis: Is it flawed? Message-ID: <001501c496e0$46dd3780$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 112547 I have been reading Mugglenet and RedHen's essays on the Changeling Hypothesis, and I'm wondering if anyone else has at least a question about a statement in canon made by TR in CoS as it relates to these theories. Specifically, Tom tells Harry in the Chamber that he began to pour a little of his soul into Ginny. Much is made of Harry having 2 souls in the Changeling Hypothesis, and I'm wondering why this canon is excluded from those theories; I'm thinking that Harry only has a *piece* of TR's soul, and questioning if there could possibly be other pieces out there in the WW? We know that TR/LV was experimenting with ways to avoid death....that's not to say Harry doesn't have a substantial piece, but what does Ginny have? Who or what else has one? If TR is just a memory in a diary, how can he "pour a little" of a soul he doesn't have into Ginny? Very confusing - all comments welcome to put me out of my confusion nightmare. This one confounds me more than TT, if you can believe that... charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 02:52:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:52:18 -0000 Subject: Magic and the Dursleys (Was) Theory of theme & Opinions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112548 Laurasia wrote: > My opinion that JKR makes magic exist only in the > physical plane is supported by her choice to make the > Dursleys fearful of magic in a real and physical sense. It is > supported by the canon fact that Vernon is so convinced > there are magic explanations about that he dares to bring > up the Potters with Petunia after pretending they haven't > existed for years. It is supported by the fact that Vernon > doesn't say `There's no such thing as magic' but > shoves Harry into his cupboard with `Go - cupboard > -stay - no meals.' When Hagrid tells Harry he is a > wizard, Vernon doesn't say `No he's not! Magic > doesn't exist!' he says `swore we'd stamp it out > of him!' This suggests that Vernon considers magic > real, unpleasant and dangerous. > > This means your [Caspen's] irony/metaphor theory has just gone right out the window. It relies on knowing that JKR holds disdain for > the real world-occult, yet has written a book about it. Which > means she must have done so with the *intent* to be ironic. > By your own reasoning- it is not necessary relevant or any > of our (or your!) business, as you presume it is, to examine > whether JKR has an intent to be ironic or literal. Carol: I hope I'm not making a mistake by stepping into your debate with Caspen. Certainly, not being as patient and tolerant as you clearly are, I won't answer any responses to my view that label them as absurd. Calling an argument absurd does not refute it, and I would never do that. (If I think an argument is absurd, I may privately roll up my eyes, but I would not attempt to answer it.) That said, I want to respond to a few of your points without attacking them. Instead, I'll give reasons why I agree or disagree and try to support them with logic and evidence. To begin with, I disagree (politely and civilly) with your view that all opinions are equal. Suppose I said that Dumbledore and Dursley are clearly the same person because their names both begin with "D"? That opinion *would* be absurd, however uncivil it would be to label it so. An opinion, to be worthy of debate, must be based on inductive or deductive reasoning (not emotions or personal preference or "how it looks to me") and must be supportable with evidence that others will accept as valid. Not all opinions can meet these criteria, so not all opinions are equal. I certainly agree that Vernon Dursley is aware of the existence of magic and fears it. In fact, it would be difficult to argue with that assertion, which I'm tempted to call "fact" (or, rather, "canon"). We see that awareness and the accompanying fear from the moment he sees (and immediately denies seeing) a cat reading a map. We also see it in his refusal to allow Harry to use the "M" word and his growing fear of Harry as the books progress. Even in SS/PS he knows that Harry was somehow responsible for the vanishing glass in the snake's cage and he personally witnesses Hagrid giving his son a pig's tail. He tries to keep Harry from going to Hogwarts. There is no question that Vernon Dursley knows that magic exists and considers it dangerous. Your inference that magic exists in HP on a physical plane, and that even some Muggles are aware of it, follows logically and inevitably from this evidence (which can be applied to the whole Dursley family and other Muggles who are less afraid of it, as well). But you could also argue that magic exists on a *spiritual* plane in the WW (though not necessarily in the world of Vernon Dursley!). The veil, the (apparently) true prophecies bottled by the MoM, the very existence of a Department of Mysteries that studies such intangibles as death and time, and even the existence of ghosts would appear to support this view. The fact that magic in the HP books exists on a physical plane perceivable by Muggles does not exclude the possibility that it *also* exists on a spiritual one only partially understood even by wizards themselves, any more than the existence of body necessarily precludes the existence of spirit in the WW or the world as we know it. To argue (as you appear to be doing) that because Vernon Dursley is aware of magic on a physical plane, JKR herself must somehow believe in "the real-world occult," is also not logical. The beliefs and values of a character, particularly one as unpleasant as Vernon Dursley, don't necessarily reflect those of the author who created him. Nor does the world of JKR's imagination exactly reflect her perception of the day-to-day world in which she writes them, in which floating puddings and pig's tails on fat boys' bottoms are likely to be computer-generated special effects and most unlikely to be caused by magic or the supernatural. IOW, just because magic exists as a "fact" in her books does not mean that she believes in the occult or any kind of magic in real life. (In fact, she has said in interviews that she doesn't.) Even if it turns out that the practical-minded Hermione and McGonagall are wrong to dismiss Trelawney's attempts at divination as fraud (after all, Trelawney did see a black dog that was probably Sirius in her crystal ball even though she misinterpreted it as a Grim), we can't translate what happens in the WW to what JKR believes about the RW. (I personally think Trelawney is a spoof of British New Agers who believe in the occult and actually have "universities" that teach students how to read tea leaves, but I can't prove that and don't see the point of trying.) I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to the larger question of author's intention, which is extremely complex and has never been satisfactorily resolved, but you might recall that the Greeks who wrote the epics and the tragedies that we still read 2,500 years later did not credit themselves with creating those works. They believed that they were divinely "inspired" (they *breathed in* and were exalted by the spirit of the Muse, transcribing her words rather than inventing their own). Although we reject such a supernatural explanation today, we're still not exactly sure how the creative process works. I would be inclined to say that much of it is unconscious--it comes from parts of our minds that we normally can't access and can't consciously control. The process of revision, in contrast, is almost wholly conscious and deliberate. To try to determine which elements of a literary work are conscious and which are unconscious is probably futile and will not, IMO, help us to determine either a book's worth or that of its author. More important, it won't help us to determine its meaning, which is partly dependent on the text, with all its intended and unintended meanings, and partly on what Tolkien called "applicability"--the freedom of the reader to interpret the text in relation to his own experience and training (without reading into it what isn't there--say, a reading of Sirius's relationship with his dead mother as an Oedipus complex or a heroic quest). If the author solely determines the meaning and all that matters is the words on the page, why are we here discussing the books? Read them once and forget about them. There's only one meaning that's obvious to everyone (clearly not the case). OTOH, if the text itself doesn't matter and every opinion is as good as every other opinion, why attempt to present a plausible explanation of some less than obvious aspect of the books, much less support it with canon? Just state your view and be done with it. If that's the case, I can say that Snape is a Christ figure and no one can prove me wrong (or at least show my argument to be faulty) because it's mine and I wants it to be true. Erm, I mean, because it's just as good as an argument that Snape is genuinely loyal to Dumbledore even though there isn't an iota of evidence to support it. Clearly the author's words and the reader's interpretation are both important, but the interpretation must be based upon the words or it's not interpretation but the product of the reader's imagination. I do think that an author's intention can sometimes be inferred from the text (for example, we can infer that JKR has fairly liberal political views from the house-elf and pureblood segments), but as readers we're free to agree or disagree about the applicability or relevance of these inferences (if we acknowledge their validity) to our own interpretations of the work. (If the reader happens to be a conservative who disagrees with JKR's apparent views, does that authomatically make his or her interpretations of the house-elf or pureblood segments wrong? I would hope not.) We can also apply the author's *stated* intentions (interviews, website, etc.) to our interpretations of the books. But if we disagree with her statements and/or implications (e.g., that Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness" or that Gryffindor is better than the other houses), does that make our interpretations wrong? It may mean, instead, that JKR has not succeeded in transferring her intentions from her mind to her book and so failed to convince us that Dumbledore is a saint or that all Slytherins are inferior to Gryffindors. So are the books inferior or inadequate if she failed to make the readers see the characters as she wants us to? I think otherwise. The books, in this instance, are greater than the author, talented though she undoubtedly is. They have taken on a life of their own far beyond any intentions of the maker (sorry--LOTR on the brain). Snape in particular is a marvelous creation and will continue to provoke debate long after JKR has given us what she considers to be the last word on him. Or so I hope. Carol, who certainly didn't mean to write such a long post, but it escaped her conscious control, and who apologizes if she misunderstood laurasia's arguments From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 9 23:42:15 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:42:15 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape + totally a shallow Snape q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112549 Hannah wrote, in answer to question about Snape's hair: > People have some fantastic theories about this, it's > been great reading them. Snape's hair seems significant, virtually > every time he is described by a character or in the narrative it's > mentioned. My initial impresison of the Snape's Hair Thing (along with it's pal, the Snape's Nose Thing) is that JKR was trying to teach a simple moral lesson about not judging a book by it's cover. let's look at his Very First Appearance in PS (SS). It's on page 126, and he's described with his 3 trademark traits--greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin. Then he looks at Harry, Harry gets a pain in his scar, and he comes to the (erroneous, as we all know) conclusion that Snape had something to do with the pain. He doesn't hear about Snape's rumored involvement in the Dark Arts until fully a third of the page later. When Snape starts on being nasty, we-the-readers get the impression that in this case the cover was an accurate representation of the book. But as the series progresses, we begin to suspect that Snape's Nastiness is yet more cover--and we're still not sure what the book is. I have a feeling that the general upshot of the Snape Storyline is going to be that Good is not Always Pretty. But maybe that's a simplistic analysis. The other thing I thought of as I was typing this up is that Snape's appearance has almost all of the hallmarks of the stereotypical Wicked Witch (his gender and lack of wart are the two missing elements of the sterotype). Not sure what to make of that. Alex From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 03:01:01 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:01:01 -0000 Subject: Changeling Hypothesis: Is it flawed? In-Reply-To: <001501c496e0$46dd3780$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > We know that TR/LV was experimenting with ways to avoid death....that's not > to say Harry doesn't have a substantial piece, but what does Ginny have? > Who or what else has one? If TR is just a memory in a diary, how can he > "pour a little" of a soul he doesn't have into Ginny? GEO: Probably because the original put a bit of himself into the diary in order to give it some semblance of life. As for Harry, he doesn't have a piece of Voldemort in him, if he did it wouldn't survive in him just as Voldemort's spirit could not survive in Harry when he tried to take the boy over. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 03:09:05 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:09:05 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" wrote: > And the more we discuss PoA in depth, the more I really think that > McGonnigal and Dumbledore were extremely rash in allowing Hermione to > TT for more classes. Yes, she's the brightest wizard of her age. > Yes, she obeyed the rules and nothing "bad" happened. But it cost > Hermione roughly a month or so of her life (living 1-3 or more "extra" > hours all school year--in effect 27 hour days in a 24 hour period). GEO: You're forgetting that the wizards can age 1/2 the rate as normal people. It's not exactly a large sacrifice in itself and in the end she still had the same amount of time on Earth as the rest of them. > Did anyone at Hogwarts consult with Dr. & Dr. > Granger, explaining the "lost month" of life? There's no canon for > it, so we just have to guess, but it bothers me that the "good guys" > would do something so risky with a 13 y/o. GEO: I really don't think the Grangers at this moment care. If they allowed their daughter to go back after the basilisk petrified her, I don't think they'd care about a month off her life. > > I guess I don't think Muggle Studies and Divination were worth the > price of a month of her life. > > Of course, giving Hermione a TT was necessary for the plot of a fun > book and *Harry* is our protagonist. But I still don't like it. GEO: And the life lessons that Hermione learns from the tt I think is certainly worth it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 03:13:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:13:20 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112552 Hen Wen wrote: > > Please correct me if I am wrong -- I thought that Lily's > grandparents were wizards. I got that impression from the FAQ About the Books section of JKR's website. Under the question of Half-Blood/Pure-Blood she write "Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half wizard' because of his mother's grandparents." > > > > I take that to imply that Lily's grandparents were wizards. Their > > child (one of Lily's parents) must have been a squib. > > > From Karen: > > James Potter is a full-blood. For Harry to be a half-blood, Lily is > a Muggle. Therefore, Lily's grandparents are Muggles. Carol: Not a Muggle (a person with no magical powers) but a Muggleborn, the witch or wizard child of two Muggles. She still has Muggle blood in the sense that her parents are Muggles, which explains how Harry can be a Half-blood despite having a witch and a wizard as parents. I think the part about "Lily's grandparents" is another slip of the keyboard; JKR seems to have meant "Lily's parents"/"Harry's grandparents." At any rate, there's no doubt from the books that Lily is a Muggleborn. Young Snape calls her a "mudblood"; young Tom Riddle compares her with his own father, as always equating Muggles with Muggleborns. Her parents are Muggles and so is her sister (as we've been told repeatedly since the first chapter of the first book). Her grandparents were presumably Muggles as well, but it's her parents who are important in determining Harry's status as a half-blood, no different in Riddle!Voldemort's view from himself as far as bloodlines go. Carol From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 03:22:42 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:22:42 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greatelderone" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" > wrote: > > And the more we discuss PoA in depth, the more I really think that > > McGonnigal and Dumbledore were extremely rash in allowing Hermione > to > > TT for more classes. Yes, she's the brightest wizard of her age. > > Yes, she obeyed the rules and nothing "bad" happened. But it cost > > Hermione roughly a month or so of her life (living 1-3 or > more "extra" > > hours all school year--in effect 27 hour days in a 24 hour > period). > > GEO: You're forgetting that the wizards can age 1/2 the rate as > normal people. It's not exactly a large sacrifice in itself and in > the end she still had the same amount of time on Earth as the rest > of them. > No, I didn't. I realize it's not a lot of time, especially to a wizard. But there's nothing I wouldn't do to get an extra month with my father or grandfather. It's easy to write off time when you've got a lot left. But when you're at the end...you may well regret it. > > > Did anyone at Hogwarts consult with Dr. & Dr. > > Granger, explaining the "lost month" of life? There's no canon for > > it, so we just have to guess, but it bothers me that the "good > guys" > > would do something so risky with a 13 y/o. > > GEO: I really don't think the Grangers at this moment care. If they > allowed their daughter to go back after the basilisk petrified her, > I don't think they'd care about a month off her life. lol--that's a point. However, Hermione is only 13 in PoA. She's not mature enough to be signing away an hour of her life, much less a month. I'll just pretend her parents were consulted. There. All better now. ;^) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 04:04:19 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:04:19 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112554 Alex wrote: > Valky (yes it was me!) wrote, among other insightful things, -- James saw a Dark man in Snape, and he was *not* all that wrong.-- > > I have to say, I'm not sure where you get this. I think if we were "supposed" (there's that word again....) to read James as acting out of conviction that Snape is a Bad Man and has it coming to him for those reasons, we'd have heard him say *something* that's open to that interpretation. Perhaps when Lily asks him "What's he ever done to you?", if not before. Maybe he'd say "Hey, there's that evil git....... >instead of "Excellent. Snivellus." His remarks are a bit of puerile wordplay with Snape's name, not a condemnation of > his existence on moral grounds. Hannah: > I think the name 'Snivellus' is significant in the whole marauders/Snape feud. The name implies 'snivelling' - crying, whining, being weak. It's the sort of name a bully might give a pathetic, greasy haired kid with a rather dodgy background, who cries when he gets teased by the handsome, popular bully (not naming any names, but you get the picture...) during his first years. It's > not the sort of name that you give someone you suspect to be evil. > The way they use the name is also interesting. They emphasise it, using it as a deliberate taunt - maybe harking back to some time they made Snape cry (snivel). Taunting someone with a name, IMO, is the behaviour of a bully picking on a weaker victim, not a brave > Gryffindor challenging a suspected Junior Dark Wizard. Valky now: You are both right indeed that the name Snivellus is a puerile inference of their superiority that hearkens an actual instance when Young Snape actually *did* cry. There is almost no doubt of this. However, I do not see the shallow pool of the bully rhetoric Hannah suggests reflecting fifteen year old James at all. Nor Sirius for that matter. Let's investigate their sense of superiority in Sirius own words. In POA we are told that James and Sirius befriend a WW outcast discovering his inner greatness and redeeming a wrongly condemned child from his tragic existence into the arms of unselfish, bigotry free brotherhood. The defense for Snape in the pensieve is that he was minding his own business. Hmm... was he also minding his own business while others disdained First Year Remus arriving from his transformations deprived of sleep and looking haggard and unkempt? Indeed I think he was. Was it Snape who made to give lonesome tragic Remus a kindness he had never known and was unfairly denied. No it was James and Sirius. In GOF Sirius relates to us that the world was dark and awful when LV was terrorising the neighbourhood. It was well known that he had turned the Dark Arts on the community. Killed people they knew and their dearly beloved, created enmity and discord among the wizardkind turning brother against brother (I am sure Sirius and Regulus weren't the first.) ,crushed innocence in his furious pinch, bereaved good people before their time. He was a monster *Obsessed with the Dark Arts* and EVERYONE had suffered some loss to his cause and by his practice of Dark Arts. In hindsight, look at two boys living in the age of WWII. If one of those boys believed that the Third Reich was a bunch of crock and made fun of the other boy, who read it at school...... does it matter if the Reich boy practiced any anti Judaism? If the first boy thought in his own mind he was somewhat superior to the boy reading the Third Reich. You would probably say he was right, yes? And even if this first boy was a bully and a fool so as to taunt the second one endlessly through his days in school..... openly deride the principles of the Third Reich in public to him...... and behave like an absolute prat. You would yet see now, knowing the atrocities that the Reich incited, that it is the first boy who is the one of the two who was fighting the *good* cause. Would you not? In GOF and OOtP we are furnished that Snape was a young boy who liked, probably practiced (fly killer),and was reputed to be knee deep in Dark Arts. This is as much as saying Snape is that boy, wether or not he supported Voldemort/Hitler, he was entrenched in the Warlords fundamental principles. And hence my analogy sticks like a crazy glue. So James and Sirius thought they were superior to Snape, they even made him cry. Is that *really* such a bad thing given the context of the story? I am still not saying that their actions were right. But are they entitled to their delusion of superiority, after all? Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 04:22:21 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:22:21 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112555 > Syroun: > In response to Valky and in defense of Magda, et. Al. > I belive that JKR intended to present Harry's parents as > multifaceted characters, > I have posted the following observation before without response: I > believe that Harry, through Lupin/Sirius/the Pensieve, comes to > find that his father possessed some qualities that he would rather > not have. > Alla: > Yes, yes I totally agree with this paragraph you wrote, BUT that is > not exactly what happened to Harry, IMO. > It seemed to me that after hearing from many people for several > years that his father was a Saint, he is now ready to think of his > father as a Devil. > He does not just think that his father possessed some qualities he > would rather not have, he is wondering why Lily married him. Valky Now: I also agree that the point is to illustrate to Harry and the reader that James was *not* a saint. However, I insist that further to this JKR is *also* illustrating that on the whole _good people_ are not saints. They are flawed and have layers of ego that can disguise their true self. We have argued time and time again that this is the message woven deeply into Snape. And those who did met with entirely as much resistance as I have in defending James this way. The tragedy of the story is that it is probably true of both James and Snape. Had it not been for LV's 'gift for spreading enmity and discord' they may have at some point realised that they were very *like* creatures both with their flaws and misgivings and both with their multifaceted brilliance. I do not suppose that they would have been good friends, though they might have been, but I do suspect they would have worked together brilliantly. Perhaps with a little, at best lighthearted, disdain for each others vanity. Alla continues: > It is a normal porcess of growing up - recognising that your parents are not perfect, BUT since Harry's reactions here are so extreme (Don't get me wrong - I applaud him for empasizing with Snape), and there are two more books coming, I tend to think that in the next books JKR will flip the coin again, that few more surprises are coming for Harry, which will again change his picture of his father in a more positive way. Valky: I just wanted to say YES! to this Alla. You are soo right. We will be flipped this way and that on Snape and James until the final chapters of the series. We will question endlessly these two men until we can question no more and just throw up our hands saying "OK JK just tell us, we give in. Who is Snape? and who is James?" I am sure JKR would just be glad if we are having fun. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Sep 10 04:27:58 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:27:58 -0000 Subject: Changeling Hypothesis: Is it flawed? In-Reply-To: <001501c496e0$46dd3780$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112556 charme wrote: > I have been reading Mugglenet and RedHen's essays on the Changeling > Hypothesis, and I'm wondering if anyone else has at least a question about a > statement in canon made by TR in CoS as it relates to these theories. > Specifically, Tom tells Harry in the Chamber that he began to pour a little > of his soul into Ginny. Much is made of Harry having 2 souls in the > Changeling Hypothesis, and I'm wondering why this canon is excluded from > those theories; I'm thinking that Harry only has a *piece* of TR's soul, and > questioning if there could possibly be other pieces out there in the WW? > We know that TR/LV was experimenting with ways to avoid death....that's not > to say Harry doesn't have a substantial piece, but what does Ginny have? > Who or what else has one? If TR is just a memory in a diary, how can he > "pour a little" of a soul he doesn't have into Ginny? Yb now: I kinda took it to be a figure of speech: He's sharing secrets, but she's sharing more, since Diary!Tom has the power to control her, and eventually begin sucking her life. Plus, if that isn't true, maybe TR put a little of his soul in the Diary, to make it a little more "feely," so it could connect with the user a little more. ~Yb From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 05:02:11 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:02:11 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112557 Mac wrote: > > in GoF it is said of Frank by the villagers that 'he had a hard war' > and that 'war turned him funny' and in the text that he 'had come > back from the war with a very stiff leg ..." - all statements that I > believe have led most readers, certainly me, to assume that 'the' > war referred to is in the past/over. Forgive me for not having my books unpacked yet, so I can't go and re-read, but I don't see how those quotes indicate that Frank himself was in the service until the war was over. The war is over in '45, but couldn't Frank have been sent back sooner, turned "funny" by the war that is now (of '45) over? Or am I just befuddled by too much talk about time-travel tonight? -TL From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 06:44:48 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:44:48 -0000 Subject: Molly's touch (was: Lupin's touch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: I absolutely agree. This scene was SO poignant that it > bought a tear to MY eye too. > So, by the time Molly's hug was offered, > when Harry's heart was in any case fit to burst in sorrow, it wasn't > unwelcome, it didn't mean nothing and it certainly wasn't > embarrassing. Why he wanted Ron to look away was because he didn't > want his mate to see him cry/vulnerable and/or to be jealous. Geoff: Speaking as another bloke and an English one at that, I'll wager that it was the former - he didn't want /anyone/ to see him crying and vulnerable. I don't think, from my own experience, that jealousy even entered into it. It's that damned "boys don't cry" syndrome which is overtly or covertly hammered into us here in the UK...... Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 06:46:18 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:46:18 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <20040909195734.64091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Well, the problem I have with Hermione's actions is: > if everything is so important and it's so vitally > crucial that no one fink or rat out the group, then why on earth > wouldn't you take more care in selecting who gets invited to join > the group in the first place? > > That's where I think Hermione really went wrong; she should have only asked a couple of people she trusted to recruit members and checked each one over before they were actually invited to any meeting. Then maybe the daughter of a MoM employee might have been weeded out at the beginning. > > Magda > Valky: To be fair, I think that it needs to be said here, Hermione was trying to be unselfish by deliberatley *not* weeding out people who want to learn to defend themselves against the Dark Arts. Do you honestly think that Harry or Hermione could or would deny a fellow student what they have to offer in a time of crisis on the grounds that their parents had some certain job. I can't see it. I can't see it being entirely fair either. Sirius was judged this way. It's hardly likely that Harry would allow it to happen in his own team. Hermione may have looked at all the options and decided the only fair way was to use the Proteus Charm, let the only judge of a members loyalty be their own heart. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 06:57:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 06:57:16 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" wrote: > Mac wrote: > > > > in GoF it is said of Frank by the villagers that 'he had a hard war' > > and that 'war turned him funny' and in the text that he 'had come > > back from the war with a very stiff leg ..." - all statements that I > > believe have led most readers, certainly me, to assume that 'the' > > war referred to is in the past/over. -TL: > Forgive me for not having my books unpacked yet, so I can't go and > re-read, but I don't see how those quotes indicate that Frank himself > was in the service until the war was over. > > The war is over in '45, but couldn't Frank have been sent back sooner, > turned "funny" by the war that is now (of '45) over? > > Or am I just befuddled by too much talk about time-travel tonight? Geoff: I would agree that there is not enough evidence to confirm that Frank Bryce came home from the war in 1945. The fact that he came home with a stiff leg and also.. "a great dislike of crowds and noises" (GOF "The Riddle House" p.8 UK edition) rather suggests earlier to me. He could easily have been with the BEF in France in 1939/40 and been evacuated from Dunkirk when many servicemen were injured or killed and if he had been under intense fire and bombing on the beaches, that could explain his wish for a quiet life. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 05:49:17 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:49:17 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112561 Valky wrote: > So James and Sirius thought they were superior to Snape, they even > made him cry. > Is that *really* such a bad thing given the context of the story? > I am still not saying that their actions were right. But are they > entitled to their delusion of superiority, after all? I would say, yes, it is really such a bad thing, and no, they are not entitled to their delusion of superiority. But that's not a matter of textual interpretation. Obviously, since we're both intelligent readers and have done so, the scene can be read either way. IMHO, to say that James's actions were ultimately OK, because he's a good guy and he was picking on a bad guy, undermines the very point that you're trying to make--that good people can do bad things, and vice versa. It was a Bad Thing. It doesn't make James a bad person, nor does the fact of having been picked on excuse Snape for any of the vile things he has surely done off camera. But it was a Bad Thing. Good people can do Bad Things, they are just (according to my moral compass, which is of course not the same as everyone's) required to be ashamed of them. Lupin, and to an extent Sirius, demonstrate when they're talking to Harry about the pensieve scene that they are, indeed, ashamed of having bullied Snape. We don't know whether James had time to grow up enough to be ashamed of it or not. He probably did, but we don't know. If Harry went back in time with the Time Turner (I'm mixing up my threads here...) and turned Tom Riddle upside down to show the entire school his underpants, that would *still* be a Bad Thing. Even though Tom Riddle grows up to be a much worse person than the Snape that we see in the Pensieve grows up to be. It's bad because depriving people of their dignity (without some compelling reason) is bad, regardless of whether the victim has done something else bad first. Now, if James et. al. for some reason believed that tormenting Snape would make him realize the error of his ways and stop being mean to other people, that would be a different story. I would still, moral absolutist that I am, expect them to be the eensiest bit ashamed of having done something Bad in the service of a greater good, but if they came to me crying that they just felt awful for what they had had to do to poor Snivelly, I'd probably tell them they were being too hard on themselves. However, the point is a bit moot (at least with regard to this particular scene), because there's no indication that James et. al. thought tormenting Snape would serve any purpose but their own amusement. However, I suspect that this is not an issue on which either of us is likely to budge (I know I'm not, anyway), so perhaps I should find something else to talk about for a while. Alex From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 07:06:33 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:06:33 -0000 Subject: PoA Time-travel Question for those who think the past can be changed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112562 HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" > >what happens in *this* book is that Harry goes back via a TT > > to the *same timeline.* PoA is firmly, consistently, and > logically a one timeline book. > > > > Mac: > > Also, has H&H materialised early there would have been two pairs of them in the Hospital Wing (but rules say they can't see themselves) and had they been late getting back then there's be a period when they were gone but not yet returned - i.e. literally disappeared. Maybe this is what happened to that OotP member who disappeared without trace? > Valky: THis is a *very* interesting Theory Mac. First I would like to correct you on one matter, which is really hard to pin down and visualise clearly. Because H&H TT'd backwards into the past there is no space in time where there neither are there. (A long explanation is probably necessary but with all these TT threads do we really need the headache. ;D ) However, If they time turn forward just one hour then YES there is a spot in time devoid of Harry and Hermione. Wow! THere's Caradoc ! Rhymes with Paradox! and I thought that JKR wouldn't use any more of those name clues after Lupin.. LOL Cool Post Mac! From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 10 07:08:53 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:08:53 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Inge: > How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and > future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort is - at > that point - not in his past or present - only in his future... Ah! Some of us have a theory which would explain that - sort of. It's tied into the 'Possession' idea. Tom is Tom, but Voldy is Tom plus an evil entity (probably essence of Salazar Slytherin) that possessed him when he entered the Chamber as a schoolboy. Since Salazar's undead spirit has been around forever - well, for centuries anyway, and since it's more or less immortal (hence Vapor!Mort after Godric's Hollow and the Philosophers Stone episode), Tom's submission to it means that he is now part of something that pre-dates him and is also his future. Kneasy From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 07:23:35 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:23:35 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: Inge: How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort is - at that point - not in his past or present - only in his future... "arrowsmithbt" replied: Ah! Some of us have a theory which would explain that - sort of. It's tied into the 'Possession' idea. Tom is Tom, but Voldy is Tom plus an evil entity (probably essence of Salazar Slytherin) that possessed him when he entered the Chamber as a schoolboy. Since Salazar's undead spirit has been around forever - well, for centuries anyway, and since it's more or less immortal (hence Vapor!Mort after Godric's Hollow and the Philosophers Stone episode), Tom's submission to it means that he is now part of something that pre-dates him and is also his future. Kneasy Inge again: Riddle's line in COS is one of my favorites in the books - but it still quite doesn't make sense. If what you said is in fact what he meant with those words - wouldn't it have been more correct for him to have said: "*Salazar Slytherin* is my past, present and future" ?? At 16 Voldemort can not be part of Riddle's past and present. Slytherin can - but not Voldemort. From saitaina at frontiernet.net Fri Sep 10 07:31:56 2004 From: saitaina at frontiernet.net (Saitaina) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:31:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <037a01c49708$40d749c0$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> No: HPFGUIDX 112565 Inge wrote: Actually, at that point of the book, Voldemort was a part of Tom Riddle's past. Tom Riddle was very close to becoming a living, breathing human being via Ginny when he was speaking. He knew everything that had gone on thanks to Ginny, and he knows that via Lucius, Voldemort helped him on his way to becoming human again. That makes Voldemort a part of his new past. Not only that but Tom was also already using the name of Voldemort at school (during his time, of which the memory remembers). There is no telling how long he was using it amongst his friends, which makes "Voldemort" part of his past and present. Granted the scaly, snake like disappointment we all know and love wasn't a part of Tom's past, but the ideas, the plan, the power, the very name. That was all very much a part of Tom's past and present (I discount future in this sentence because that's were scaly man lives...and he's not Tom). Saitaina **** "...And you," Harry said to Draco. "Let me define the term rescue to you. It's not to come and then having to be saved yourself." 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 tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Thu Sep 9 20:17:09 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:17:09 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: <20040909195734.64091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112566 magda wrote: > That's where I think Hermione really went wrong; she should have only > asked a couple of people she trusted to recruit members and checked > each one over before they were actually invited to any meeting. Then > maybe the daughter of a MoM employee might have been weeded out at > the beginning. > > I know, I know...plot device...but still.... > > Magda > Maybe she thought about it, but it would greatly have limited the interest of the DA. One of the big reason for creating the DA was for them to recognize Harry as a human being and a friend and maybe a teacher, not a distant hero but someone that we respect and know.... And Hermione couldn't very well do that if all the menbers were already friends. Totorivers From caesian at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 08:24:34 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:24:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112567 Alex wrote: I have a feeling that the general upshot of the Snape Storyline is going to be that Good is not Always Pretty.? But maybe that's a simplistic analysis. frugalarugala wrote: > Well, maybe he wears it longer and keeps it greasy so it's lank and > not all fly-away like James'/Harry's hair is described. Snape might > have "Potter hair" if it were short and washed. > > Okay, now secret-family-theorists, step right up and run with > that...? Caesian: Well, actually, he inherited his greasy hair from his estranged family, Mr. Borgin of Knockturn Alley (post # 96654) ;-). I quote: It seems ridiculous to think that J.K.R., who mentions Sirius Black in the first chapter of the first book, has not already provided us with more background than we realize on Snape. My own pet theory is that he is the estranged son of the greasy-haired Mr. Borgin, proprietor of Knockturn Alley's Borgin & Burkes. Obsession and great knowledge of the dark arts? Inferior status to the likes of wealthy pureblooks like the Malfoys? Greasy hair? And why else are we aquainted with Mr. Borgin? Cheers, Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinainfay at msn.com Fri Sep 10 01:16:20 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:16:20 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112568 Kneasy wrote: > > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get?> > I can think of a few examples: "Fair Ravenclaw from Glen" (one of the Sorting Hat's songs) and I think the general impression of the Veela was that they were beautiful, obviously before they threw a fit. And Arthur comments about not going (for girls) based on looks alone. But as far as the students, they are generally described in ways other than 'ooh, she's so pretty' etc. Ron certainly notices who is NOT beautiful when thinking about who to ask to the Yule Ball. ~tina From caesian at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 08:55:47 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:55:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Antidote to Nagini Venom? (was Re: OoTP,chap 15,...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3517787E-0307-11D9-829E-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112569 > Finwitch: > > > > Well, more to the point, Nagini is a venomous snake, otherwise > Wormtail couldn't milk it for venom. (not all of them are, some, > like boas or anakondas aren't venomous, they strangle the victim > instead.? No less dangerous...). Note that the Snake Harry freed in > the zoo was a boa, and not venomous! > > > > Nagini is a big snake, though - and not a Basilisk either... > > > > Valky: > HOLD THE PRESS!!!!! > I found what Hermione's essay on venoms had in it! > Third page of chapter 16 OOtP, Hermione is copying a diagram of > Chinese Chomping Cabbages. > Interestingly Harry is also looking at a reference with Asian > flavour. Asiatic Anti-Venoms! Caesian: A little something that might be a clue for later. When Mr. Weasley is attacked, an antidote is eventually found for the snake venom in his wounds. This was evidently something of a challenge for the healer. There is no reason to conclude that the snake that bit Arthur Weasley was any particular snake we know, or even was a real snake. But, since we already know one big poisonous snake by name, it /might/ have been that travesty-on-a-hearth-rug, Nagini. IF it was Nagini (which means there is now an antidote available to Nagini Venom), THEN an antidote is available to one of the critical ingredients in Voldemort's resurrection. For what that might be worth... Thing that make you go hmmm. Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 10 09:32:57 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:32:57 -0400 Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: <002e01c49719$289fbbb0$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112570 Inge said: "At 16 Voldemort can not be part of Riddle's past and present. Slytherin can" DuffyPoo: Tom Riddle said that at 16 he was already using the Lord Voldemort name with his closest friends. "It was a name I was already using at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course." (CoS - The Heir of Slytherin) So, LV *can* be part of Riddle's past - if he's used the name among initimate friends, we can presume it was for at least a few months before he put himself in the diary - and present - because at 16 TR is already calling himself LV. What he knows of future LV is what he has been told by those writing in his journal: Ginny, Harry, possibly Sr. Malfoy, and, most likley, LV himself added to the memory. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 10 09:33:24 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:33:24 -0400 Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: <003201c49719$3872a2f0$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112571 The Other Cheryl said: "Snape saw the Patronus retreating and told DD what form it took" DuffyPoo: Staying completely out of the TimeTurning business because I just don't get it...but I did notice this. "What amazes me most is the behaviour of the Dementors ... you've really no idea what made them retreat, Snape?" "No, Minister. By the time I had come round they were heading back to their positions at the entrances .." So you're saying Snape is lying here when he tells Fudge he doesn't know what happened? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 09:36:06 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:36:06 -0000 Subject: The DA (was: "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112572 Valky previously: > >>2 Voldemort is alive and kicking and mortally dangerous to every > last inhabitant of the Wizard World. Someones gotta fight him! > Dumbledores Army is doing the WW a service beyond anything else..<< HunterGreen previously: > How so? Most of the students are not personal targets of >Voldemort, and are unlikely to encounter him unless they join the >Order or become aurors, and in either case they'd be around older >wizards who can train them. Valky Replied: >>I do see your point. The students are not personal targets, most of them anyway. Yet they all have reason to believe that in Voldemorts war its not personal. Cedric was lost to Voldemort in a sudden and entirely impersonal instant, and the attacks of the Basilisk were barely personal.<< HunterGreen: But in both of those cases, knowing DADA curses wouldn't have helped. Cedric was killed before he (or Harry) knew what was happening, and by the time you knew the basilisk was there, you were already dead. I see what you mean here, but the chances that Voldemort was going to break into the school while he was still incognito were very small. The DE's have nothing to gain by attacking children. Valky: >>This is all without mentioning Hermione's partially selfish and personal motivation to learn from Harry because she has a pair of Dentists for parents with no such equipment if they were to find themselves by chance in the way of Voldemorts flight.<< HunterGreen: Hermione is a different matter. I'd say that Hermione, and Ron *do* need to learn DADA curses (although I don't really understand how they *taught* the curses to Harry the previous year without learning them themselves; the only exception being the patronus charm; in any case, we know they certainly know their way around expelliarmus). Harry could have taught them in the common room late at night or in the shrieking shack (since the three of them can fit under the invisibility cloak). Or he could have taught them (along with Ginny and Fred and George) in Grimmauld Place over Christmas break. Valky: >>I am in not trying to say that Harry's teaching could prepare the students for a battle with LV, far from it. We all see how the battle between himself and DD plays out in the MOM. What student could even begin to claim such glory as Dumbledore displays in this battle. However, the service is done for the WW by Harry showing students how to understand defence in practice and by giving them reasonable preparation for mortal danger. Something that they should be learning in the DADA classroom certainly it is more dangerous for them to capitulate to Umbridge's self interested blindness.<< HunterGreen: I suppose so. However, its such a small section of students, that it makes me wonder how much of a difference it will make. Its interesting to note here that because of the constant-changing DADA teachers, they are so behind that fifth years need to be taught expelliarmus and stupify, which, IMO, should be basic defense spells. (as an aside, is it just me, or did Lupin spend too much of his class time teaching about dark creatures? or is third-year the 'dark- creature year'?) >>Furthermore Harry is offering an insight into Lord Voldemort [snip] Harry is passing information, giving members of the WW a clear advantage in the war against Voldemort. Later when his story is published in the Quibbler and later in the Daily Prophet some of this advantage is extended to the greater wizard community, but those kids in DA have the first hand account better than the newspapers do. Each have gleaned a gem of Harrys wisdom that they now carry with them, even Marietta. >From little things big things grow.<< HunterGreen: Except that Harry doesn't really want to talk about any of that, and for the most part he doesn't. He only agreed to *teach*, not lecture. The quibbler article did much more for that cause. HunterGreen previously: >I know its always *possible* that one of them will encounter >Voldemort or a DE, but how likely is it to happen that year? (if the >DA had waited to be an allowed group, it would have only needed to >wait a year). Valky replied: >>They can't necessarily know this. Umbridge is by chance removed from Hogwarts at the end of the year, she may never have left, and may even be Headmaster into book six had things gone differently. Nor can they know that LV isn't going to be walking the streets flagrantly declaring mayhem in the coming Holiday season. For that matter neither do we.<< HunterGreen: The way I see it is that Voldemort is not a threat while he's remaining incognito, and Umbridge can only remain in power while Voldemort's incognito (because the moment he reveals himself no one is going to support her or Fudge). Yes, there is a chance that he could choose summer or winter to 'come out', but then we are back to the small probability that he, or the DE's will be going after a teenager (other than Harry Potter, that is). In any case, Ginnyand the trio have the summer to learn curses from Harry or Order members, and the others can ask their parents, or practice curses on their own. My point is not that its unnecessary to learn the curses, but just not SO necessary that they should all risk expulsion. HunterGreen previously: >The only members of the group who end up using the spells are the >ones that *willingly* go with Harry/Ron/Hermione *because* they know the spells. It almost became a danger more than anything else, >because it gave them all a false sense of capability against DE's >(and its a miracle none of them weren't killed in the DoM battle). Valky replied: >>The DA did not become the danger though. It was their love of Harry that propelled them into danger. The DA brought people who were already quite fond of Harry close enough for them to be given an opportunity to go laying their lives down for him. It is those three people Ginny, Luna and Neville who, personally, already had an inclination to throw themselves at the gauntlet for something they believe in anyway. DA was merely a mechanism that brought them closer to Harry and his danger.<< HunterGreen: I suppose you're right. They (Ginny and Neville at least) would have wanted to go anyway, even if the DA had not existed. But maybe not. It would, at least, have been harder for them to convince Harry that they were going if it wasn't for the DA. HunterGreen previously: > On top of that, the DA wasn't *so* important that it was worth > risking all of them getting expelled Valky replied: >>I agree in hindsight, but we have a luxury of that now that the students simply didn't in the Hogshead that day. The looming threat of war was inciting them into swift action, I would be lying if I said I wouldn't do the same myself, right or wrong and at any risk of expulsion. Its only seems so irrational looking back on the events of the year from this side of it. Can you honestly say that while you were reading OOtP chapters 15-17 the first time round that you *didn't* support Harry blazing his usual trail into the throes, fully and unreservedly? I know I certainly wanted him to.<< HunterGreen: I honestly can't remember. The DA certainly made the book more interesting though (and I do remember not enjoying it very much the first time through). In that sense, when I'm reading something (or watching something), I'm of two minds: One wants the main character to stay out of trouble (for his own sake), and the other doesn't, because its more exciting if they don't (I recently had that experience with a bad kidnapping movie, I kept slapping my forehead when the main character was doing stupid things, yet I was quietly happy for his stupidity because it made the movie more interesting). However, I don't recall thinking the DA was terribly *important*. I don't blame Harry for thinking it was important, it did give him one thing to enjoy at school that year (and let him feel like he was doing some good in a year that was rather horrible). Nor do I blame the others for thinking it was very important. On a final note though, as much as you say the DA was doing a service, the adults in the Order (or Molly Weasley at least), didn't see it that way. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 10 09:37:50 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:37:50 -0400 Subject: Time-turning Message-ID: <003601c49719$d7706360$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112573 Mac said: "assuming that HP CAN be killed by a dememntor - not sure If I believe this - i.e. only LV has the power to vanquish HP)." DuffyPoo: Where do you (and others on this list) get that? First off, Dementors don't kill they soul-suck. The body is still alive as long as the brain works and the heart continues to beat (according to Lupin). Nowhere, though, in any of my two sets of five books - taking into consideration all the various edits - have I seen any evidence that HP cannot die except at the hand of LV. DD knows the Prophecy from the get-go. Why would he believe that HP was "nearly killed" at the end of PS? Why would he need to slow him down when Dementor attacked in mid-air in PoA? For all the years that LV was VaporMort, why would HP need the protection he has while at the Dursleys if no one but LV can kill him? Remember when Vernon was choking HP in OotP and he "released Harry as though he had received an electric shock. Some invisible force seemed to have surged through his nephew, making him impossible to hold." Was Vernon too close to actually killing HP that the protective charm on the house kicked in to save him? HP didn't seem to think it was his own uncontrolled magic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From florentinemaier at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:11:15 2004 From: florentinemaier at hotmail.com (Florentine Maier) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:11:15 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: <20040901162105.45547.qmail@web90003.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112574 I just re-read book two, keeping my eyes open for "discoveries". Apart from all the things that have been mentioned in this thread before, I think another potential "discovery" is that Harry speaks Parsel. - This is something neither himself nor others had known before. After CoS, this power never played an important role again. Now what could the discovery of Harry's Parsel knowledge foreshadow? I suspect that it hints at something that happened the night Harry's parents were killed, especially what happened between himself and Voldemort: The transferral of magical powers, the mental connection,... Maybe Harry got another magical power transferred from Voldemort that night? From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 11:53:35 2004 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:53:35 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112576 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > You may not find Christianity per se in the books in the same way > that JKR doesn't overtly refer to it. But the basic foundation of > Christian faith - loving God and loving your neighbour as you would > love yourself - is present. It is present when Dumbledore speaks of > our choices; it is present when Gandalf speaks of Frodo having been > meant to have the Ring. This is the very bedrock of faith, no more, > no less. Christian belief is the relationship between God and a > person and that person and their human contacts. It does not > ultimately involve rituals or prayers or fasting or whatever. It is > simply an expression of true love (agape) and this we see in Harry > Potter in various forms. Miz Storge' comments: I'm tackling the Christianity issue by looking for the 'basic bedrock of the Christian faith' described in the Apostle's Creed - belief in one God, the Father and creator, Jesus Christ the Son, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, risen on the third day, coming to judge the living and the dead, the Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets, etc. If I am correct, these are the minimum things one MUST believe to be a Christian, and these specifics are what I haven't found in HP or LoTR. There may be symbols or allusions in each work which may reflect or refer back to these tenents that I'm missing, and if there are, please email me privately to discuss them as I hate to incite the wrath of the House Elves with off-topic chatter. Agape, loving one's deity and duty to one's neighbor are concepts not limited to Christianity or new teachings originated by Jesus or Paul, but are facets of many religions from the Greek and Roman Mysteries to Buddhism, Confucianism, Wicca and beyond. I agree, agape can be found in HP and LoTR but IMO aren't enough to label the works 'Christian'. From ginamiller at jis.nashville.org Fri Sep 10 13:19:17 2004 From: ginamiller at jis.nashville.org (Miller, Gina (JIS)) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:19:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curri culum) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112577 Kneasy wrote: > > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get?> > ~tina I can think of a few examples: I think the general impression of the Veela was that they were beautiful. And Arthur comments about not going (for girls) based on looks alone. Ron certainly notices who is NOT beautiful when thinking about who to ask to the Yule Ball. Gina now: Kneasy, Harry says a lot about Cho being pretty and the Patils are described as the prettiest girls in their year. I think Rita Skeeter describes Hermione as striking in the 1st article. I think there are other places too, but that is probably not something you really pay attention to when reading I suppose. Hope this helps. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 13:21:21 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:21:21 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan here: > In 112343 Naama, responding to my question, wrote: > >>>SSSusan: So, in JKR's version of TT, you can only go back and see > things as they happened from a different perspective; you're not > really CHANGING the events and doing them over. Did I at least get > that much right?? > Naama: > I don't think so . If that were so, why was Hermione so seriously > warned against changing time? My understanding of JKR's form of TT > is that it *is* possible to change time.<<< > > > SSSusan AGAIN NOW: > See? We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can > or can't work. Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree > that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the > past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time-threads > co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person > wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present. Yet here we have > others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using > TT to change time/events/the past. > Actually (if by "others" you mean me), that's *not* what I meant. What Harry and Hermione did was *not* changing the past. I think it might make it clearer if we think about DD when he sent Harry and Hermione back in time. Did he see Buckbeak being executed (i.e., the thud of the ax was decapitation and Hagrid howled with misery) OR did he see Buckbeak gone? Based on *the text* we know that there is dire warnings against using the TT to change the past. We also know that DD takes the limits of knowledge seriously (there's that line about the difficulty of predicting the future). Would he have sent the two to *change* what he had seen, with his own eyes, to occur? I.e., if he had seen Buckbeak decapitated, would he have sent H & H to save him? To me, the answer is obviously "no." So, that means that when DD sent them on their mission, he knows (having just seen it) that Buckbeak had not been killed. *Therefore*, his sending H & H back is not to change the past, but to fulfill it. (Susan, maybe telling the story from DD's point of view to your daughter could help her understand that Buckbeak never had died?) However, I do think that as a genenral theory of TT, in JKR's scheme it is possible to change time - again, for the simple reason that we are told that it is possible to do so. I think we must remember that this is fiction, not reality. In reality, the past can't be changed because such a change is paradoxical ("which is absurd..." - used to disprove an argument). In fiction, the author may be unaware of the paradox, or may simply not care to deal with it. JKR is not a Science Fiction writer. How well do we know that she doesn't pay much attention to coherence when it comes to arithmetics (number of students, Bill's age, etc.). In the same way, I don't think that she went to great lengths to explore her own notion of TT, and checking it's coherence. Changing time is possible, but what does it *mean* in JKR's world? I wish we knew, but I'm pretty sure that it's pretty vague in JKR's mind. Which is why I don't think there's much point in elaborating much on the Potterverse TT. It won't come all neat and tidy like. Naama From blackgold101 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 14:08:05 2004 From: blackgold101 at yahoo.com (Marci) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:08:05 -0000 Subject: Mclaggan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112579 "theadimail" > wrote: > > Sorry for busting in late but who's this mclaggan guy? Whoever he is > > he is driving me crazy. > > Bye, > > Adi > > Finwitch: > > McClaggan. > > A name from Rowling's website http://www.jkrowling.com/ , a name that > probably will make it into book 6... (And McClaggan could be a she, as > well, mind you, it's a surname We cannot tell either way!). My > guesses: McClaggan is: the next DADA teacher/Half Blood Prince/minor > character. > > Finwitch It's Connor McClaggan of the clan McClaggan. Sorry, Harry but there can be only one. LOL Marci (couldn't resist) From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 14:34:06 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:34:06 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Touchy Subjects and OT Posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112580 Greetings from Hexquarters! Religion, politics, and cultural differences are all acceptable topics per se, but please remember that we do not all share the same views on these issues. We ask that you please tread with care and avoid making generalizations when discussing these sensitive issues. Also, threads on such issues have a tendency to go off-topic, so we'd like to remind everyone 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 words or works of Jo 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: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin/ Thank you, Poppy Elf for the HPfGU List Administration Team From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 14:53:20 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:53:20 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: <12d.4ac6a906.2e71263b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com,MESSAGE 112467, chnc1024 at A... wrote: >I wonder still (despite posts from others) that the end book will >have something to do with Harry going back in time to change the >past. Maybe going back to when Tom Riddle opened the chamber of >secrets for the first time so that Hagrid doesn't get expelled, and >his parents live...ext... But that's just my oppinon. What do you guys think? "K": Let me say that for the most part I'm not a time travel fan. I'm not thinking of movies or other books when I give my opinion. I'm only going by the information JKR has given us so far. Nor do I desire to see time travel but I do believe it's happening and I'm just going to trust JKR that she will make it exciting and unique in her own way. I believe Fred and George time travel but I won't discuss them. Tom Riddle? Why not? He's about the brightest student to attend Hogwarts and he would be one to have a great interest in the history of his family. Others have suggested Riddle used time travel as one means of trying to acheive immortality. I won't dismiss that idea. Why couldn't one go back to before the time they were born? If you can go back 10 years why not 1,000? You are just traveling. I don't want to get into Buckbeak a great deal. But, if Buckbeak didn't die and Sirius did escape, why send the kids on a time travel trip that could be dangeous? I find it hard to believe that time travel *must* occur for these events to take place. Time travel was used to change certain events. What would have happened if Harry and Hermione made a mistake and ended up in another time and place? Buckbeak would have died and Sirius would have been taken away. ~~It is your turn to listen, and I beg you will not interrupt me, because there is very little time, he (Dumbledore) said quietly. snip 'What we need,' said Dumbledore slowly, and his light-blue eyes moved from Harry to Hermione, 'is more *time*. snip 'If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight. But remember this, both of you. *You must not be seen*. Miss Granger, you know the law - you know what is at stake...*you - must - not - be - seen.' poa/ch 21/pgs 287-288/uk How many times has JKR hit us over the head with *you must not be seen*. Things can go wrong with the time turner. *If all goes well.... So there is a possibility that problems can arise. I also believe the two innocent lives are Buckbeak and Sirius. Now I don't know if there's only one timeline or 20. I just believe one can travel forward and backward and that it's being done. I do believe there are other hints throughout the books that time travel is occuring. ...time was slipping away as though somebody had bewitched the clocks to go extra fast. gof/ch 26/pg 483/us There are so many other little references but I won't post them now. Then there is the scene in the Department of Mysteries. They are studying time. How JKR is going to address time travel I don't know. If JKR ever says Buckbeak never died that would be fine with me. I'd go on from there. > Chancie ~happy to see proof that a TT does have a purpose (besides confusing > everyone) after all!! =) "K": And I thought the TT was only there to cause confusion. :-) ~~It must be nearly time to leave, Harry thought miserably, please let it be nearly time... cos/ch 7/pg 120/us From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 15:02:08 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:02:08 -0000 Subject: Greasy Hair ( was Mc and Snape ) In-Reply-To: <20040909111354.20308.qmail@web12206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MESSAGE 112467, An'nai Jiriki wrote: > Chris: > I worked as an intern in an environmental lab one > summer. If I didn't wash my hair every other day > (because every day made my hair explode), I could have > oiled my car with the greasy build-up. Normally, I do > not have greasy hair, but the chemical buildup in the > air made it that way. "K": Honestly, I guess I'm just thinking of a fantasy world. Not real life. An'nai Jiriki: > Again, if teenage Snape was into potions enough to > become the teacher (or master, depending on other > conversations here), he would have spent alot of time > in the potions wing/room. > > That, and we see him as a teen at the OWLs time. I > know my hygene suffered greatly at finals time. If > Snape didn't care what others thought, why would he > wash his hair when he could be studying? I get the > impression Snape was just as studious as Hermione as a student. "K": Is that what JKR is trying to show us regarding Snape? His personal hygiene habits? A 30-something year old Professor not taking care of himself? It doesn't take that long to wash one's hair. Maybe all JKR ever intended was to give us a description that would make Snape seem sinister and I can go along with that. Or she could *constantly* refer to his greasy hair and other features to give us a clue. Smelly, greasy, dirty teacher? Surely not. ;-) "K" From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 16:24:06 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:24:06 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: <003201c49719$3872a2f0$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112583 The Other Cheryl said: > > "Snape saw the Patronus retreating and told DD what form it took" DuffyPoo: > "What amazes me most is the behaviour of the Dementors ... you've > really no idea what made them retreat, Snape?" > "No, Minister. By the time I had come round they were heading > back to their positions at the entrances .." > > So you're saying Snape is lying here when he tells Fudge he > doesn't know what happened? SSSusan: Perhaps it's movie contamination? It's one of the changes made there, that Hermione reports to Harry that Snape said he saw the patronus. Don't believe it matches canon, though. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 16:31:08 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:31:08 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curri culum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112584 Kneasy wrote: > > > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' > > > in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no > > > concept of beauty - how primitive can you get? ~tina > > I can think of a few examples: > > I think the general impression of the Veela was that they were > > beautiful. And Arthur comments about not going (for girls) > > based on looks alone. Ron certainly notices who is > > NOT beautiful when thinking about who to ask to the Yule Ball. Gina: > Kneasy, Harry says a lot about Cho being pretty and the Patils are > described as the prettiest girls in their year. I think Rita > Skeeter describes Hermione as striking in the 1st article. I think > there are other places too, but that is probably not something you > really pay attention to when reading I suppose. Hope this helps. SSSusan: I think the point is being missed a bit. In my take on reading Kneasy's & Nora's posts, they were talking more about capital-B- Beauty, not simply people who are described as pretty or beautiful. Finding Beauty in works of art or music, seeing Beauty in the form or function of the architectural structure of a building, being moved by the Beauty of nature or by the Beauty of the word in a well- crafted poem. It's *these* kinds of references to beauty that are apparently lacking within the Hogwarts curriculum and to which I believe Kneasy referred. Siriusly Snapey Susan From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 10 16:35:42 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:35:42 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Hen Wen wrote: > > > Please correct me if I am wrong -- I thought that Lily's > > grandparents were wizards. I got that impression from the FAQ > About the Books section of JKR's website. Under the question of > Half-Blood/Pure-Blood she write "Therefore Harry would be considered > only 'half wizard' because of his mother's grandparents." > > > > > > I take that to imply that Lily's grandparents were wizards. Their > > > child (one of Lily's parents) must have been a squib. > > > > > From Karen: > > > > James Potter is a full-blood. For Harry to be a half-blood, Lily is > > a Muggle. Therefore, Lily's grandparents are Muggles. > > Carol: > Not a Muggle (a person with no magical powers) but a Muggleborn, the > witch or wizard child of two Muggles. She still has Muggle blood in > the sense that her parents are Muggles, which explains how Harry can > be a Half-blood despite having a witch and a wizard as parents. > > I think the part about "Lily's grandparents" is another slip of the > keyboard; JKR seems to have meant "Lily's parents"/"Harry's > grandparents." At any rate, there's no doubt from the books that Lily > is a Muggleborn. Young Snape calls her a "mudblood"; young Tom Riddle > compares her with his own father, as always equating Muggles with > Muggleborns. > > Her parents are Muggles and so is her sister (as we've been told > repeatedly since the first chapter of the first book). Her > grandparents were presumably Muggles as well, but it's her parents who > are important in determining Harry's status as a half-blood, no > different in Riddle!Voldemort's view from himself as far as bloodlines go. > Karen: Thanks for the correction on the Muggle vs Muggle-born. I don't think JKR made a slip with "grandparents". I think she wants us to know that all 8 of Lily's and Petunia's great-grandparents are Muggles. Forgive me if I don't have the proper numbers but I seem to remember from an American history class that it requires 1/32 part of your background for a person to claim a ethnic connection. Using that 1/32 as my number for this discussion: If Lily's grandparents were Muggles, a person would have to go back 9 generations to find a non-Muggle ancestory of Lily. I think this is JKR's point to keep us from being disappointed when Petunia and Lily do not have any "magical" ancestorys or affairs or step-relatives appearing in books 6 & 7. - Karen From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Sep 10 16:40:09 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:40:09 -0000 Subject: Two Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112586 My first is about Harry's blood protection. It gets, more or less, renewed by staying with the Dursley's. That's why DD keeps sending him back, even though it isn't the best place for him now. Since LV got Harry's blood to get the same protection, won't it expire unless he spends time with Petunia or Dudley? The second, with Harry turning 16 this year, would that mean he can practice magic at the Dursley's now? I know he is eligible to get his apparation license then. Casey From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 16:45:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:45:30 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112587 SSSusan: >>>See? We're back to different definitions of what TT is, how it can or can't work. Hannah, PK, and Tylerswaxlion all seemed to agree that I *had* gotten it right as to JKR's version of TT: that the past doesn't CHANGE as a result of TT, but that the two time- threads co-existed all along, only one of the two "versions" of a person wasn't aware of the 2nd "version" being present. Yet here we have others saying that's NOT the way JKR is doing it--that she IS using TT to change time/events/the past.<<< Naama: > Actually (if by "others" you mean me), that's *not* what I meant. SSSusan again: At this point, I'm not sure to whom I was referring! :-) The discussion went off in so many different directions that, mostly for my sanity, I attempted to bring it back into one thread, with a summarization. But actually, Naama, while I may indeed have misunderstood you on that matter, there were others who much more clearly were stating that JKR *was* using TT to change time or events. Naama: > What Harry and Hermione did was *not* changing the past. I think > it might make it clearer if we think about DD when he sent Harry > and Hermione back in time. Did he see Buckbeak being executed > i.e., the thud of the ax was decapitation and Hagrid howled with > misery) OR did he see Buckbeak gone? Based on *the text* we know > that there is dire warnings against using the TT to change the > past. We also know that DD takes the limits of knowledge seriously > (there's that line about the difficulty of predicting the future). > Would he have sent the two to *change* what he had seen, with his > own eyes, to occur? I.e., if he had seen Buckbeak decapitated, > would he have sent H & H to save him? To me, the answer is > obviously "no." So, that means that when DD sent them on their > mission, he knows (having just seen it) that Buckbeak had not been > killed. *Therefore*, his sending H & H back is not to change the > past, but to fulfill it. > > (Susan, maybe telling the story from DD's point of view to your > daughter could help her understand that Buckbeak never had died?) SSSusan: Indeed, I agree with you. I also don't believe Beaky was killed and that H&H went back and *changed* that fact. I seem to have found my peace (or close to it) with the idea that DD recognized Beaky had escaped and that that's WHY he explained to Hermione that they could possibly save TWO lives that night. I believe DD understood what must have happened--that H&H had led Beaky away--but that H&H may have made the assumption that Beaky was DEAD. He needed, of course, for them to go back and fulfill this mission and hoped--since he didn't yet know if this part would come to fruition--that H&H could also, in the process, develop a means of rescuing Sirius. I actually have LESS difficulty at the moment with the Beaky part of the story than with the Sirius part. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion of telling the story from DD's perspective to my daughter Kristen. I think it might be helpful. (Not that she's losing sleep over this--she's quite happy w/ her interpretation of the events. It's her mum who's fixated on her getting it right. :-)) Naama: > However, I do think that as a genenral theory of TT, in JKR's > scheme it is possible to change time - again, for the simple > reason that we are told that it is possible to do so. SSSusan: I see where I likely misinterpreted you, then. You believe in JKR's scheme it is *possible* but that in the episode we say, it's not what occurred. (Did I get THAT right??) I've considered the same thing that you went on to discuss--that JKR may not have put the thought (or perhaps the interest or concern) into the TT mechanism/possibilities that others who are big TT fans have done? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who thinks she understands TT better now, but who's still sick of it and doesn't want it back in books 6 or 7. From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 10 16:46:32 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:46:32 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote:> > > Agape, loving one's deity and duty to one's neighbor are concepts not > limited to Christianity or new teachings originated by Jesus or Paul, > but are facets of many religions from the Greek and Roman Mysteries > to Buddhism, Confucianism, Wicca and beyond. I agree, agape can be > found in HP and LoTR but IMO aren't enough to label the > works 'Christian'. You are absolutely correct, these concepts are not unique to Christianity. The point is not that the ideas are uniquely Christian, but that the author, as a Christian, is writing from that world view. Therefore, although the ideas are not unique to Christianity, we can trace the fact that they are present in Harry Potter to the author's own faith. This is definitely not the same thing as, say, Lewis's intentional allegories (e.g. Aslan = Christ). However, when we read Potter with a Christian sense, we are in some ways reading it the way the author is writing it. Knowing that doesn't mean that you can't read the book from a different faith's world view and see the same ideas. So pointing out that Rowling's faith affects her writing doesn't have to affect your reading. She has made it clear that she's not trying to preach to anyone, at least not about religious things (About intolerance? Oh yes...). But if you want to understand the books from the point of view of what the author is doing, you simply have to take her faith into account. It does affect what's on the page and it will affect how the plot unfolds, as she has stated. (The interview is with the Vancouver Sun, actually. I have a copy). Understanding and appreciating her world view is a valid way to think about the books, even though it isn't necessary to understand them. The same would be true if she were Muslim. In that case it would be instructive to identify the places where her faith affected her writing, not to turn it into a Muslim book, but to better understand the characters and the plot. By the way, a book which has Jesus pop out from behind the veil at the end wouldn't appeal to a lot of Christians any more than it would appeal to anyone else. Jo isn't writing that kind of "Christian book," thank God. However, there is a clear sense of, for example, an afterlife in the books, and certainly Rowling's faith affects her views on that. She's carefully non-specific, which is much to her credit. I personally see Luna as the "person of faith" in the books, not for her rather silly creature beliefs but for her sense of serenity and peace which comes from a faith. This is strikingly similar to a religious point of view ("It's not like I'll never see her again...") and Harry only gains true peace when he is given a measure of it from Luna. We see Rowling's Christian world view peeking out when she writes that Harry can't find peace in the kind of "I can help myself" methods of dealing with death, the kind of "fairy tale" or "seance" stuff he tries (the Mirror, talking to the ghost). Then he encounters Luna and true peace begins to come from her steady faith in the life to come. Do you have to be a Christian to appreciate that? Not at all. But if someone thinks that Rowling wrote the chapter without her own Christian world view affecting it, I think they might be trying too hard to cut Christianity OUT of the books. On a related note, I am one of those who have to contend personally with the right-wingers who give Christianity a bad name and who want to ban Potter. I can't tell you how grateful I am when I see Rowling's Christian faith shine out of the text. It makes it so much easier for me to explain to those whose minds are closed up tight that they are missing the whole point. I swear, some of them would only be happy if Jesus DID jump out at the end. *sigh* Steve The Lexicon From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 10 16:49:12 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:49:12 -0000 Subject: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: > > The second, with Harry turning 16 this year, would that mean he can > practice magic at the Dursley's now? I know he is eligible to get > his apparation license then. Wizards don't come of age until they are 17. Ron will turn 17 in the early spring of this next book, but neither Harry nor Hermione will until book 7. Oh, unless you're an "old Hermione" fan, in which case she will be 17 almost the entire year in book 6. Which means we might finally get a final answer on that whole problem... Steve The Lexicon From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 16:49:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:49:12 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Florentine Maier" wrote: > I just re-read book two, keeping my eyes open for "discoveries". > Apart from all the things that have been mentioned in this thread > before, I think another potential "discovery" is that Harry speaks > Parsel. - This is something neither himself nor others had known > before. After CoS, this power never played an important role again. > > Now what could the discovery of Harry's Parsel knowledge foreshadow? > I suspect that it hints at something that happened the night Harry's > parents were killed, especially what happened between himself and > Voldemort: The transferral of magical powers, the mental > connection,... Maybe Harry got another magical power transferred from > Voldemort that night? Geoff: You haven't made yourself quite clear or I'm just being extra thick today. From canon, we have: '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort - who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure...."' (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) By "another magical power", do you mean in addition to the power to speak Parseltongue, mentioned above? Because this would presumably be an as-yet-undiscovered "discovery" if you see what I mean. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 10 16:49:54 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:49:54 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Past, Present, Future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > --- In > HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Inge: > How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and > future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort is - at > that point - not in his past or present - only in his future... > > "arrowsmithbt" replied: > Ah! Some of us have a theory which would explain that - sort of. > It's tied into the 'Possession' idea. > Tom is Tom, but Voldy is Tom plus an evil entity (probably essence > of Salazar Slytherin) that possessed him when he entered the Chamber > as a schoolboy. > Since Salazar's undead spirit has been around forever - well, for > centuries > anyway, and since it's more or less immortal (hence Vapor!Mort after > Godric's Hollow and the Philosophers Stone episode), Tom's submission > to it means that he is now part of something that pre-dates him and > is also > his future. > Kneasy > > Inge again: > Riddle's line in COS is one of my favorites in the books - but it > still quite doesn't make sense. > If what you said is in fact what he meant with those words - wouldn't > it have been more correct for him to have said: "*Salazar Slytherin* > is my past, present and future" ?? > At 16 Voldemort can not be part of Riddle's past and present. > Slytherin can - but not Voldemort. Karen: At the time of CoS, Voldemort is again a vaporMort. IMO Tom was refering to a re-joining of 16 memoryTom and vaporMort to resurect a complete Voldemort. Past (before CoS) - Tom Riddle-Voldemort (one entity) Present (CoS) - memoryTom / vaporMort (two entities) Future (after CoS) - memoryTom-vaporMort (one entity) From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 10 16:54:07 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:54:07 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112592 This may have been discused but I think it will play an important part in the "attack on Hogwarts". In CoS, Lockhart's failed memory charm collapses the ceiling of the tunnel to the chamber of secrets. In POA, George and Fred tell Harry that one of the secret passages to Hogsmead was good until last year when it collapsed. IMO these are the same or connecting tunnel and Voldemort and the DEs will use them to invade Hogwarts. Karen From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 10 17:14:46 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:14:46 -0400 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel Message-ID: <000e01c49759$acbb0e00$61c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112593 Karen said "This may have been discused but I think it will play an important part in the "attack on Hogwarts". In CoS, Lockhart's failed memory charm collapses the ceiling of the tunnel to the chamber of secrets. In POA, George and Fred tell Harry that one of the secret passages to Hogsmead was good until last year when it collapsed. IMO these are the same or connecting tunnel and Voldemort and the DEs will use them to invade Hogwarts." DuffyPoo: The problem is the tunnel collapses at the wrong time. In PoA F&G say "we used it until last winter, but it's caved in -- completely blocked." The tunnel Lockhart collapsed with his memory charm wouldn't have happened until May 29th (according to the Lexicon). I would have said sometime in June, but whichever is the case (the Lexicon does dates way better than I do) it certainly didn't happen in winter. However, I do think there is something fishy about the tunnel collapse (the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor), the fact that it collapsed 'last winter,' and that 'last winter' was the Christmas holidays that Draco Malfoy stayed at Hogwarts. What was Malfoy, Sr doing that kept Draco at school? The previous Christmas Draco had rubbed Harry's nose in the fact that he had no home to go to so had to stay at school for Christmas. That tunnel, at one time, went from the fourth floor to somewhere (we don't know where) in Hogsmeade. Does it now go from Hogsmeade and connect to the tunnel in the Chamber of Secrets? It is still a way for the DE's to get into the School. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 10 17:29:11 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:29:11 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > This may have been discused but I think it will play an important > part in the "attack on Hogwarts". > Oh, I think you're so right. Not necessarily in the details, since it's almost impossible to guess the details in a ROwling book, but in the fact that the collapsed tunnels are important. That was just such an offhand comment -- that one is collapsed so we think no more about it -- but it's STILL THERE... Steve The Lexicon who should be working From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 17:38:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:38:59 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Carol wrote: > > Whether Voldemort had suspicions regarding Snape's loyalty after the > > events in SS/PS is another question, one that I haven't resolved to > my > > own satisfaction, but I'll bet every knut in my possession that he > > doesn't know that Snape got off after Godric's Hollow because of > > Dumbledore's testimony that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I > am." > > Neri: > > I'm afraid it's not that easy. 200 Wizards, most of them probably > from the Ministry, know about it, and it never leaked? Not even to > Lucius Malfoy, Fudge's good chum? As somebody who reads the papers I > have difficulties believing this, and we didn't see much indication > that the average WW bureaucrat is more closed-mouth than his RL > equivalent. > > Also, when Harry names the DEs in the end of GoF, Fudge tells him > that he could have simply found the names in old records of the > trials. This seems to imply that records of these trials are > generally open to the public. > > Also, Crouch Sr. knew about Snape changing sides, and in GoF Crouch > had spent several months under Voldy's Imperius curse. I remind you > that this is the same Voldy who had just milked Bertha's mind to the > last drop. Comparing to Bertha, Crouch is a gold mine of information > about the Ministry. Would you believe that Voldy didn't mine it for > all its worth? > > In fact, I think I'll take your bet, and then raise you one knut... > > Neri Carol responds: I would still argue that Snape's hearing isn't common knowledge or the parents would strenuously object to his teaching at Hogwarts and that Malfoy, if he knows about it, attributes Snape's ability to get himself cleared of charges to a remarkable instance of Slytherin cunning. And again, Sirius didn't know that Snape was a DE. Evidently he had no contact with MWPP or any members of the Order other than Dumbledore (and Moody as witness to Karkaroff's hearing) between his last year at Hogwarts and Lupin's return to Hogwarts as the DADA teacher. As for Voldemort, he wasn't concerned about Snape or about mining Crouch for information. He was only concerned about getting Barty Jr. into Hogwarts and getting Harry to win the tournament. I do think that Voldemort has some pretty solid ground for doubts about Snape's loyalty, fed, maybe, by info sent by eagle owl from Barty Jr. while he was disguised as Moody, but I don't think he absolutely *knows* where Snape stands, and he evidently finds Snape's connection with Malfoy useful or Snape would be dead by now. (Malfoy has shown no sign whatever of doubting Snape, but who knows what slippery Lucius thinks?) I do think that Snape is walking on the edge of a knife and will need every ounce of cunning he possesses to survive to the end of the series. In fact, I'd be worried that he wouldn't survive HPB if JKR hadn't told us he has an important role to play in Book 7. Carol, who is still holding on to her few precious knuts From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 17:42:26 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040910174226.64134.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112596 > Valky now: > Let's investigate their sense of superiority in Sirius own words. > In POA we are told that James and Sirius befriend a WW outcast > discovering his inner greatness and redeeming a wrongly > condemned child from his tragic existence into the arms of > unselfish, bigotry free brotherhood. > The defense for Snape in the pensieve is that he was minding his > own > business. Hmm... was he also minding his own business while others > disdained First Year Remus arriving from his transformations > deprived of sleep and looking haggard and unkempt? > Indeed I think he was. Was it Snape who made to give lonesome > tragic Remus a kindness he had never known and was unfairly denied. > No it was James and Sirius. Magda: Oh, please. You've been reading waaaay too much fanfiction. But granting your assumptions: so what if he was minding his own business? Is that a crime? Does that mean the hundreds of other kids who didn't become Remus' "bestest mates" were also in some way morally challenged? Even if they weren't minding their own business? > In GOF Sirius relates to us that the world was dark and awful when > LV was terrorising the neighbourhood. It was well known that he had > turned the Dark Arts on the community. Killed people they knew and > their dearly beloved, created enmity and discord among the > wizardkind turning brother against brother (I am sure Sirius and > Regulus weren't the first.) ,crushed innocence in his furious > pinch, bereaved good people before their time. > He was a monster *Obsessed with the Dark Arts* and EVERYONE had > suffered some loss to his cause and by his practice of Dark Arts. > > In hindsight, look at two boys living in the age of WWII. > If one of those boys believed that the Third Reich was a bunch of > crock and made fun of the other boy, who read it at school...... > does it matter if the Reich boy practiced any anti Judaism? > If the first boy thought in his own mind he was somewhat superior > to the boy reading the Third Reich. > You would probably say he was right, yes? Magda: What do you mean "read it at school"? I really don't understand this analogy. It sounds (and I'm sure you don't mean it that way) that reading a book somehow constitutes a crime-like activity and is a sign of a potential criminal in the making. I would just like to point out that the Dark Arts, unlike Nazi-ism, are not illegal. DA books can be found in the restricted section of Hogwarts' library, and people pursuing a career as an Auror or other legal professional would no doubt study them. So the comparison is not completely accurate. > And even if this first boy was a bully and a fool so as to taunt > the second one endlessly through his days in school..... > openly deride the principles of the Third Reich in public to > him...... and behave like an absolute prat. > You would yet see now, knowing the atrocities that the Reich > incited, that it is the first boy who is the one of the two who was > fighting the *good* cause. Would you not? Magda: Well, I think a prat is a prat no matter what. Wouldn't it have made more sense for James (let's drop the nameless boy stuff, shall we?) to befriend Snape like he befriended Sirius and Remus and get him away from the Dark Arts? How is bullying someone supposed to change their minds? And I really don't think we want to get into the claim that because someone is on "the good side" that they're somehow excused for not acting like it. You are a good person if you do good things and bullying is not a good thing. > In GOF and OOtP we are furnished that Snape was a young boy who > liked, probably practiced (fly killer),and was reputed to be knee > deep in Dark Arts. This is as much as saying Snape is that boy, > wether or not he supported Voldemort/Hitler, he was entrenched in > the Warlords fundamental principles. > And hence my analogy sticks like a crazy glue. Magda: Well, I'm worried now because I've killed insects in my home and I would again if they were in my bedroom. I don't know too many people who LIKE sleeping in a room with flies. But I don't think they (or I) are potential mass murderers because of it. > So James and Sirius thought they were superior to Snape, they even > made him cry. Is that *really* such a bad thing given the context > of the story? I am still not saying that their actions were right. > But are they entitled to their delusion of superiority, after all? > > Valky Magda: The problem with "delusions of superiority" is that people are the worst judges of their own personal superiority or whatever. They're not exactly unbiased, are they? And it's very convenient to be able to do not-nice things because you're superior to the person you're doing it to - which, by the way, was one of the "principles" unlying the Third Reich. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 10 17:59:41 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:59:41 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curri culum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112597 > Kneasy wrote: > > > > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' > > > > in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no > > > > concept of beauty - how primitive can you get? snipping several posts > SSSusan: >snip > SSSusan wrote: > Finding Beauty in works of art or music, seeing Beauty in the form > or function of the architectural structure of a building, being > moved by the Beauty of nature or by the Beauty of the word in a well- crafted poem. It's *these* kinds of references to beauty that are apparently lacking within the Hogwarts curriculum and to which I believe Kneasy referred. Potioncat: Well, time has passed since I read Kneasy's original post, and I may be missing the mark too. But...this is Harry's point of view we're seeing. Have you ever gone on a field trip to a museum with a group of boys in this age range? You can lead a boy to beautiful art but you can't make him think. (Particularly after the first nude statue.) There could be all sorts of attempts being made and it would most likely go over Harry's head. (Dean Thomas might get it.) Potioncat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 18:03:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:03:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Carol: > We know that he [Dumbledore] testified that Sirius had been made > Secret Keeper. He must have believed that > > Bookworm: > I haven't seen anyone else suggest that maybe the Potters *did* > make Sirius their Secret-Keeper and then changed it to Peter. If > this is what happened, then Dumbledore wouldn't have lied during > his statement to the Wizengamot. He could truthfully say that he > knew Sirius had been made Secret-Keeper > > Carol: > But the strongest evidence that he believed Sirius guilty, IMO, is > his allowing the Dementors--whom we know he detested--to guard the > Hogwarts grounds. > > Bookworm: > What would have happened if he refused to let them on the grounds? > Whatever Dumbledore knew, popular opinion `knew' that Sirius > had betrayed Harry's parents, and then he killed 13 more people. > > Picture the situation at the beginning of PoA. This was after Harry > was suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin, but before the > Triwizard Tournament, before Rita Skeeter, before there was any hint > that Voldemort was coming back, before Fudge's smear campaign. > At the beginning of PoA, Harry was still "The Boy Who Lived". > Remember Fudge's reaction when Harry arrived at the Leaky > Cauldron. > > Sirius escaped from Azkaban and got past the dementors somehow. > It made sense for the dementors to want to get him back. If > Dumbledore had tried to refuse having the dementors at Hogwarts, he > would have been accused of risking Harry's life. He might have > battled Fudge over the dementor issue, but at what cost? What > reason could Dumbledore have given without revealing some secret he > had kept for 12 years? (No, I don't know just what it is, but > I'm certain there is much more to this than we have learned yet.) > > Ravenclaw Bookworm Carol: I wasn't really suggesting that Dumbledore *knew* Sirius had been made Secret Keeper but didn't know the SK had been changed. That's possible, I suppose, but all I meant was that he knew James *intended* to make Sirius the SK and that DD doubted the wisdom of that choice and offered himself in Sirius' place. He knew that James had refused that offer and made someone else Secret Keeper. He had no reason to believe that that someone was anyone other than Sirius, which is why he testified that Sirius had been the SK. He also knew that Peter and Sirius had had a confrontation after Godric's Hollow, that Sirius had survived but twelve Muggles were dead. He had every reason to believe, as the rest of the WW did, that Peter was also dead. Now if Sirius had come forward and asked to speak to DD then as he did near the end of PoA, DD could have used Legilmency or any number of other tests to determine his veracity. But Sirius remained silent. DD knew from Hagrid that Sirius had shown up at Godric's Hollow hoping to take his godson away on the flying motorcycle, that he had followed his failure there by pursuing and confronting Peter, that he had laughed madly when the aurors took him away. That on top of his "knowledge" that Sirius was the Secret Keeper must have convinced him that Sirius, who had always been reckless and arrogant and had once tried to murder a classmate, was now dangerously insane. There was no point in visiting him in Azkaban, especially since the Dementors would presumably strip away any remaining vestige of sanity. That, to me, is the only explanation for his testimony and his refusal or failure to visit Sirius in Azkaban--he believed that Sirius was guilty on all counts. It also accounts for his reluctantly allowing the Dementors to guard Hogwarts, endangering not only Sirius but his own students. He had no reason to suspect that Sirius was innocent. And Sirius seemed to confirm not only his guilt but his intention to murder Harry with every action taken from that point forward, from attacking the Fat Lady's portrait to slashing Ron's bedcurtains and flourishing a twelve-inch knife. "Sirius has not behaved like an innocent man" is an understatement. He behaved like a homicidal maniac, which Dumbledore and everyone else had every reason to believe he was. Let's not blame Dumbledore for thinking what Mr. Weasley and Professor McGonagall and Remus Lupin also thought--that Sirius Black betrayed the Potters to their deaths and murdered Peter Pettigrew. As far as I can see, there's nothing else he could think. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 18:17:07 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:17:07 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: <03ee01c4961a$2f1ccff0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112599 From: "justcarol67" (Carol): > > What I'm wondering, though, is what exactly is meant by "defied [Voldemort] three times. Does it necessarily mean that both Lily and James were involved in all three encounters? And does "defy" mean "survive combat"? Any ideas about other possible meanings? > > Charme responded: > > I have thoughts on this...like "defy" can mean many things, including battle or even saying "no." I actually believe the "no" part is what Lily, James, Alice & Frank all did to LV and his followers: they simply said "no, we're not interested", "no, we're not doing what you've demanded," or "no, we're not giving you that." Just by listing those responses, I have 3 :) Carol again: I think you're on the right track here. If "defy" meant "meet in combat," James and Lily (and Frank and Alice) would probably already be dead, or else they'd have defeated him three times per pair, six times in all. If that were the case, Voldemort would have perceived Lily as a threat (even wandless, as she appears to be at GH) rather than dismissing her as a "foolish girl" and ordering her to "stand aside." He also would have had some serious doubts about his invincibility after six defeats and would be as eager to murder the Potters and the Longbottoms as to destroy baby Harry. As it is, he killed James because he put up a struggle but perceived Harry as the only real threat. Thanks for the input. Anyone else have thoughts on the meaning of "defied three times"? Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 10 18:23:04 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:23:04 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040910174226.64134.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112600 Valky: snip Was it Snape who made to give lonesome > > tragic Remus a kindness he had never known and was unfairly denied. No it was James and Sirius. > > > Magda: snip Does that mean the hundreds of other kids > who didn't become Remus' "bestest mates" were also in some way > morally challenged? Even if they weren't minding their own business? Potioncat: James, Serius, Remus and Peter became friends before they found out he was a werewolf. No one else at school knew he was. Although Remus had "issues" because he knew how people would react, AFAIR, no one was treating him badly at Hogwarts. So no Brownie points for James. (He does get credit for not shunning his friend later.) snip Magda: > I would just like to point out that the Dark Arts, unlike Nazi-ism, > are not illegal. DA books can be found in the restricted section of Hogwarts' library, and people pursuing a career as an Auror or other legal professional would no doubt study them. So the comparison is not completely accurate. Potioncat: I agree with Magda and point out that Hermione reads books from the restricted section and performs magic from a book of Dark Magic after stealing from the school supplies. (polyjuice) Oh, my no wonder Snape treats her so badly! (This is intended to sound funny, not sarcastic.) Valky: > > In GOF and OOtP we are furnished that Snape was a young boy who > > liked, probably practiced (fly killer),and was reputed to be knee deep in Dark Arts. This is as much as saying Snape is that boy, wether or not he supported Voldemort/Hitler, he was entrenched in the Warlords fundamental principles. And hence my analogy sticks like a crazy glue. > > Potioncat: Teenager alone in a dark room killing flies. I took from that scene that he was sad and lonely. But he could simply have been grounded for missing curfew (Severus, what were you doing lurking about after dark!! Go to your room.) Some take it to mean he was poor, because there were flies in the house. I grew up pre-AC in Southern US..you'll get flies. And you'll kill them when they buzz around your head. Pulling wings off flies is cruel. Zapping them is not. Was it AK or a stunning spell? We don't know. Potioncat who hopes everyone is enjoying this discussion. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 18:29:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:29:06 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and Snape + totally a shallow Snape q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112601 Karen (I think) wrote, in part: > > Carol said (re: Snape and McGonagall): > > > > re:Snape's hair: > > > Has anyone come up with an explanation for Snape's greasy hair? > I'm not trying to be an apologist, it just seems absurd to me that an adult who has a good grasp of professionalism wouldn't be a > sleezeball. :) Carol responds: For what it's worth, I never said this. What I said, in part, was "Of course [the relationship between Snape and McGonagall is] strictly platonic, almost like the relationship of an older sister and a younger brother who now must be treated as a fellow adult." I think it was Aura who responded to this idea by adding the part about Snape's greasy hair. (Am I right, Aura?) My apologies for not catching this sooner, as I've been misquoted throughout this thread! Carol, whom some posters *would* consider to be a Snape apologist because she thinks he's the most interesting and complex character in the book and believes he's on the "good side," however unpleasant he may be to his students From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 18:42:18 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:42:18 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: Miz Storge: > > I'm tackling the Christianity issue by looking for the 'basic bedrock > of the Christian faith' described in the Apostle's Creed - belief in > one God, the Father and creator, Jesus Christ the Son, born of the > Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, risen on the third day, > coming to judge the living and the dead, the Holy Spirit who spoke > through the prophets, etc. If I am correct, these are the minimum > things one MUST believe to be a Christian, and these specifics are > what I haven't found in HP or LoTR. There may be symbols or allusions > in each work which may reflect or refer back to these tenents that > I'm missing, and if there are, please email me privately to discuss > them as I hate to incite the wrath of the House Elves with off- topic > chatter. > > Agape, loving one's deity and duty to one's neighbor are concepts not > limited to Christianity or new teachings originated by Jesus or Paul, > but are facets of many religions from the Greek and Roman Mysteries > to Buddhism, Confucianism, Wicca and beyond. I agree, agape can be > found in HP and LoTR but IMO aren't enough to label the > works 'Christian'. Geoff: I repeat again what I said in my last message: "You may not find Christianity per se in the books in the same way that JKR doesn't overtly refer to it." I have /never/ tried to label the books as just Christian. What I have found cause to dispute over time is the idea taken up by some posters that there is /nothing/ Christian in the books. If a writer sets out on a book which is a labour of love, a mirror of their own attitude to life, something which may have been started for their own enjoyment and pleasure, then I believe that the book will contain hints of what they believe in. If they are Christian, there will be glimpses, facets of Christian teaching which will be recognisable to those of like mind. This has been done by Jo Rowling, it was done by JRR Tolkien. People who do not accept the tenets of Christianity may pooh-pooh the ideas or place a different spin on them but I hold to the view that such books mirror the writer's own personal point of view and for me Harry is a type of a Christian working through life rather haphazardly and bumpily but still with the right goals in mind. Having also read Steve Lexicon's post (message 112588), I must congratulate him on having summed up this so succinctly. Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 18:45:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:45:56 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112603 Karen (earlier) wrote: > > > James Potter is a full-blood. For Harry to be a half-blood, Lily is a Muggle. Therefore, Lily's grandparents are Muggles. I (Carol) responded: > > Not a Muggle (a person with no magical powers) but a Muggleborn, the witch or wizard child of two Muggles. She still has Muggle blood in the sense that her parents are Muggles, which explains how Harry can be a Half-blood despite having a witch and a wizard as parents. > > > > I think the part about "Lily's grandparents" is another slip of the keyboard; JKR seems to have meant "Lily's parents"/"Harry's grandparents." At any rate, there's no doubt from the books that Lily is a Muggleborn. Her grandparents were presumably Muggles as well, but it's her parents who are important in determining Harry's status as a half-blood, no different in Riddle!Voldemort's view from himself as far as bloodlines go. Karen then wrote: > Thanks for the correction on the Muggle vs Muggle-born. I don't > think JKR made a slip with "grandparents". I think she wants us to > know that all 8 of Lily's and Petunia's great-grandparents are > Muggles. Carol again: At any rate, all four of Lily's (and Petunia's) grandparents were Muggles, and therefore both parents were Muggles, which is all that's needed to make Lily a Muggleborn and Petunia a Muggle. It would have saved a lot of confusion if JKR had made the Muggle grandparent connection clearer on her website! Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 18:57:14 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:57:14 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112604 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: Karen: > This may have been discused but I think it will play an important > part in the "attack on Hogwarts". > > In CoS, Lockhart's failed memory charm collapses the ceiling of the > tunnel to the chamber of secrets. > > In POA, George and Fred tell Harry that one of the secret passages to > Hogsmead was good until last year when it collapsed. > > IMO these are the same or connecting tunnel and Voldemort and the DEs > will use them to invade Hogwarts. Geoff: I reproduce below the whole of message 90496 which tackles this problem: ================================================================ 90496 From: "Geoff Bannister" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:03 pm Subject: Re: Entering the Chamber --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" wrote: Constance Vigilance: > I think this > fact was demonstrated when Ron's wand malfunction in the Chamber > tunnel FAR below Hogwarts was able to cause a cave-in and block the > roomy passageway way up on the 4th floor. This is the secret > passageway that the twins and Sirius mention. I think this is good > evidence that at least those two passageways are related. I think > most or all of them are related - and many of them lead out. Geoff: I must be being a bit thick but where did that idea come from? According to canon, Fred speaking.... "'Don't bother with the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor. We used it until last winter but it's caved in - completely blocked.'" (POA "The Marauder's Map" p.144 UK edition) This is in the November of 1993. So the cave-in was in the winter of 1992. but Harry's confrontation with the basilisk was in the summer of '93 at the end of his second year. "Ten minutes into the class, Professor McGonagall told them that their exams would start on the first of June, one week from today." (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.210 UK edition) And Ginny was taken into the chamber three days before this date (i.e. 29th May). "Three days before their first exam, Professor McGonagall made another announcement at breakfast." (p.211 same chapter) ==================================================================== Geoff See my views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 18:59:12 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:59:12 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112605 Kneasy wrote: >>> Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get?<<< SSSusan wrote: >> Finding Beauty in works of art or music, seeing Beauty in the form or function of the architectural structure of a building, being moved by the Beauty of nature or by the Beauty of the word in a well- crafted poem. It's *these* kinds of references to beauty that are apparently lacking within the Hogwarts curriculum and to which I believe Kneasy referred.<< Potioncat: > Well, time has passed since I read Kneasy's original post, and I > may be missing the mark too. But...this is Harry's point of view > we're seeing. Have you ever gone on a field trip to a museum with > a group of boys in this age range? > > You can lead a boy to beautiful art but you can't make him think. > (Particularly after the first nude statue.) > > There could be all sorts of attempts being made and it would most > likely go over Harry's head. (Dean Thomas might get it.) SSSusan: Not yet, though I have taught them social studies. :-) And I'm definitely not arguing the EFFICACY or SUCCESSFULNESS of teaching aesthetics, just questioning its presence at all within the Hogwarts curriculum. [Field trip to the opera house, anyone?] Actually, the major thrust of that discussion as I understand it had to do w/ the classroom discussion or attempt to introduce morality & ethics within the curriculum, with the point being, there isn't much of it happening. In this offshoot of that discussion, concerning aesthetics or beauty, the point (for me, anyway) is in whether it's ATTEMPTED. That is: Are aesthics a part of the curriculum? do teachers make the attempt to introduce the concept? Here's what Nora wrote at the start: >>> I'm trying to figure out how to functionally work in a discussion, a serious and non-trivial discussion, into any of these classes so far as they've been presented, and I just can't come up with any good concrete specifics on how this would be done. For example, methinks that Hagrid as CoMC teacher is not exactly going to be imparting a discussion of perspective, even if he asks the kids to draw one of the animals. That class is overwhelmingly hands- on. Potions is hands-on. Transfiguration is all about making things change so McGonagall won't yell at you. DADA is the one place I can see ethics coming up--Lupin is a good teacher, in part, because he actually makes them think through the process of dealing with a Boggart, and why it works to laugh at it, and what it means. But it still seems important that the all-magic wizarding world is lacking a hell of a lot of things--a serious concept of human rights is a good one, amongst other things.<<< To which Kneasy replied: >>>Apparently, it takes a long time and intensive study to become magically 'literate'; so much so that there seems to be insufficient time for the study of ethics or aesthetics. Of course we may have doubts whether or no the denizens of the WW have any aesthetic sense at all. In which case who is going to teach it? Art - doesn't seem to exist as we know it. A picture that moves as *it* wills - and demonstrates self-awareness and independent thought can hardly be considered a statement by the artist. Literature - none, unless you regard "how to" manuals as literature. Theatre - non-existent so far as we know. ... Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get? It's a very pragmatic society, probably deliberately so, seemingly concerned with the business of everyday affairs, totally uninterested in what might loosely be described as cultural matters.<<< SSSusan again: So hopefully that helps explain my take on the search for a reference to Beauty in the books. I'll grant Potioncat's point that we get Harry's perspective, primarily, so it could be that it's at Hogwarts, fully established in the curriculum, along w/ routine discussions of morality & ethics but that it's simply not noted by our Harry. After all, we don't hear about brushing teeth or taking showers, either, and presumably that's happening. :-) In this case, though, as opposed to the tooth-brushing, I think these "non- pragmatic" parts of education just really AREN'T dealt with much at Hogwarts. Being a liberal arts kinda gal, I think that's a bit sad. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 19:01:59 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:01:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > Now if Sirius had come forward and asked to speak to DD then as he > did near the end of PoA, DD could have used Legilmency or any > number of other tests to determine his veracity. But Sirius > remained silent. To play the contrarian: this is all predicated on DD having the ability to go and speak to Sirius. Given the Barty Crouch system of institutional justice, and the knowledge that Sirius didn't get a trial, how could Sirius have asked? This is, of course, so far unsupported in the text, but there's also the potential problems of sheer Ministry obfuscation and refusal to allow Dumbledore free reign, as it seems that visits to Azkaban are highly restricted. Perhaps this is at a period when DD is either unwilling or unable to get around the Ministry's bureaucracy and obstinancy? For all his careful planning and watchfulness, I think DD is likely guilty of a certain complacency in the wake of Voldemort's first fall. > DD knew from Hagrid that Sirius had shown up at Godric's Hollow > hoping to take his godson away on the flying motorcycle, that he > had followed his failure there by pursuing and confronting Peter, > that he had laughed madly when the aurors took him away. That on > top of his "knowledge" that Sirius was the Secret Keeper must have > convinced him that Sirius, who had always been reckless and > arrogant and *had once tried to murder a classmate*, was now > dangerously insane. (my emphasis added) I don't need to mark this as presently qualified, do I? Oh, for some concrete information... > It also accounts for his reluctantly allowing the Dementors to > guard Hogwarts, endangering not only Sirius but his > own students. He had no reason to suspect that Sirius was innocent. > And Sirius seemed to confirm not only his guilt but his intention to > murder Harry with every action taken from that point forward, from > attacking the Fat Lady's portrait to slashing Ron's bedcurtains and > flourishing a twelve-inch knife. "Sirius has not behaved like an > innocent man" is an understatement. He behaved like a homicidal > maniac, which Dumbledore and everyone else had every reason to > believe he was. I think the unanswered proposition of Ministry influence is also a possible factor here--not that both can't have some sort of play, but I think it's really more a case of Dumbledore reluctantly bowing and letting Fudge do what he wants, rather than engage in an OPEN feud with the Minister of Magic. Now, with hindsight, we can really see this incident, Fudge's willingness to pull out these vile creatures in order to recover the escaped convict and restore his own prestige, as completely in-character for Fudge. His increasing subsequent blindness and resentment of Dumbledore should cast new light on how we see the beginning of it, in PoA. > Let's not blame Dumbledore for thinking what Mr. Weasley and > Professor McGonagall and Remus Lupin also thought--that Sirius > Black betrayed the Potters to their deaths and murdered Peter > Pettigrew. As far as I can see, there's nothing else he could think. Not quite enough information to tell what was really going on in the events that actually transpired. I think what's being expressed is a general disappointment that Dumbledore, who often seems so willing and ready to help the abject who wouldn't be given a second chance by many other people *cough*, seems to have dropped the ball on this one. If we take Dumbledore as the parental figure to the Order (which he so is), he has an obligation to work through events like this fully, by actually going out and getting some personal empirical evidence, and not simply engage in the kind of half-informed logical train of thought that would lead him to do nothing. In the light of that problem, I think the obstruction proposition makes a little more sense. This is one question I'd love to ask JKR, though. -Nora, who wonders if sometimes we don't overestimate character complexity or the complexity of plot events simply out of a lack of information From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 19:02:21 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:02:21 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: > On a related note, I am one of those who have to contend personally > with the right-wingers who give Christianity a bad name and who want > to ban Potter. I can't tell you how grateful I am when I see > Rowling's Christian faith shine out of the text. It makes it so much > easier for me to explain to those whose minds are closed up tight > that they are missing the whole point. > > I swear, some of them would only be happy if Jesus DID jump out at > the end. *sigh* > > Steve > The Lexicon Steve, in view of the extremely relevant Admin note posted only a few hours ago, and your high profile position as owner and chief editor of the Lexicon, I would like to say how much I regret that you chose to make this provocative statement, which cannot but infuriate those of us who do not share your faith, or particularly agree that JKR's alleged beliefs are shaping the text in the ways you suggest. Although your point is to criticise the Christian fundamentalists who would like to see the books banned, in fact, your statements are equally dismissive of people who, in your view, don't quite see the broader Christian messages which you are convinced JKR is writing into the books. It would also be useful to have a link to the interview which has done so much to persuade you of JKR's intentions on this point, as my search of Quick Quotes has not found it so far. Carolyn From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 19:08:18 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:08:18 -0000 Subject: long response to Beauty in HP (WAS: Re: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrs_sonofgib" wrote: > Kneasy wrote: > > > > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in > the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of > beauty - how primitive can you get?> > > > I can think of a few examples: > > "Fair Ravenclaw from Glen" (one of the Sorting Hat's songs) > and I think the general impression of the Veela was that they were > beautiful, obviously before they threw a fit. And Arthur comments > about not going (for girls) based on looks alone. > But as far as the students, they are generally described in ways > other than 'ooh, she's so pretty' etc. Ron certainly notices who is > NOT beautiful when thinking about who to ask to the Yule Ball. > > ~tina Antosha Hmmmmm. Okay, so this one had me scratching my head for a while, but... Animals and places are described frequently in the books as beautiful. In PS/SS, Harry sees the dead unicorn and thinks he's never seen anything so sad or beautiful and Hagrid says of baby Norbert, "Isn't he beautiful!" In CoS, Fawkes lays his "beautiful head" on Harry's wounded arm. In GoF, the word "beautiful" is used to describe the veela on a number of occasions (are they creatures or beings???), and the unicorn that Grubly-Plank brings in to her first lesson is oooo'd and ah'd over by the girls: "It's so beautiful!" Also in GoF, Wormtail creepily describes his silver hand as beautiful, and Trelawney's model of the Solar System is so described as well as is the phoenix song that comes from the web of light surrounding Harry and LV in the graveyard. In OotP, Parvati sighs to Lavender about how beautiful Hedwig is and Harry remarks on both the room with the flickering lights in the DoM and Dumbledore's office as being beautiful (I think the headmaster's office is described that way in several books). The only people who are described as being physically attractive that I could come up with were Lockhart (though that might just be my memory; I couldn't find the description), Cedric ("good-looking") Lily, Rosmerta, Fleur and Cho (all "pretty") and the statue of the witch and wizard from the Fountain of Magical Brethren, who are in fact described as "noble-looking" on the one hand and "beautiful" on the other. I think we can sense that in each of these cases (excepting Cedric and, so far, Lily and Rosmerta), physical attractiveness has turned out to be a negative, rather than a positive attribute. And even in Cedric's case, his attractiveness was a goad to Harry's ego; it got in the way of any possible friendship between them (which was Harry's problem, not Cedric's, admittedly). I think we can take from this that JKR is more interested in people of character than people who fit some sort of norm of attractiveness. Think about it. Who are the most appealing people in the series? Harry, the skinny, pale boy with the perpetually messy hair. Hermione, with the bushy hair and the one-time buck teeth. Ron, who's tall and gawky with a long nose. Neville, who is moon-faced and clumsy. Ginny, about the quality of whose features we know almost nothing except that she's small, fair and red-headed with bright brown eyes. (Sounds very attractive to me, but then I'm married to a Celt.) I could go on. The Weasley parents (he balding and bespectacled and she short and plump)? Luna (with her protuberant eyes and tangled blonde locks)? Profs Dumbledore (with his twice- broken nose) and McGonagall (with her severe bun)? Hagrid (with his beetle-black eyes and wild hair and beard)? Greasy-haired Snape or threadbare Lupin? Sirius may have been attractive once (when he was young and foolish), but by the time we meet him he is a ruin of his former self. Tonks? Heck, we don't even know what she *looks* like! 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. Then there's Lily Evans. When Harry sees his mother in the Mirror of Erised, she is described as pretty; when he sees her in Snape's memory, her eyes are "startling". So perhaps there is a place for good-looking people in the WW, too. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 19:11:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:11:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > Not quite enough information to tell what was really going on in the > events that actually transpired. I think what's being expressed is a > general disappointment that Dumbledore, who often seems so willing > and ready to help the abject who wouldn't be given a second chance by > many other people *cough*, seems to have dropped the ball on this > one. Alla: Definitely. At least that is what I am questioning. Dumbledore gave up waaay too fast, IMO. I am really not asking for much. How about just giving Sirius a chance to tell HIS SIDE of the story. You know, just press MInistry to administer Veritaserum, that is all. You maybe right with obstruction of justice proposition, otherwise it just sounds as another plot hole to me. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 19:12:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:12:42 -0000 Subject: Book 6 Title -- Hyphen? In-Reply-To: <20040908054829.81110.qmail@web12309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112610 I (Carol) wrote: > > I don't know what the British rules are regarding hyphen usage, but in American English, a temporary compound (i.e., one that's not in the dictionary) consisting of an adjective plus a noun or participle is hyphenated if it precedes the noun it modifies. > > Since "half" is an adjective and "blood" is a noun and they both precede "prince," the compound adjective is hyphenated. (Source: "The Chicago Manual of Style," 14th edition, p. 221) > bamf responded: > I guess in my thinking it would have been more along the lines of a name or an object, which would not be subjected to the same rules as if it were a description of a person. I don't have my AP Style Manual unpacked, or I'd be able to give you a better example. The only thing I'm coming up with for an example is I was thinking of the Half Blood Prince along the lines of Independence Day Parade or Puerto Rican Day Parade, where instead of modifiers, which require hyphens, it is part of the title of an object or event. > > It could also be argued, though, that Blood Prince could be a title, which would also, then not require a hyphen. Carol: For a moment I was thinking you meant the APA Publication Manual and I was going to tell you that by coincidence, I just bought the fifth edition. But I'm not going to tell you which edition of the AP Stylebook I have--only that it dates back to my high school days and has no doubt been superceded numerous times. All my AP Stylebook says on the matter is, "In compounding, meaning should be the guide. "A great grandfather means he is great; a great-grandfather is lineage." No help at all, really, whereas CMS devotes a twelve-page table to the treatment of compound words or words with prefixes and suffixes. In any case, I would use CMS, not AP (or APA), to edit a work of fiction, which differs markedly from journalistic writing (or articles in psychological journals and similar publications). I suppose that if "blood prince" were a title, as you suggest, CMS might allow for an exception to its usual rules, but since we have no evidence that it is a title, and if it were, half a "blood prince" makes about as much sense as half a prince, I'll stick with CMS. (British editors no doubt follow different rules.) Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 10 19:12:17 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:12:17 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112611 SSSusan: After all, we don't hear about brushing teeth or taking > showers, either, and presumably that's happening. :-) In this case, though, as opposed to the tooth-brushing, I think these "non- > pragmatic" parts of education just really AREN'T dealt with much at Hogwarts. Being a liberal arts kinda gal, I think that's a bit sad. Potioncat: I think you're right. And the only reason I can think of for JKR to have left them out is that they don't sound as cool as the magic classes do. On the other hand, do we know that we've been given the complete list of electives? (sorry, don't know the British word.) Is Dean Thomas taking Magic Paintbrush classes? Wouldn't someone be taking Ancient Languages for spell development? Or has this been said before and I've forgotten. (not old age, but a stray memory charm...) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 19:41:36 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:41:36 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! In-Reply-To: <002e01c49267$7963b1c0$15c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112612 Carol wrote: > "Regardless of whether she was good or evil, she couldn't have written to Tom or had any influence (other than genetic inheritance) on him: she died in childbirth, living just long enough to give him his name." > DuffyPoo responded: > She could have written the letter sometime during her nine-month (I presume witches ....) pregnancy and left the letter with the facility she was in. Carol: Why would she do that, though? Presumably she didn't know that she, a witch, would die in childbirth (or, technically, moments afterward). She probably thought she'd be raising the child herself as a single mother. And she probably wouldn't have been in a "facility" (hospital?) during her pregnancy. She must have lived in a house of some sort on whatever savings she had from before her marriage or perhaps a stipend from her estranged (or ex-) husband. My impression is that Tom was born in a Muggle hospital or at home; wizard hospitals (St. Mungo's and the hospital wing at Hogwarts) seem to deal with magical injuries (and in the case of Madam Pomfrey's hospital wing, broken bones and similar injuries). At any rate, it's much more likely (IMO) that Tom was curious about (or obsessed with) his wizardly heritage on his mother's side and researched it, beginning with the name Marvolo. We know he knows that his mother told whoever was present at the birth that it was his grandfather's name--clearly *her* father's. Why hypothesize about letters when that bit of canon will suffice to explain what Tom knew about his heritage before he came to Hogwarts and could follow up on once he got there? Carol From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 10 19:45:20 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:45:20 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: Lotsa snips > Kneasy wrote: > Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the > books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - > how primitive can you get? > > It's a very pragmatic society, probably deliberately so, seemingly > concerned with the business of everyday affairs, totally uninterested > in what might loosely be described as cultural matters.<<< > > > SSSusan again: > So hopefully that helps explain my take on the search for a > reference to Beauty in the books. I'll grant Potioncat's point that > we get Harry's perspective, primarily, so it could be that it's at > Hogwarts, fully established in the curriculum, along w/ routine > discussions of morality & ethics but that it's simply not noted by > our Harry. After all, we don't hear about brushing teeth or taking > showers, either, and presumably that's happening. :-) In this case, > though, as opposed to the tooth-brushing, I think these "non- > pragmatic" parts of education just really AREN'T dealt with much at > Hogwarts. Being a liberal arts kinda gal, I think that's a bit sad. > Yup; you've got my intended meaning. Many everyday things can be described as beautiful (though not many really justify he adjective) but what I'm on about is the study and appreciation of beauty, particularly in man-made (cultural) items - aesthetics, in essence. There are no beautiful paintings, statues, prose, poetry, buildings - in fact no concept or even acknowledgement of even its lesser forms - design, style, fashion (except Ron's hatred of his dress robes) - nothing that indicates that the WW has any taste at all. They're a bunch of barbarians. Kneasy From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 10 19:46:43 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:46:43 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > > > Steve, in view of the extremely relevant Admin note posted only a few > hours ago, and your high profile position as owner and chief editor > of the Lexicon, I would like to say how much I regret that you chose > to make this provocative statement, which cannot but infuriate those > of us who do not share your faith, or particularly agree that JKR's > alleged beliefs are shaping the text in the ways you suggest. It infuriates people? Really? I didn't think I was making any kind of provocative statement at all! I have a degree in literature and have spent any number of hours in classes talking about the way that the world view of an author affects their writing, intentionally or not. I wasn't preaching any particular world view, although my own was evident, that's true, and if that was seen as provocative, I am truly sorry. If your world view would happen to come out in something you write on here, I can gurantee you that I will never be "infuriated" by it. Rowling's world view doesn't always match my own. That also comes out in her writing. I don't have the slightest problem with that, and in many ways I celebrate it. (See my published works ;) What is it about her Christian world view that you find threatening? It's just a world view. We all have them. She can't help it, and I don't see that she's intentionally trying to inflict it on anyone. > > Although your point is to criticise the Christian fundamentalists who > would like to see the books banned, in fact, your statements are > equally dismissive of people who, in your view, don't quite see the > broader Christian messages which you are convinced JKR is writing > into the books. My criticism of those who want to ban the Potter books was perhaps out of place, you're right. I am sorry if that offends. That was unnecessarily harsh. I could talk about my personal experiences with that group as some sort of explanation but that would not be helpful. You misunderstand me, however. I do not think that she is intentionally writing Christianity into her books. I am saying that her own world view is bound to come out when she's talking about things like death (and life after death) and I do see elements of Christian belief in what she wrote. I am sure she would be the first to say that she isn't trying to preach Christianity, but there are elements there, and if they are there, what's wrong with noting that she is a Christian and that might be why? > > It would also be useful to have a link to the interview which has > done so much to persuade you of JKR's intentions on this point, as my > search of Quick Quotes has not found it so far. I just searched the Vancouver Sun web site, which is where I got it. It was an interview with Max Wyman. However, they seem to not have archives of such things. I do have a copy and I'll find and post it, but I would much rather be able to just link to an URL...we'll see if I can track it down. In the meantime, please accept my apology if I offended you. Believe me when I say that I had absolutely no intention of infuriating anyone and I'm a bit astonished that my comments would have done that. Steve The Lexicon From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 10 20:03:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:03:47 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Inge: > How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and > future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort is - at > that point - not in his past or present - only in his future... > This could get complicated. OK; Harry meets a being he recognises as Tom Riddle - only it isn't, it's Diary!Tom. The real Tom is part of Voldy and off in Albania licking his wounds after the Philosophers Stone debacle. So what is Diary!Tom? An avatar? A copy? A construct cobbled together to turn the diary into a trap for the unwary? And whose words are in Diary!Tom's mouth? The genuine Tom Riddle or something that has been skulking in the diary for the past 50 years? We can't be absolutely sure. We're not even sure if he/it knows anything that has happened since the diary was made apart from what he has learned from Ginny. He's certainly unsure about what happened at Godric's Hollow though the real Voldy (presumably Tom) was there. No comparable uncertainty from Voldy in the graveyard; he's pretty clued up as to what happened. It's one of those passages were JKR could pull a fast one on us. I think it will pay to be cautious and not try to be too literal. Kneasy From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 10 20:29:34 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:29:34 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112616 > > It would also be useful to have a link to the interview which has > done so much to persuade you of JKR's intentions on this point, as my > search of Quick Quotes has not found it so far. I have been told that the Vancouver Sun has gotten rid of all online archives, which would explain why I can't find it from the original source. Here's a place online where the article is quoted: Unlike Lewis and Tolkien, who sometimes explained their faith in great detail, Rowling has mostly kept quiet about her beliefs. She has said she is a Christian and believes in God, and that she attends church. In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, she said it suits her to keep mum about her beliefs, "because if I talk too freely about that, I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." http://www.faithtoday.ca/article_viewer.asp?Article_ID=92 Here's another article which quotes both the Vancouver Sun interview and also one which I hadn't seen before about her church-going habits. http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/1100/harry Granted, both of these sources have a Christian agenda, so read the article with that in mind, but they do honestly quote what Rowling has said. I hope this is helpful. I'll keep looking for the original. Steve The Lexicon From lupinesque at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 20:36:15 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:36:15 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112617 Delwynmarch wrote: > 15-year-old kids might think it's > acceptable to disfigure a schoolmate who crossed them, but I, at the > age of 30, disagree strongly. But was she disfigured? We don't know. It depends how long it lasts. > Second, the Jinx is very much an injustice, for multiple reasons : > > 1. Nobody was warned about it. They agreed not to tell, but there was > never any mention of what would happen if they did, and especially > there was no mention of something so dreadful. There are two elements of injustice at work here. One is whether it was all right to administer a punishment at all; the other is whether the punishment was too extreme. For the second, it depends. I agree that the punishment was harsh, though it did elegantly fit the crime. If she still has the sneak mark when they return to school in HBP, then it's definitely too much. If it turns out she had to endure 2-4 months of nonstop publicity about having ratted out her friends, it seems within the realm of reasonable severity to me. (No, the betrayal wasn't to LV, just to Umbridge. But the need for DA was desperate and Umbridge's interference with it well-nigh criminal; this wasn't just a petty matter of getting kids in trouble with the headmistress, but an attack on a very important project. And there are clear overtones of undercover DEs here, being that JKR has dwelt a great deal on the suffering that's been brought about by people who "signed" and then reneged on promises.) For the first, about your point that there has to be a warning that there's a punishment . . . I have some problems with this idea. What makes a person a lawbreaker is not that she acts despite threat of punishment--it is that she violates the law. Are you saying that if you break a promise to me, I can't tell everyone you did that unless I specifically warned you beforehand that that's what I would do? Only Marietta is responsible for her having signed the agreement. If she wasn't willing to be a part of a secret group, she had the chance to leave instead of signing. Amy Z From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 20:48:04 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:48:04 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112618 > > I think this > > fact was demonstrated when Ron's wand malfunction in the Chamber > > tunnel FAR below Hogwarts was able to cause a cave-in and block > > the roomy passageway way up on the 4th floor. > Then, Geoff: > I must be being a bit thick but where did that idea come from? Now Eustace_Scrubb: I agree with Geoff that the timeline doesn't support these two cave-ins being related. However, the relationship between the upper floors of Hogwarts castle and various chambers that are said to be is most interesting. It would appear that this is another way in which the floor plan of the school defies muggle notions of spatial relationships. In PS/SS, the trio go through the trap door on the third floor and wind up by their own estimation. Then in CoS, Ron, Harry and Lockhart slide down from Myrtle's lavatory into the Chamber, which again is apparently . So either there are the WW equivalent of elevator shafts scattered all over the school or there's some magic going on here that allows such travel under certain conditions. Now, I still don't think the two cave-ins mentioned above are related and therefore this isn't the sought-after clue from CoS, I do think that these odd spatial relations at Hogwarts may well play a role in the final two books. I still wonder whether the Hogwarts Express and/or Platform 9 3/4 aren't also likely avenues of attack. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb "If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, I was barely involved!" From lupinesque at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 21:00:14 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:00:14 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112619 Miz Storge wrote: > I'm tackling the Christianity issue by looking for the 'basic bedrock > of the Christian faith' described in the Apostle's Creed - belief in > one God, the Father and creator, Jesus Christ the Son, born of the > Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, risen on the third day, > coming to judge the living and the dead, the Holy Spirit who spoke > through the prophets, etc. If I am correct, these are the minimum > things one MUST believe to be a Christian Oh, gosh, I know loads of Christians who don't believe everything in the Apostles' Creed. Many other Christians may argue that those people are not true Christians, to be sure, which only supports my point that it's not at all easy to define who is and is not a Christian. What is true is that if you not only define Christianity that narrowly, but define Christian literature as literature that alludes to each and every element of the Apostles' Creed, you won't have a lot of Christian literature left. Even Aslan might not make the cut. Christian authors do not necessarily create point-by-point allegories of the death and resurrection of Jesus. They may, for example, write a story that expands upon one of his teachings. Amy Z --------------------------------------------------------------------- The teachers were of course forbidden from mentioning the interview by Educational Decree Number Twenty-six, but they found ways to express their feelings about it all the same. Professor Sprout awarded Gryffindor twenty points when Harry passed her a watering can. --Order of the Phoenix From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 21:02:33 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:02:33 -0000 Subject: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: > My first is about Harry's blood protection. It gets, more or less, > renewed by staying with the Dursley's. That's why DD keeps sending > him back, even though it isn't the best place for him now. > > Since LV got Harry's blood to get the same protection, won't it > expire unless he spends time with Petunia or Dudley? Actually, I think that the implication is (and I just finnished a reread of Order last night) that while LV might be able to touch Harry now, Harry is still safe in the Dursley's home. Both, if I am interpreting this correctly, from LV and LV's followers, who were the biggest danger to Harry's life right after the Godric's Hollow attack. I am paraphrasing, but DD said that as long as Harry can call Privet Drive home and return there at least once a year, he will still be protected there. This is, also if I am interpreting things correctly, conditional on Aunt Petunia (and possibly Dudley) staying alive. JKR said that Harry is looking at his shortest stay on Privet Drive in book six, but even so I don't really think that Harry will be in as bad a mental state as last summer at all. After all, Moody promised communications every three days. And the war has begun, so there's gotta be stuff going down, which will prevent Harry from his feelings of uselessness and inaction which made him so miserable last summer. Just my thoughts. Meri - poping out of her lurkdom of late... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 10 21:03:39 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:03:39 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (WAS: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112621 Kneasy wrote: >>> Oh - has anyone come across anything described as 'beautiful' in the books? Can't recall it myself. A society with no concept of beauty - how primitive can you get? It's a very pragmatic society, probably deliberately so, seemingly concerned with the business of everyday affairs, totally uninterested in what might loosely be described as cultural matters.<<< SSSusan: >> So hopefully that helps explain my take on the search for a reference to Beauty in the books. I'll grant Potioncat's point that we get Harry's perspective, primarily, so it could be that it's at Hogwarts, fully established in the curriculum, along w/ routine discussions of morality & ethics but that it's simply not noted by our Harry. After all, we don't hear about brushing teeth or taking showers, either, and presumably that's happening. :-) In this case, though, as opposed to the tooth-brushing, I think these "non- pragmatic" parts of education just really AREN'T dealt with much at Hogwarts. Being a liberal arts kinda gal, I think that's a bit sad.<< Kneasy again: > Yup; you've got my intended meaning. > Many everyday things can be described as beautiful (though not many > really justify the adjective) but what I'm on about is the study > and appreciation of beauty, particularly in man-made (cultural) > items - aesthetics, in essence. > > There are no beautiful paintings, statues, prose, poetry, > buildings - in fact no concept or even acknowledgement of even its > lesser forms - design, style, fashion (except Ron's hatred of his > dress robes) - nothing that indicates that the WW has any taste at > all. > They're a bunch of barbarians. SSSusan: [Snort!] Barbarians, indeed. :-) You know, in thinking this over, I think Snape's speech about potions at the start of first year came as close as anything to a present-if-subtle message about Beauty. I can't recall anything else from a class which came closer. As to Potioncat's question a bit ago about electives, no, I don't know what kind are offered, if any, except that Muggle Studies is clearly optional. And actually, I wasn't thinking of a separate class or classes at all--though Art Appreciation or Wizard Theatre might be nice!--but more about these themes of aesthetics, ethics, and moral consideration being INCORPORATED INTO those classes they all do take: Potions, DADA, Transfiguration, History of Magic. Sometimes things are learned best when a separate course, yes, but sometimes the concepts are more easily grasped & applied when they arise from a discussion of some specific content such as "What happened to bring about the Goblin Rebellions?" or "Why are THESE things considered Unforgiveables but not THESE things?" Am I making any sense? Siriusly Snapey Susan From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 21:12:41 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:12:41 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112622 Something struck me as funny while I was doing a reread of SS last week. In the scene in, IIRC, chapter 6 (The Journey From Platform Nine and Three Quarters), Harry is alone in King's Cross Station and desperately searching for his way to the Hogwart's Express. He overhears the Weasleys talking. Mrs. Weasley asks aloud, "What's the platform number again?" and Ginny replies "Nine and three quarters." Now it is entirely possible that this was just a sort of staged conversation in order to confirm to Harry that these are in fact wizards going to Hogwarts, but this still strikes me as a weird thing to ask. After all, Mrs. Weasley has allready escorted Bill and Charile to school, so why is it that in Ron's first year she needs reminding of nine and three quarters? Is this perhaps and implications that there are other WW train platforms hidden in King's Cross? Just a thought. Meri - wondering where Platform 5 and 7/10 goes... From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 9 20:38:28 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:38:28 -0400 Subject: Marauder-era punks and goths (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Greasy Hair Message-ID: <20040909.163940.3256.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112623 Lynette said: > At the time Snape and the Marauders (please, don't ever name your band > that!)were at Hogwarts, Punk was leading into other styles, like New Romantic > and Goth. Am I the only one who sees Sirius as a total punk? Maybe even Lupin, too, but he grew out of it more. (BTW, you've gotta hear the Gary Oldman version of "I Did it My Way" from Sid & Nancy. Somehow it's really liberating to sing along to a punk cover of that song.) >IMHO, our young Severus started affecting the greasy hair >and black robes as a fashion statement, and just never changed. I dunno, I can believe that Young!Snape was greasy just because teenage boys are, sometimes, on the crusty side. :) Thinking back on the noxious odors that used to waft from my brother's room... My issue, then, is that I would expect a 36-year-old man who holds a professional job to have grown out of that. But it's nether here nor there, really, because we'll probably never know, and a lot of people have come up with as good of theories as possible, based on what we know. > Maybe Severus still hangs out at Goth clubs and the chicks are all over > him because of the cool evil sorcerer look, just like some fans are > rather fond of Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape. LOL. Movie!Snape is totally goth. Every time we see the quidditch scene, when Hermione sets his robes on fire, I look at the Edwardian buttons on the cuffs of his trousers and think, "Hee! Snape shops at Hot Topic." My goth friend's goth boyfriends would bite the head off a bat for Alan Rickman's Snape costumes. :) Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Sep 10 01:46:11 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:46:11 EDT Subject: PoA Time-travel Question for those who think the past ca... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112624 TL wrote We've all been debating using examples from science, logic, other stories, etc., but I firmly believe that in PoA the past is NEVER changed. Whether or not it CAN change in JKR's world may be an outside the novel debate. Maybe wizards *can* change the past, but they DO NOT CHANGE IT in PoA. ********************************************************** It seems that a few people may have over looked this post made yesterday that DEFINITELY confirms that time CAN be changed and it has happened before. Below are some quotes, that maybe helpful to you. I do see your point about Buckbeak, and the patronus, but as far as TT giving the ability to change things, well the quotes below will help. Chancie ******************************************************************** MESSAGE 112436, > But my thoughts are if it is "impossible to change time" WHY > have a time turner to begin with??? What's the point of having >the ability to go back in time, and just look at things? And also, >why was Hermione so concerned with getting back before the last >chime of the clock? If it is as you say, then she would >automatically end up there on time, because everything had already >played out. Why was she "warned" not to change the > past as Naama reminded us? If she couldn't CHANGE anything, then >why worry with a warning? "K": I have to agree with what you said. I'm going to list a few canon bits, including one you already mentioned. ~~'There must be something that happened around now he wants us to change,' he said slowly. PoA/Ch 21/Pg 290/UK "K": Why would Dumbledore send Harry and Hermione back to change something that can't be changed? ~'Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, 'what if we-we just run in there, and grab Pettigrew-' 'No!' said Hermione in a terrified whisper. 'Don't you understand? **We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen- PoA/Ch 21/Pgs 291-291/UK "K": *Hermione - terrified whisper *One of the most important wizarding laws *Nobody's supposed to change time *Nobody ~~'We'd only be seen by ourselves and Hagrid!' 'Harry, what do you think you'd do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid's house?' said Hermione. 'I'd-I'd think I'd gone mad,' said Harry, 'or I'd think there was some Dark Magic going on-' 'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 292/UK "K": *Awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time. *...loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake! So, wizards have made mistakes when meddling with time. Loads of them have killed themselves and it was a *mistake*. It wasn't what would have happened naturally. ~~'OK,' said Hermione, getting a firmer grip on Buckbeatk's rope. 'But we've got to keep out of sight, Harry, remember...' PoA/Ch 21/pg 295/UK 'Harry, we mustn't be seen!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 296/UK 'See?' Hermione whispered. 'See what would have happened?' We've got to keep out of sight! PoA/Ch 21/pg 296/UK 'Harry,' Hermione muttered...'we've got to stay put. We mustn't be seen. There's nothing we can do...' PoA/Ch 21/pg 298/UK "K": How many times does Hermione tell Harry they must not be seen? ~~'...There's nothing we can do! We came back to help Sirius. We're not supposed to be doing anything else!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 298/UK 'There goes Lupin,' Hermione whispered. 'He's transforming-' 'Hermione!' said Harry suddenly. 'We've got to move!' 'We mustn't, I keep telling you-' 'Not to interfere! But Lupin's going to run into the Forest, right at us!' PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK ~~'I think I'd better go outside again, you know,' said Harry slowly. 'I can't see what's going on - we won't know when it's time-' Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. 'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly. 'But if we don't see what's going on, how're we going to know when it's time to rescue Sirius?' PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK "K": *'We're not supposed to be doing anything else!' *Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious. 'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly. "K": It's obvious one can interfere with time. ~~'Hermione-what'll happen-if we don't get back inside-before Dumbledore locks the door?' Harry panted. 'I don't want to think about it!' Hermione moaned, checking her watch again. 'One minute!' PoA/Ch 22/pg 305/UK What would happen if Harry and Hermione did not get back in time before the door was locked? I'm not particularly fond of time travel but I do feel PoA was just the introduction. "K" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 11:22:38 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:22:38 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112625 > Hannah: > > I think the name 'Snivellus' is significant in the whole > marauders/Snape feud. The name implies 'snivelling' - crying, > whining, being weak. It's the sort of name a bully might give a > pathetic, greasy haired kid with a rather dodgy background, who > cries when he gets teased by the handsome, popular bully (not > naming any names, but you get the picture...) during his first > years. It's not the sort of name that you give someone you > > suspect to be evil. > > > The way they use the name is also interesting. They emphasise > it, using it as a deliberate taunt - maybe harking back to some > time they made Snape cry (snivel). Taunting someone with a name, > IMO, is the behaviour of a bully picking on a weaker victim, not > a brave Gryffindor challenging a suspected Junior Dark Wizard. Valky now: > You are both right indeed that the name Snivellus is a puerile > inference of their superiority that hearkens an actual instance when Young Snape actually *did* cry. There is almost no doubt of this. However, I do not see the shallow pool of the bully rhetoric Hannah suggests reflecting fifteen year old James at all. Nor Sirius for that matter. > > Let's investigate their sense of superiority in Sirius own words. > In POA we are told that James and Sirius befriend a WW outcast > discovering his inner greatness and redeeming a wrongly condemned > child from his tragic existence into the arms of unselfish, bigotry > free brotherhood. > The defense for Snape in the pensieve is that he was minding his > own business. Hmm... was he also minding his own business while > others disdained First Year Remus arriving from his transformations > deprived of sleep and looking haggard and unkempt? > Indeed I think he was. Was it Snape who made to give lonesome > tragic Remus a kindness he had never known and was unfairly denied. > No it was James and Sirius. Hannah again now: So Snape deserved to be condemned on the fact he didn't befriend Remus Lupin? Why should he? Lupin was in a different house, and we've already seen that close friendships between members of different houses are fairly unusual, especially in the first years. Snape probably only saw Lupin occasionally, in one or two joint lessons, whereas James and Sirius would have had all classes with him, sat at dinner with him, and presumably shared a dormitory with him. Lupin wasn't a known outcast when James and Sirius befriended him - they had been friends for some time when they found out he was a werewolf, by which time they knew him. Of course, I agree it was a very fine thing that these young boys were able to put aside the prejudices of the rest of the WW when they found out, but there's nothing to say Remus was overtly lonesome or tragic in the first place. Valky: > Valky continues: > In GOF and OOtP we are furnished that Snape was a young boy who > liked, probably practiced (fly killer),and was reputed to be knee > deep in Dark Arts. This is as much as saying Snape is that boy, > wether or not he supported Voldemort/Hitler, he was entrenched in > the Warlords fundamental principles. > And hence my analogy sticks like a crazy glue. > > So James and Sirius thought they were superior to Snape, they even > made him cry. > Is that *really* such a bad thing given the context of the story? > I am still not saying that their actions were right. But are they > entitled to their delusion of superiority, after all? Hannah once more: Well, it really depends on whether their delusion of superiority *was* based on the fact Snape was into dark arts, or whether they felt they were better than him because he was greasy, studious, and bad at sport, while they were handsome, popular and good at quidditch. My argument is that it was the latter reason that made them feel superior, and the dark arts stuff came into the feud later on. Since James wasn't adverse to hexing people for fun himself, how much moral highground could he really claim? Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 11:50:39 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:50:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112626 Romulus Lupin wrote: > Ok, I know someone else must have pointed that out by now, but > Fake!Moody does name the spell as an AK, when he says to the > 4th-year Gryffs that the only survivor to the AK is sitting in > front of him. Hannah replies: I think the consensus was that Moody *assumed* it was an AK that LV used, but didn't actually *know*. This would seem to be a reasonable assumption, but as no one (as far as we know) was there at GH, it can't be proved. Most, if not all, the WW think it was AK, but perhaps they are wrong. Romulus Lupin: > What interests me about the protection issue is how did LV know > about it? And he did know, so much so that he was willing to put > off his reappearance a whole year just to steal Harry's blood and > get the protection himself. > > Harry does tell DT about his mother's sacrifice leaving a protection > in him, but how did this bit of information pass from Diary!Tom to > LV? Are they connected somehow? (This would also explain how DT knew > so much about his future, apart from Blabbering!Ginny). Or did PP > tell him? I don't remember if Scabbers was with them when the Trio > discussed the subject. IIRC, Scabbers spent most of his time dozing > on Ron's bed, rather than in his pockets. Hannah replies: LV knew from PS/SS that he couldn't touch Harry. He was probably able to work out why, since he's a good wizard. LV knew that Lily needn't have died and sacrificed her life for her son, since it is he who tells Harry this. In the years between PS/SS and GoF, he would have had time to think things through and put the two pieces of information together. The idea of Diary!Tom communicating with LV is interesting, but IMO they didn't. Diary! Tom knows little about GH and other events that LV would have been able to enlighten him on. Hannah From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 10 11:52:22 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:52:22 -0000 Subject: Marietta, Re: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112627 > totorivers wrote : > The hex is just something written on her face, and it is a meek > punishment for someone that got the headmaster thrown out: By not > healing her, it could be a statement that students can *not* attack > teachers. And in that case they are justified. > > Del replies : > Where *ever* did you read that Marrietta attacked DD ??? Her action > had *nothing* to do with DD !! She told on the DA for reasons that > we know nothing about, but it's quite obvious that her intention was > NEVER to get DD thrown out !! Just like Harry never intended to get > Sirius killed when he went to the MoM. Thought I'd throw in my 10 cents worth as I haven't really joined in any of these threads yet. Hi BTW. Marietta knew what she was doing. She not only betrayed the DA but one of her close friends, she threw Cho out there and left her to take whatever the punishment would be. Maybe she never intended to get Dumbledore into trouble but she knew very well what Umbridge was like, the whole school did, and by selling out the DA she knew that they were likely to get one hell of a punishment. Maybe not the full consequence but she knew it would be bad. Granted we don't know why she did it but...I can't think of ONE good reason that would excuse her actions? Nobody forced her to sign that parchment, she could have easily got up and walked away but she didn't (like someone said she was to weak to make her own decisions). I agree that it was unfair of Hermione, she could have at least given some indication that they had sealed their fate in some way but if you expect Harry to deal with the consequences of his actions then so should Marietta, and that happens to be the SNEAK mark. "Jennifer" From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 13:09:37 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:09:37 -0000 Subject: OoTP, chap 15, Snape's essay - "varieties of venom antidotes" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112628 > Valky: > I am making a guess that Nagini is a 'naja atra', which is an > Asian Cobra and is a particularly large snake. > > The other matter swimming in my thought space right now regarding > these discoveries is *cabbages*. Cabbages Again!? We are still yet > to discover why Figgy's house smells of cabbage. It is possible > that the Polyjuice proposal has been fully put to bed as of OOtP. Maybe if socks symbolize love, cabbages symbolize safety or sanctuary (Hagrid in Knockturn Alley, Figgy's house, an antidote for Nagini...) I think Nagini is just that, a nagini, a female naga. After all, Voldemort seems to be turning into a naga, naga are associated with immortality and Fawkes is a magical creature, so his counterpart should be one, too. "frugalarugala" From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 14:01:50 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:01:50 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112629 > Magda wrote: > That's where I think Hermione really went wrong; she should have > only asked a couple of people she trusted to recruit members and > checked each one over before they were actually invited to any > meeting. Then maybe the daughter of a MoM employee might have > been weeded out at the beginning. > Valky: > To be fair, I think that it needs to be said here, Hermione was > trying to be unselfish by deliberately *not* weeding out people > who want to learn to defend themselves against the Dark Arts. (snip) Tonks now: I do think that Hermione made a mistake. She was too trusting of her fellow students. I would have been much more careful, overly so. But as Valky says that would not have been very democratic. Maybe JKR meant for this to be a lesson.. if you are too trusting you will be sorry, but be trusting anyway. (Or maybe that is something that Wayne Dyer would say.) Maybe it foreshadows something to come later.. another more shocking betrayal. But even if Hermione made a mistake in trusting, I still don't think that she was wrong to put the Sneak spell on the offending member. Tonks_op From nearlyheadlessryan at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 15:49:30 2004 From: nearlyheadlessryan at yahoo.com (nearlyheadlessryan) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:49:30 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112630 > Magda wrote: > Well, the problem I have with Hermione's actions is: > if everything is so important and it's so vitally crucial that > no one fink or rat out the group, then why on earth wouldn't > you take more care in selecting who gets invited to join the > group in the first place? > > That's where I think Hermione really went wrong; she should have > only asked a couple of people she trusted to recruit members and > checked each one over before they were actually invited to any > meeting. Then maybe the daughter of a MoM employee might have > been weeded out at the beginning. NearlyheadlessRyan: Everyone keeps talking about how Hermione should have been placed in Slytherin because of all the traits of Slytherin that she shows throughout the books, but in this instance she shows us why she wasn't chosen for Slytherin. When the four founders of Hogwarts split, it was because Salazar Slytherin wanted to be selective about who was allowed to attend Hogwarts, as far as the DA was concerned, Hermione was just the opposite and wanted to give all who wanted instruction, the oppertunity to learn. (Something I doubt that even Harry and especially Ron would have done willingly.) I know this won't end the debate about whether or not she was chosen for the right house, but I'm hoping that it will cut her some slack for a while. Thanks, -NearlyheadlessRyan From BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 17:12:20 2004 From: BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com (bamajenny12) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:12:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning References: Message-ID: <019301c49759$578da280$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112631 >Pat here: >And then >add all that to Tom Riddle saying that Voldemort is his past, >present, and future. The connection to time turning is the most >obvious, but do you think that this might be a red herring that >she put in to throw us all off? Hmmm.. >Inge: >How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present >and future. At the time Riddle is only 16 years old and Voldemort >is - at that point - not in his past or present - only in his >future... <> Jenny Here: And at the time that I read this, I did not see anything odd about it at all. Even though TR is only 16 at the time, and Voldemort is his 'future', TR knew the story of "The Boy Who Lived". And TR probably got at least some (if not most) of his information from Ginny, who would have made HP sound like HP was 10' tall and bullet proof, which would have only irritated/infuriated TR/LM even more. HP has the nerve to question why TR would even care about Voldemort, TR is confronting The Boy Who Lived, TR is denouncing his 'filthy muggle father', and proclaiming to HP that TR is the greatest wizard in the world. To me, I read the 'past, present and future' line as a very insecure (remember, he's not LM yet) 16-year-old speaking for effect. It just SOUNDS more dramatic (and possibly more intimidating to HP) to 'announce' that "LM is my past, present and future" as opposed to just saying "Hey, that's who I'm going to be when I grow up." Jenny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 18:37:18 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:37:18 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112632 Nora wrote: > I can picture them going into apprenticeships to study magic- > related fields in depth, but going on to a muggle university > to study something were the wizarding world and muggle world > overlap. Afterall, why create a seporate system of their own, > when the majority (the muggles) already have one in place? I > see Hogwarts as the school for what they can't get from the > muggle schools. I've often wondered about this. However how would students trained in WW schools provide school transfer records that muggle colleges and universities would accept? Unless some of the older institutions (I could see this as true with Oxford and Cambridge) actually have secret offices specifically for handling the cases of students entering from Hogwarts. -Cunning Spirit From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 19:07:08 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:07:08 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: <20040910174226.64134.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112633 > Magda asked: > What do you mean "read it at school"? I really don't understand this > analogy. It sounds (and I'm sure you don't mean it that way) that > reading a book somehow constitutes a crime-like activity and is a > sign of a potential criminal in the making. This is just a quick post of factual clarification, since I don't think anyone has done it yet. In the UK, to "read" something at school is like...searches for word....to major in it, I guess. Not just to read the book, but to study it in a big way as part of one's coursework. Of course it's unclear if we can say Snape has "read" the Dark Arts in that sense. It may be more of a hobby. :) er, yeah. Even I think that's a bit of a tangent. Alex From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 20:21:56 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:21:56 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances (WAS: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112634 > From: "justcarol67" (Carol): > Thanks for the input. Anyone else have thoughts on the meaning of > "defied three times"? `The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches. born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies .' Well, first, do you think the "those" we're talking refurs to: A) each individual (Lily, James, Frank and Alice) each defing him 3 times, B) each COUPLE defing him 3 times, C) culmulatively, between all four of them, they defied him 3 times, D) the entire family (and maybe including those who they'd just consider family), or E) the Order of the Phoenix. As Aurors and members of the Order, I can imagine the Longbottoms racking up any number, but if you want more 'conspiracy theory', maybe Neville's gran was in Slytherin: she wear green robes, she's ambitious (wanting Neville to live up to the family name, they're a family of long-established pure-bloods, and she fits my mental image of a "good Slytherin"--and we just need some of those. Then there's Great Uncle Algie, AKA the gloved balcony dangler of the WW. Nearly drowning Neville, "accidently" dropping him out of windows--I smell Death Eater. I mean, twice nearly knocking off the kid who might be the one with the power to destroy Voldemort, who also appeared to be a squib? Would a DE want a squib in the family? And he gave Neville that damn toad... Maybe the Longbottoms three defiances were becoming Aurors, refusing to become DEs and becoming members of the Order instead. [Just reading through this before hitting the send button, I thought I should specify, I don't think for a moment Neville's Gran is a DE-- only Uncle Algie.] As to the Potters, I don't think defending baby Harry can count. It goes 'born to those WHO HAVE thrice defied him', not born to those who WILL thrice defy him. It's past-tense already at the time of the prophesy. Otherwise, there are all the same possiblities of actions with the Order as the Longbottoms. But... there's also four marauders, who were probably close enough to consider each other like brothers, and one of them became a Death Eater. I think the three defiances may have been the other three marauders refusing to join up. (Though, obviously, they thought they'd all refused, or Wormtail would never have been trusted.) I mean, given what we've seen of the Marauders behavior, I can imagine Voldemort considering them prime candidates, and given James' hate of the dark arts, that might have been the slap of reality that motivated him to change and why Lily was willing to give him a chance. Of course, you'll notice this theory doesn't have Lily defing him at all, but it all turns on how you define "those". --Arugala, who really does believe Algie is evil, and Trever proves it. From juju_dragon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 10 21:16:32 2004 From: juju_dragon at hotmail.com (V-chan) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:16:32 -0000 Subject: The 'Profound' Answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112635 > Alla: > (snip)I like the speculation that Harry will be ready to endure > death to break the link between them, but then somehow emerge (it > will not be a proper death). Good point, but it seems rather cliche. The possession at the end of OotP might singinfy that the relationship between them is strong enough that if one's physical body dies, his soul/spirit will pass into the mind of the other, similiar to the way that Voldemort used Quirell. The finally confrontation between them may see Harry overcoming Voldemort after he's been possessed. In a sense, it would be Harry having to battle his own "inner demon". "V-chan" From Snarryfan at aol.com Fri Sep 10 21:25:08 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:25:08 -0000 Subject: Greasy-haired (was Re: McGonagall and Snape + totally ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112636 While he's always describe with greasy hair, I can't remember if it said that he's smell. If he wasn't very interested by personnal hygiene, someone would have make a remark by now, I just though about it. Someone know if it happens ? The "potions fumes make it greasy" is possible, with the "I don't care of what you think about me" (even if he made his presence know in COS *just* when Ron said that everyone hate him). I think it's a addition of the two. I could think of two moments where the Trio sweat a lot because of a potion, just let me catch the books. COS : "...Hermione emerged, shiny-faced..." while preparing the polyjuice. OOTP: "Harry, who was sweating profusely..." I suppose that 14 years of that will push anyone to give up. And Snape didn't try to begin. Christelle. From gretchen.bakies at prodigy.net Fri Sep 10 21:28:25 2004 From: gretchen.bakies at prodigy.net (GRETCHEN BAKIES) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040910212825.46454.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112637 meriaugust wrote: Something struck me as funny while I was doing a reread of SS last week. In the scene in, IIRC, chapter 6 (The Journey From Platform Nine and Three Quarters), Harry is alone in King's Cross Station and desperately searching for his way to the Hogwart's Express. He overhears the Weasleys talking. Mrs. Weasley asks aloud, "What's the platform number again?" and Ginny replies "Nine and three quarters." Now it is entirely possible that this was just a sort of staged conversation in order to confirm to Harry that these are in fact wizards going to Hogwarts, but this still strikes me as a weird thing to ask. After all, Mrs. Weasley has allready escorted Bill and Charile to school, so why is it that in Ron's first year she needs reminding of nine and three quarters? Is this perhaps and implications that there are other WW train platforms hidden in King's Cross? Just a thought. Meri - wondering where Platform 5 and 7/10 goes... Now Gretchen: Rats - you beat me to the punch and sent an email before I did! I noticed that also. Plus, Aunt Petunia is very surprised when Harry tells her the platform location and you would think she'd know about it. Even if she didn't go with her parents and Lily to King's Cross anytime, I'd think Lily would have talked about walking through a wall with her trunk! I've been debating if it was staged, as you said, to let Harry and the reader learn how to get there. The other thought I had was that this was something put in place just that year as part of the protection surrounding Harry. Then no matter how many times Molly had taken the trip herself or escorted Bill, Charlie, Percy and the twins, she might not remember what the new arrangement was and needed to be reminded. One thing that mind back this idea up is in POA, the dementors don't get on the train right away at King's Cross. They stop the train after its left the station. So maybe there is something in place to protect Harry from dementors, assorted DEs and Lord Voldemort. Gretchen - whimpering that when she finally thought about something new, someone beat her to it. Slinking back to a hidey hole to lurk in. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shalimar07 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 17:41:38 2004 From: shalimar07 at aol.com (mumweasley7) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:41:38 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112638 > Steve: > Oh, I think you're so right. Not necessarily in the details, since > it's almost impossible to guess the details in a Rowling book, but > in the fact that the collapsed tunnels are important. That was > just such an offhand comment -- that one is collapsed so we think > no more about it -- but it's STILL THERE... Steve, I believe the tunnel behind the 4th floor mirror will be a vital part somewhere in the next two books. Having Fred and George in town with a joke shop could also prove handy since they know all the secret tunnels between Hogsmeade and Hogwarts without using the map. I also remember DD saying he has a scar above his knee that is a map of London, that he finds useful. I think that may also come into play. Shalimar From shalimar07 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 17:32:16 2004 From: shalimar07 at aol.com (mumweasley7) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:32:16 -0000 Subject: Antidote to Nagini Venom? (was Re: OoTP,chap 15,...) In-Reply-To: <3517787E-0307-11D9-829E-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112639 > Finwitch: > > Well, more to the point, Nagini is a venomous snake, otherwise > > Wormtail couldn't milk it for venom. Note that the Snake Harry > > freed in the zoo was a boa, and not venomous! Valky: > I found what Hermione's essay on venoms had in it! > Third page of chapter 16 OOtP, Hermione is copying a diagram of > Chinese Chomping Cabbages. Interestingly Harry is also looking > at a reference with Asian flavour. Asiatic Anti-Venoms! Valky, You also brought to mind two things. In the SS Snape says he can teach them to stopper death... In GoF Wormtail says "There is more in the bottle" assuming he is speaking of milking Nagini..Do we think maybe Wormtail might have been good in potions and he may have helped LV take extra precautions to escape death at the Potters? Shalimar From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 21:58:56 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:58:56 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cunning_spirit" wrote: (?) wrote: > > I can picture them going into apprenticeships to study magic- > > related fields in depth, but going on to a muggle university > > to study something were the wizarding world and muggle world > > overlap. Afterall, why create a seporate system of their own, > > when the majority (the muggles) already have one in place? I > > see Hogwarts as the school for what they can't get from the > > muggle schools. Correction: I didn't write this. In fact, this is directly contra what I suspect. :) > I've often wondered about this. However how would students trained > in WW schools provide school transfer records that muggle colleges > and universities would accept? Unless some of the older > institutions (I could see this as true with Oxford and Cambridge) > actually have secret offices specifically for handling the cases of > students entering from Hogwarts. Even with the adorable level of oddness and eccentricity amongst the college population, kids at Hogwarts would be hard-pressed to really fit in. The culture shock for the pureblooded would be fairly profound, and the rest of the kids had been cut off from the stream of Muggle education for so long. Let's take the British model and not the American here--how would the Hogwarts kids pass their A levels and O levels? What kind of cover stories would they have for endlessly inquisitive dormmates and such. You get one wizarding undergraduate hammered (which is SO going to happen), he or she lets something slip... And for graduate education, you must come in with some proof of accomplishment in the field. No, it seems to me that the Muggle universities are something that the WW doesn't have any serious contact with--and I think that's deliberate in JKR's picture of her world, not only the best way to get out of writing 'Harry Potter Goes to College and Learns How To Do a Kegstand' (joking there, I am). -Nora wishes the library were open late From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 10 22:01:40 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:01:40 -0000 Subject: Lily's magical background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Karen (earlier) wrote: > > > > James Potter is a full-blood. For Harry to be a half-blood, > Lily is a Muggle. Therefore, Lily's grandparents are Muggles. > > I (Carol) responded: > > > Not a Muggle (a person with no magical powers) but a Muggleborn, > the witch or wizard child of two Muggles. She still has Muggle blood > in the sense that her parents are Muggles, which explains how Harry > can be a Half-blood despite having a witch and a wizard as parents. > > > > > > I think the part about "Lily's grandparents" is another slip of > the keyboard; JKR seems to have meant "Lily's parents"/"Harry's > grandparents." At any rate, there's no doubt from the books that > Lily is a Muggleborn. Her grandparents were presumably Muggles > as well, but it's her parents who are important in determining Harry's > status as a half-blood, no different in Riddle!Voldemort's view from > himself as far as bloodlines go. > > Karen then wrote: > > Thanks for the correction on the Muggle vs Muggle-born. I don't > > think JKR made a slip with "grandparents". I think she wants us to > > know that all 8 of Lily's and Petunia's great-grandparents are > > Muggles. > > Carol again: > At any rate, all four of Lily's (and Petunia's) grandparents were > Muggles, and therefore both parents were Muggles, which is all that's > needed to make Lily a Muggleborn and Petunia a Muggle. It would have > saved a lot of confusion if JKR had made the Muggle grandparent > connection clearer on her website! > Karen adds: JKR provide very clear distinct statements /clues on her website and not allowing the reader an ambiguous interpretation. Not the JKR I love reading! That's what makes her books so fun to re-read and this discussion group to be so active. (Elves - forgive me if this is off topic but I could not resist the opportunity to praise JKR.) - Karen From greatelderone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 22:04:56 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:04:56 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (was: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "koinonia02" wrote: > "K": > Why couldn't one go back to before the time they were born? If you > can go back 10 years why not 1,000? You are just traveling. > > I don't want to get into Buckbeak a great deal. But, if Buckbeak > didn't die and Sirius did escape, why send the kids on a time travel > trip that could be dangeous? GEO: In order to save Buckbeak and Sirius. The only reason they didn't die or get soul sucked was because future Harry and Hermione saved them so Harry and Hermione had to go back in time. > I find it hard to believe that time > travel *must* occur for these events to take place. Time travel was > used to change certain events. GEO: The events never changed. Time travel was always used to facilitite the events shown. Sirius and Buckbeak was always going to be rescued by Harry and Hermione and Harry was always going to be saved by his older self and the younger selves of Harry and Hermione were always to go back in time to allow the events to happen again. > What would have happened if Harry and Hermione made a mistake and > ended up in another time and place? Buckbeak would have died and > Sirius would have been taken away. GEO: They were never going to mess up because they never messed up and were never going to mess up. From their prespective it happened once from the perspective of something that follows the time turned Harry and Hermione into the past and then leaves and then follows the past Harry and Hermione who time turns again it happens an infinite times. > How many times has JKR hit us over the head with *you must not be > seen*. Things can go wrong with the time turner. GEO: They were told because their past selves never saw them. So the question arises was it because they tried not to be seen or because it was pre-determined. > *If all goes well.... GEO: Dumbledore doesn't know about the fates of the future selves of Harry and Hermione until the past ones time turn out of there. From kennymod at yahoo.com Thu Sep 9 18:26:08 2004 From: kennymod at yahoo.com (kennymod) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:26:08 -0000 Subject: "Hidden" thoughts, Occlumency (Re: Lucius and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112643 Chancie: > It seems to me that if Snape can tell when Harry's trying to > block thoughts during his lessons, then wouldn't Voldemort > know Snape was trying to hid something from him? Might; I thought that Snape moved or saved the thoughts he wanted to keep from V in his pensieve. K From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 10 22:21:18 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:21:18 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: <20040910212825.46454.qmail@web81307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, GRETCHEN BAKIES wrote: > > meriaugust wrote: > > Something struck me as funny while I was doing a reread of SS last > week. In the scene in, IIRC, chapter 6 (The Journey From Platform > Nine and Three Quarters), Harry is alone in King's Cross Station and > desperately searching for his way to the Hogwart's Express. He > overhears the Weasleys talking. Mrs. Weasley asks aloud, "What's the > platform number again?" and Ginny replies "Nine and three quarters." > Now it is entirely possible that this was just a sort of staged > conversation in order to confirm to Harry that these are in fact > wizards going to Hogwarts, but this still strikes me as a weird > thing to ask. After all, Mrs. Weasley has allready escorted Bill and > Charile to school, so why is it that in Ron's first year she needs > reminding of nine and three quarters? Is this perhaps and > implications that there are other WW train platforms hidden in > King's Cross? Just a thought. > Meri - wondering where Platform 5 and 7/10 goes... > > Now Gretchen: > > Rats - you beat me to the punch and sent an email before I did! I noticed that also. Plus, Aunt Petunia is very surprised when Harry tells her the platform location and you would think she'd know about it. Even if she didn't go with her parents and Lily to King's Cross anytime, I'd think Lily would have talked about walking through a wall with her trunk! I've been debating if it was staged, as you said, to let Harry and the reader learn how to get there. The other thought I had was that this was something put in place just that year as part of the protection surrounding Harry. Then no matter how many times Molly had taken the trip herself or escorted Bill, Charlie, Percy and the twins, she might not remember what the new arrangement was and needed to be reminded. One thing that mind back this idea up is in POA, the dementors don't get on the train right away at King's Cross. They stop the train after its left the station. So maybe there is something in place to protect Harry > from dementors, assorted DEs and Lord Voldemort. > Karen adds: I think platform 9 3/4 is a very protected place because everybodies children are on that platform for 7 years of thelr lives. I cannot see the DE's attacking a place where their offspring might end up in the cross fire. I can just see it - LV and the DEs attack Harry on the platform and he escapes by ducking behind Crabbe, Goyle and Malfoy loading their trunks on the train. or The parents who are escorting their childern to the train start throwing stunning curses around so the train leaves with only half the students. IMO - The platform 9 3/4 needs to be a safe place guarded by something on the Department of Mysteries knows about. Karen From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Sep 10 22:35:41 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:35:41 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: It infuriates people? Really? I didn't think I was making any kind of provocative statement at all! I have a degree in literature and have spent any number of hours in classes talking about the way that the world view of an author affects their writing, intentionally or not. I wasn't preaching any particular world view, although my own was evident, that's true, and if that was seen as provocative, I am truly sorry. If your world view would happen to come out in something you write on here, I can gurantee you that I will never be "infuriated" by it. Carolyn: Your reply surprises me even more. Anyone who has studied lit knows that the issue of authorial intent is highly contentious, ranging from people who believe that texts should be read in strict isolation from any knowledge about the author, through those who believe in the relevance of various degrees of biographical knowledge, right out the other side to those who believe the reader's perceptions are more important than the intentions or beliefs of the author (conscious or unconscious). Plus any number of shades in between, and who knows what the deconstructionists are really on about. Setting aside arguments about the overall relevance of lit crit to the reading and enjoyment of books, as a teacher in this area you will obviously know all about these different approaches to interpretation. So yes, in that case I think it was also a provocative statement to make at a meta level, as well as a sweeping assumption that other people would share your personal faith and conviction about what JKR is about. Steve: Rowling's world view doesn't always match my own. That also comes out in her writing. I don't have the slightest problem with that, and in many ways I celebrate it. (See my published works ;) What is it about her Christian world view that you find threatening? It's just a world view. We all have them. She can't help it, and I don't see that she's intentionally trying to inflict it on anyone. Carolyn: Well, I won't repeat the points made above, but surely you can see here that you are just making a series of assumptions about what JKR really thinks and how authorial intent works in this series, essentially as a means to finding a 'best fit' with your personal beliefs? Mindful of the Admin note just issued, I don't think this is the best place to discuss my personal views on Christianity. And I cannot see how anyone here can claim to know what is in JKR's mind on the subject. Steve: My criticism of those who want to ban the Potter books was perhaps out of place, you're right. I am sorry if that offends. That was unnecessarily harsh. I could talk about my personal experiences with that group as some sort of explanation but that would not be helpful. You misunderstand me, however. I do not think that she is intentionally writing Christianity into her books. I am saying that her own world view is bound to come out when she's talking about things like death (and life after death) and I do see elements of Christian belief in what she wrote. I am sure she would be the first to say that she isn't trying to preach Christianity, but there are elements there, and if they are there, what's wrong with noting that she is a Christian and that might be why? Carolyn: I was not in the least offended by your comments on Christian fundamentalists. The point I was making was that, in asserting your own opinion so strongly (and it is nothing more than your heartfelt opinion), you are, in your own way, committing the same error that they do. Essentially, assuming that your POV is basically correct, in an area that is particularly difficult to 'prove' anything either way. In truth, if you had put up a post with yards of detailed canon substantiation of your opinion, I doubt if I would have bothered to respond or join in. That kind of approach is fair game and exactly what the list is here for, and I would have left those that are really interested in the subject to carry on the discussion with you. I am sure there is a case to be made, equally I am sure one could argue many other interpretations, and we will all go on doing that for a long time yet. What I object to is brief, casual statements and opinion on a very contentious topic that assume everyone on the list is of a similar viewpoint. And, as I said in my earlier post, it is particularly regrettable from the Editor of the Lexicon, who has built such a reputation for objectivity, and incidentally, who is such a long- standing poster on this list and knows the likely hot buttons better than most. Steve: I just searched the Vancouver Sun web site, which is where I got it. It was an interview with Max Wyman. However, they seem to not have archives of such things. I do have a copy and I'll find and post it, but I would much rather be able to just link to an URL...we'll see if I can track it down. In the meantime, please accept my apology if I offended you. Believe me when I say that I had absolutely no intention of infuriating anyone and I'm a bit astonished that my comments would have done that. Steve The Lexicon Carolyn: It would be interesting to see that interview, as it sounds like something that hasn't been widely circulated up to now. I am sorry if it appears to you that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but I do find your astonishment a tad overdone. My observation is that a fairly high proportion of posters on this list are of a Christian persuasion; you should not be surprised if sometimes this relentless worldview gets not just wearying, but downright irritating to those who choose to think otherwise. Unfortunately, your post did it for me this evening. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 22:37:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:37:16 -0000 Subject: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112646 Antosha wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I've said this here before, but what if heavy duty > spells such as AK drain the caster? What if LV is worried that, having already used the killing curse on James, he might not have the, uh, mojo, or whatever, to finish off his ultimate objective, Harry, if he has to expend himself killing Lily? > > > Angie replied: > I've actually thought about that (spells draining the caster), too, but didn't think about it as a reason not to kill Lily. Interesting. It would make sense. However, it would also make sense that LV brought reinforcements and would have had some Deather Eaters with him, although I haven't read anything to support this. The point being, he shouldn't have had to worry about draining his powers. Part of me wants to say that LV would have been strong enought to perform three AK curses because he was just so dang evil. Probably would have barely winded him if whatever happened had not happened. Carol responds: The problem with the spells draining the caster theory is that Tom Riddle at age sixteen or seventeen (between his sixth and seventh years at Hogwarts) cast three of them, killing his father and grandparents with no apparent difficulty. (I would think that Crucio or Imperio would be more draining than AK, which doesn't need to be sustained.) Admittedly, though, he might have felt somewhat drained from dueling with James, but I doubt that James got in more than a curse or two before LV AK'd him. (Wonder why James didn't stupefy him? That would have bought him and Lily some time to apparate--unless you can't apparate with a baby.) Carol, who has already given her own explanation for why LV wants Lily to step out of the way and doesn't want to annoy anyone by repeating it From thursdaymorning at outgun.com Fri Sep 10 19:43:39 2004 From: thursdaymorning at outgun.com (thursday morning) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:43:39 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's hair Message-ID: <20040910194339.F2F0B23C13@ws5-3.us4.outblaze.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112647 > > re:Snape's hair: > > Has anyone come up with an explanation for Snape's greasy hair? > > I'm not trying to be an apologist, it just seems absurd to me that an > > adult who has a good grasp of professionalism wouldn't be a > > sleezeball. :) Considering his history, current risky situation and his knowledge of potions I think it appears greasy because he puts a protection potion on it. Something perhaps which, while not strong enough to actually prevent him from being hit with hexes and such, may lessen the severity or duration of such. I can't imagine him *not* taking what precautions he can when its a simple matter of wash hair, dry hair, apply protection oil. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he *bathes* in the stuff. Might even drink something every morning as well. If he's been doing it since he was a teenager it probably is just part of his routine and he doesn't even think about it much less the long term effects. Thursday -- _______________________________________________ Outgun.com free e-mail @ www.outgun.com Check out our Premium services - POP3 downloading, e-mail forwarding, and 25MB mailboxes! Powered by Outblaze From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 22:43:44 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:43:44 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tylerswaxlion" wrote: > Mac wrote: > > > > in GoF it is said of Frank by the villagers that 'he had a hard war' > > and that 'war turned him funny' and in the text that he 'had come > > back from the war with a very stiff leg ..." - all statements that I > > believe have led most readers, certainly me, to assume that 'the' > > war referred to is in the past/over. > > > Forgive me for not having my books unpacked yet, so I can't go and > re-read, but I don't see how those quotes indicate that Frank himself > was in the service until the war was over. > > The war is over in '45, but couldn't Frank have been sent back sooner, > turned "funny" by the war that is now (of '45) over? > > Or am I just befuddled by too much talk about time-travel tonight? > > -TL Mac: If these were not PAST (passed) events then the statements would surely be 'he's had a hard war', 'war's turned him funny' and he 'was back from the (ongoing) war', or at least 'THIS war's turned him funny' etc. Imagine Frank today having come back from Serbia/former Yugoslavia (war that's relatively recent but presumably over) vs having come back from Iraq (an ongoing, or at least not yet properly/acceptedly finished war). HAS the war turned him funny or DID the war turn him funny - there's a subtle difference. And even if you won't concede this, I stick to my comment that JKR's dates don't always bear close scrutiny and aren't intended to. From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 22:57:57 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:57:57 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112649 > Karen adds: > > I think platform 9 3/4 is a very protected place because everybodies > children are on that platform for 7 years of thelr lives. I cannot > see the DE's attacking a place where their offspring might end up in > the cross fire. > > IMO - The platform 9 3/4 needs to be a safe place guarded by > something only the Department of Mysteries knows about. > > Karen Eustace_Scrubb now: I would agree that this would make sense. But only if the train itself was also protected between London and Hogsmeade. But the trip to school in POA makes me wonder how true this could be. The dementors board the train to search for Sirius Black. Why do they think Sirius Black could have gotten on the train if it's so well protected? Conversely, if there was no real chance that Sirius Black was on the train, why were the dementors on the train? Was that just a cover story? Was Umbridge or someone else already after Harry? It seems to me that if the platform and train are relatively invulnerable, the dementor visit makes no sense. If they're not, I think we can expect the DEs to try to explot the vulnerability sometime in HBP or Book 7. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb "Not useless," said the Owl. "EUSTACE." From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:24:24 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:24:24 -0000 Subject: Time-turning (Past, Present, Future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > --- In > > HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > > > Inge: > > How can Tom Riddle even say that Voldemort is his past, present and > > future. My take on this very clever (IMO) view: Voldemort is Diary!Tom's past in several ways; let us say the time of CoS is 1992 - please don't critique/argue - might as well be 19XX) 1st Diary!Tom had already come up with 'I am Lord Voldemort', the anagram of Tom Marvolo Riddle. Diary Tom is 15/16 and thought this up in preceding years, hence past. 2nd in 1992 the events of 1981 are past (LV proper and the 1st wizard war) He is present because NOW is the present, i.e., Diary!Tom is saying to Harry I *AM* Lord Voldemort you dense idiot, not what you supposed to be your frind the special award winner all-round nice lad Tom Riddle and Future because; As far as Diary!Tom is concerned it is 50 years earlier and so all of it (LV's campaign of terror etc) is in the future. What is most difficult to deal with is how Diary!Tom knows what happened in his future. However, if we recall that it is *actually* 1992 then LV is future and also past. It is clear that Diary!Tom knows things that only LV (of 50 years later) knows so that although he was 'preserved in time' ca. 1942, the events of the subsequent 50 years are not unknown to him (he is, after all, being reincarnated in 1992 and has NOT been kept in the dark - when Malfoy puts the diary in Ginny's cauldron it is likely that Diary Tom has been updated on events since 1942). Mone of this makes LOGICAL/real world sense, but JKR's writing a STORY here and can let anything happen that she likes. In other words, Tom is saying melodramatically that there has never been a time when he wasn't LV, now, in the past or in the future. this works because Harry had it in mind up to this point that TR was good, even a hero. It's a 'see how wrong you can be so-called clever Harry Potter' type statement. Leastways, that what I fink From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:28:12 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:28:12 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112651 "persephone_kore" wrote: (snip) JKR does not seem to be writing a universe in which one can > actually change the past. She took considerable pains in PoA to make > it clear that everything Harry and Hermione did after they went back > in time *had in fact already been happening while they lived through > that period for the first time*. > > The line about it being dangerous to meet oneself, and wizards killing > their past and future selves, does seem to confuse the issue -- > killing one's future self shouldn't actually present a problem of > feasibility in itself, but killing one's past self should be > impossible. Still, the *actual* use of time travel in PoA supports the > idea that you don't actually change anything when you go back in time. Trying to catch up on al the posts, pant, pant! I agree, you can't change the past in the Potterverse. I think Hermione's line on killing one' past and future selves can asplained as a)She doesn't fully understand the mechanism of time turning, so she's repeating MM's instructions; b) time turning is still sort of an experimental thing in the WW and they're still unclear about some of the rules. Personally, I prefer option one, because I find it hard to believe that even wizards would let a teenager play around with an experimental, potentially dangerous device, but you never know. Besides, Hermione had her lecture on the use of the time-turner by MM, who might never have used one personally and therefore be a little fuzzy (unless you buy into the MM=HG theory). I think she was passing on the information she got from the DOM personnel, stressing the importance of not being seen (which actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, imagine the panic if someone was suddenly faced by 2 Hermiones) and the danger you incur in *trying* to change past events. It's been a while since I last saw Back to the future, but Doc is actually stressing the same 2 concepts. I seem to remember he says something about disrupting the time-continuum and creating a paradox that could negate existence. While in that movie they *did* change the past without any dire consequences, I'm afraid trying to change the past in the WW *would* have catastrophic consequences. Hermione may not grasp the concept in its entirety (or she simply doesn't have enough time to explain it all to Harry), but she's intelligent enough that she's scared of the possibility and follows the rules on this. Romulus Lupin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:32:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:32:02 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: <00dd01c49232$1efca370$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112652 theredshoes86 asked: > why, WHY, would Draco want to become friends with Harry? It is obvious that he wants Harry on his side, but to me, that does not make sense. why would he want Harry Potter, the guy, the Dark Lord's downfall, as his friend? when his own father despises Harry Potter? > BUT, you cannot deny that Draco ADVISED Harry not to go making friends with "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers" So, this is EVIDENCE that Draco wanted Harry at least on his side. Draco WANTED Harry to be a prejudiced pureblood kinda guy. > > WHY? > Sherry responded: > I think it's because Malfoy knows Harry will be popular, important and famous. He doesn't want Harry as a friend, someone to tell his secrets, to share his life. Malfoy wants to be in with Harry to bask in the glory of who he thinks Harry Potter is. It's very common in life, people wanting to be buddies with the famous and important, so they themselves can be bigger and more important. I don't think it has a thing to do with a genuine desire to be a friend to anyone. It's only for the good of Draco Malfoy and his family. Carol adds: Interestingly, Lucius Malfoy makes a similar point in CoS (IIRC), telling Draco that he needs to *appear* to share the WW's view of Harry as a hero and not speak ill of him in public. Draco himself first meets Harry in Madam Malfoy's without realizing who he is; he discovers that Harry's parents are a witch and a wizard and concludes that it's okay to associate him; Harry, however, draws very different conclusions about Draco. It's only when they're on the train and Draco realizes who Harry is that he actually attempts to make friends with him, presumably because, as Sherry says, Harry is already famous and Draco wants to bask in the reflected glory. It has nothing to do with Voldemort at this point, IMO. Draco is just an eleven-year-old kid who is thinking about his status in his new school, not about alliances for or against Voldemort, whose return Draco has no reason to anticipate. In any case, baby Harry didn't really defeat Voldemort or fight him; he "just" survived a curse intended to kill him--and has the scar to prove it. That would make him "cool" in any kid's eyes, even a Slytherin's, I think. Also, we can't assume that Draco at this point knows anything about the curse being deflected onto Voldemort, much less the transfer of powers. Harry is just the Boy Who Lived, the boy with the lightning bolt scar. Draco at fourteen or fifteen (end of GoF) still wanting a friendship with Harry is harder to explain. I think he still has hard feelings about the incident on the train (and perhaps blames Ron for poisoning Harry's mind against him) and part of him still wants Harry (who after all is not a "mudblood" and therefore not *terribly* inferior statuswise) to be his friend or associate, however perverse that may seem to those of us who are older and wiser. Maybe he even senses a Slytherinish side to Harry that he could have identified with and exploited if only Harry hadn't been placed in hated Gryffindor. Yet Draco must know that Vapormort was inside Quirrell's head and that Harry defeated him and that Memory!Tom Riddle was destroyed when Harry destroyed the diary (between school rumors and overhearing his father talk with other DEs, he can't be completely in the dark about these things). He probably *doesn't* know exactly what happened in the graveyard, though, since Harry isn't talking and Draco hasn't had a chance to talk with his father about it (assuming that Lucius would reveal much to his rather indiscreet son in any case), but he does know (via Dumbledore) that Harry was there and survived yet another encounter with LV (while Cedric, who was three years older, did not). Nevertheless, what he knows of these incidents suggests Harry's growing power and part of him wants that power on his side. Since that's clearly impossible now, he taunts Harry for choosing the "wrong" side. However much we may dislike the view that only purebloods (and some half-bloods) are worth associating with, it's the ideology Draco grew up with and he seems to believe in its truth. He seems sure that he's right and that his side will win, and he wants Harry to remember that he told him so: essentially, "you had your chance to join me, Potter, and you blew it. If you're killed fighting Lord Voldemort, it's your own fault." Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject and they make sense to me. :-) Carol From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:45:28 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:45:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112653 > SSSusan wrote > How could time [1800, 1974, > whatever] already have happened **and** this individual "simply had > not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it > yet" *if* they did something important in 1800 or 1974?? How could > they have done it and also not yet know that they'd done it? > > [I'm sure many of you are just shaking your heads at me, > saying, "Nope, there's no hope for THAT one." But surely there's at > least one other person out there who can't quite grasp this!? Damn-- > I'm Phi Beta Kappa, but I can't "get" time travel!!!] I'm sure someone else has already answered this, but I'll try to put in my 2 cents. When you time turn, your life followas a strange pattern, instead of going 1970, 71, 72.... 2003, 2004 etc, it goes 1970, 71, 72.... 2003, 1800, 1801 etc. In *your* life, 1800 comes after 2003, instead of 2004, so you haven't experienced it yet, you don't know what *you* did it, but in *the world's* experience 1800 happened way before 2003, it's past, it's history and you know of it. Let me make an example here. Let's say tomorrow you decide to time turn back to the 18th century. You find yourself in Skye and help Bonnie Prince Charlie escape disguised as a woman. Today, you don't know *you* did it, but you know *of* the fact, because it can be found in history books. I hope that helps. Romulus Lupin who wonders what a Phi Beta Kappa might be (apart from letters of the Greek alphabet, but somehow I guess that's not what you meant :o). Now, let From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:53:53 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:53:53 -0000 Subject: Why did Harry hate Draco at first sight? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112654 I was reading an oldish post re: why did DM want to make friends with HP and I have a question of my own. Why did Harry hate Draco at first sight? He specifically thinks that he hates this boy more than Dudley. Why? Granted, Draco is rather obnoxious, a snob and a half, whatever. At the time Dudley was surely worse than a boy he'd met for 5 minutes? Dudley's been tormenting him for 11 years, for Pete's sake. Can some learned mind help me solve this puzzle? Romulus Lupin From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 00:10:21 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:10:21 -0000 Subject: When did LV open the Chamber? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > Mac: If these were not PAST (passed) events then the statements > would surely be 'he's had a hard war', 'war's turned him funny' and > he 'was back from the (ongoing) war', or at least 'THIS war's turned > him funny' etc. (snip) HAS the war turned him funny or DID the war turn him > funny - there's a subtle difference. > > And even if you won't concede this, I stick to my comment that JKR's > dates don't always bear close scrutiny and aren't intended to. Yes, I agree, that was my point when I started this thread. I just wanted to know what everybody else thought. He could have come back from the war before it ended, but somehow I got the impression the the war was over by the time of the Little Hangleton murder. Just too much time on my hands to nitpick, I suppose. Romulus Lupin From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 11 00:11:03 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:11:03 -0000 Subject: Why did Harry hate Draco at first sight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: > Why did Harry hate Draco at > first sight? He specifically thinks that he hates this boy more than > Dudley. Why? Granted, Draco is rather obnoxious, a snob and a half, > whatever. At the time Dudley was surely worse than a boy he'd met > for 5 minutes? Dudley's been tormenting him for 11 years, for Pete's > sake. Harry did not hate Draco at first sight. I have not read my copy of SS in a while, but from what I recall, they first met at the robes fitting room when he shopped with Hagrid and then thought he disliked him because he thought him spoiled and arrogant (both true...) and because he put down Hagrid and muggleborn wizards. Later he meets him again on the train where Draco behaves very obnoxiously to Ron (with whom Harry already became friends after chatting for hours on the train) and then tells Harry he should make friends with him and not with riff raff like Ron (or something along these lines). After Harry refuses, Draco orders his cronies to steal their candies. Later on the relationship just continues to deteriorate, partly owing to the preferential treatment that Draco gets from Snape (and Harry from McGonnagal sometimes, as in having him in the quidditch team before he would normally be eligible). The difference between Draco and Dudley is that Harry views Dudley as rather harmless - he is spoiled and physically strong and aggressive, but also very stupid and easy to get around. More like Crabbe or Goyle, I'd say (whom Harry does not hate, just disdains). Draco is as spoiled as Dudley but also a lot smarter and inherently more evil, thus can (and does) cause Harry much more harm than Dudley ever has. Salit From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 00:11:43 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:11:43 -0000 Subject: Why did Harry hate Draco at first sight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: > I was reading an oldish post re: why did DM want to make friends > with HP and I have a question of my own. Why did Harry hate Draco at > first sight? He specifically thinks that he hates this boy more than > Dudley. Why? Granted, Draco is rather obnoxious, a snob and a half, > whatever. At the time Dudley was surely worse than a boy he'd met > for 5 minutes? Dudley's been tormenting him for 11 years, for Pete's > sake. > > Can some learned mind help me solve this puzzle? > > Romulus Lupin The main reason is that Draco insults Hagrid when he and Harry were in Madam Malkin's Robes for All Occasions [PS, chapter 5]. Hagrid was Harry's rescuer, a surrogate father for the orphaned boy, and his new father was being attacked viciously by this bloodless git. Draco also showed that he was an awful snob, and hinted at his pureblood racism. Even if Harry didn't know the issues at that point, he could pick up on Draco's tone. I gave this more weight than you did, apparently. It didn't surprise me at all. And who says that Harry has to choose between Draco and Dudley, anyway? They are both hateful, in their own way. Haggridd From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Sep 10 23:07:27 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:07:27 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112658 Hi everyone, I am fairly new to this group and do not know if this has been discussed. Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are still visible? The reason I ask is Madam P. is able to regrow bones, shrink teeth, de-fur Hermionie, de-beard the Weasley twins, unpetrify people, heal burns almost instantly, etc......if the WW has the potions/medicines and knowledge to perform such "cures", then why does Moody have part of his nose missing, a wooden leg and a pockmarked face? These things obviously could have been taken care of. Look in OoTP, Krum had a bloody nose at the World Cup match from a bludger hitting him in the face, obviously a broken nose, but his nose seems fine when he arrives at Hogwarts! Could it be a time frame thing, if it is taken care of within a certain time frame it can be healed, or could it be the type of curse used? I am curious to hear your opinions. Karen L. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Sep 10 23:51:15 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:51:15 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112659 > (frugalarugala) wrote: > > > > I can picture them going into apprenticeships to study magic- > > > related fields in depth, but going on to a muggle university > > > to study something were the wizarding world and muggle world > > > overlap. Afterall, why create a seporate system of their own, > > > when the majority (the muggles) already have one in place? I > > > see Hogwarts as the school for what they can't get from the > > > muggle schools. > Nora: > Correction: I didn't write this. In fact, this is directly contra > what I suspect. :)> Frugalarugala: Yeah, it was me. Though, I don't think we are actually at opposites. I wasn't meaning to sound like I think any large number go on to muggle universities. I think the number is fairly small, with the majority learning through apprenticeships. I mean, name a profession we've seen in the WW that could use what could be learned from a muggle school. Medicine--they use magical means. Law--maybe, where there is overlap. Engineering--bwah! But things like writing, history, art... Nora: > The culture shock for the pureblooded would be fairly > profound, Frugalarugala: OOOOH, yeah. But that would just shove them back into their ivory towers with tutors and make them feel all the more threatened by the muggle world. All that arrogance and prejudice has to come from somewhere. It's usually from one group feeling the need to make themselves feel better by telling themselves their better than the next group, and from feeling threatened by that group. So why would pureblooded wizards feel inferior to or threatened by muggles? Culture shock. Feeling stupid for not being able to cope. So they retreat into a world of their own, and feel vaguely trapped and threatened, which they are, if they can't deal with the muggle world they're cut off from the vast majority of people. It's the only way I've come up with to explain the attitudes we see in the books. Nora: >and the rest of the kids had been cut off from the stream > of Muggle education for so long. Frugalarugala: Well, there is muggle studies and career counciling... But I don't think they'd care much about the muggle degrees. I think they'd have rather the same attitude some people have to people with foreign medical degrees. How hard would it be to put a spell on muggles to not notice the extra person sitting in their class'? With the degree of cultural arrogance they have, the degrees I can see them caring about would be stamped MoM. Nora: >'Harry Potter Goes to College and Learns How To Do a Kegstand' Frugalarugala: Hey, I'd buy a copy! From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 00:05:55 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:05:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's hair In-Reply-To: <20040910194339.F2F0B23C13@ws5-3.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112660 Thursday: > Considering his history, current risky situation and his knowledge > of potions I think it appears greasy because he puts a protection > potion on it. Something perhaps which, while not strong enough to > actually prevent him from being hit with hexes and such, may lessen > the severity or duration of such. Anti-mindreading oil. Guaranteed to make your thoughts slip through the fingers of the occlumens of your choice... Thursday: > Might even drink something every morning as well. Well, I certainly would if I were Snape--oh, oh, wait, you mean some kind of potion! --Arugala From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 00:47:24 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:47:24 -0400 Subject: Dobby's Painting Might Be Sirius? Message-ID: <01f201c49798$e7b37ee0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 112661 Ok, so I had one of those flashes of brilliance sure to baffle everybody. In re-reading OoP, I was focused on the description of the painting Dobby gave Harry for Christmas. What if that painting is not of Harry, but of Sirius? Is that possible or have I lost all remaining rational thought? charme From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 11 01:18:27 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:18:27 -0000 Subject: Dobby's Painting Might Be Sirius? In-Reply-To: <01f201c49798$e7b37ee0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > Ok, so I had one of those flashes of brilliance sure to baffle everybody. > In re-reading OoP, I was focused on the description of the painting Dobby > gave Harry for Christmas. What if that painting is not of Harry, but of > Sirius? Is that possible or have I lost all remaining rational thought? Jen: I'm very interested in that painting too. Just because it has Harry's name on the back doesn't mean the subject has to be Harry; that's just Fred & George's interpretation. I've also wondered why it's not a moving portrait, or seemingly magical in any way, like all the other paintings we've seen so far. It just *can't* be a Muggle painting if Dobby was the artist! It seems like Dobby typically gives Harry useful things (when not trying to kill him, of course) like the gillyweed, or directing him to the Room of Requirement. Can't you see Dobby utterly baffled to discover Harry has no idea the socks Dobby knitted or the painting actually have some unique magical powers? "Why Harry Potter sir, Dobby had no idea Harry Potter didn't know how to use the socks/painting Dobby has given to you!" Jen, shielding herself from the groans for that bad interpretation of Dobby :). From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 01:39:53 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:39:53 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > > Frugalarugala: > Yeah, it was me. Though, I don't think we are actually at > opposites. I wasn't meaning to sound like I think any large number > go on to muggle universities. I think the number is fairly small, > with the majority learning through apprenticeships. I mean, name a > profession we've seen in the WW that could use what could be > learned from a muggle school. Medicine--they use magical means. Law- > -maybe, where there is overlap. Engineering--bwah! But things like > writing, history, art... Law, I can only see in the case of a particularly devoted Muggle liason worker--but it's just the kind of think to shake up the WW...imagine, someone coming back in with these insane Muggle ideas-- innocent until proven guilty, actual courts with juries... I know I'm probably mangling some of the very profound differences between British and American law (and I know they're based on rather different traditions), but the WW justice system is *distinctly* unimpressive. The courtroom scene in GoF is downright Soviet. Art/history/etc. I agree would be found in the Muggle world--but I can't really see any wizards going for that, or it getting any respect back in the WW. I'd still love to see Hermione, say, with some solid sociological training. > Nora: > > The culture shock for the pureblooded would be fairly > > profound, > > Frugalarugala: > OOOOH, yeah. But that would just shove them back into their ivory > towers with tutors and make them feel all the more threatened by > the muggle world. All that arrogance and prejudice has to come from > somewhere. It's usually from one group feeling the need to make > themselves feel better by telling themselves their better than the > next group, and from feeling threatened by that group. > > So why would pureblooded wizards feel inferior to or threatened by > muggles? Culture shock. Feeling stupid for not being able to cope. > So they retreat into a world of their own, and feel vaguely trapped > and threatened, which they are, if they can't deal with the muggle > world they're cut off from the vast majority of people. It's the > only way I've come up with to explain the attitudes we see in the > books. I have another one--check out my old fascism post (which I don't have the numbers on, but I can send you if you wish). The attitudes we get in the books come from a confusion of a cultural idea with a natural one--pureblood superiority is a cultural construct, but those who are pureblood think it is Innately True. From that you get a hatred and fear of those who would disturb it, and a powerful sense of entitlement. That sense of entitlement is an awfully dangerous thing, because it leads naturally (possibly) into Dark Arts--if you're the rightful kings of the world, why not use whatever means you want or need to get what belongs to you? You don't understand the Muggles, but they're just inherently inferior creatures--who *wants* to understand their stupid ways, anyways. We know better, and we've always known better, and we're going to preserve our traditional ways against these interlopers. > Nora: > >and the rest of the kids had been cut off from the stream > > of Muggle education for so long. > > Frugalarugala: > Well, there is muggle studies and career counciling... But I don't > think they'd care much about the muggle degrees. I think they'd > have rather the same attitude some people have to people with > foreign medical degrees. How hard would it be to put a spell on > muggles to not notice the extra person sitting in their class'? > With the degree of cultural arrogance they have, the degrees I can > see them caring about would be stamped MoM. I was thinking about the lack of muggle qualifications that the students had being a problem to get them *into* school. Those can only be faked so far, as well--you might be able to slip them in by magic, but in class, it quickly becomes obvious when someone is not prepared. The spell to hide the wizarding students would completely cut them off from the most important thing in a college education--arguing with your peers and participating in class. I freely admit my bias of coming out and continuing in a hard-core liberal arts tradition, where all my classes were small and I had to be ready and willing to defend against all comers. I suppose they could do okay in the kind of science lectures where the professor doesn't even know everyone's name, but they're screwed for absolutely anything in the humanities, and graduate work in any field whatsoever. > Nora: > >'Harry Potter Goes to College and Learns How To Do a Kegstand' > > Frugalarugala: > Hey, I'd buy a copy! I want to see a volume of HP essays in the style of Frederick Crews' 'The Pooh Perplex'. If I were meaner and wittier, I'd work on it. But I'm busy. :) -Nora gets cracking on some of the reading and writing things to do From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 02:11:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:11:52 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: >> > Law, I can only see in the case of a particularly devoted Muggle > liason worker--but it's just the kind of think to shake up the > WW...imagine, someone coming back in with these insane Muggle ideas-- > innocent until proven guilty, actual courts with juries... I know I'm > probably mangling some of the very profound differences between > British and American law (and I know they're based on rather > different traditions), but the WW justice system is *distinctly* > unimpressive. The courtroom scene in GoF is downright Soviet. > Alla: You see, Nora , I think you are correct in substance of your comparison, because Soviet system of justice was really very unjust, but I can see some significant difference. Crowd in GoF (is it supposed to be some pathetic equivalent of the jury, I am not even sure) at least has some power - popular Bagman is off the hook. It is actually kind of reminded me of Greek justice system, when people came together and supposedly decided important questions of their everyday life (Am I making sense? I don't remember the english word for such meeting at the agora) In the Soviet Union, people never had ANY power to decide the questions of guilty and innocence of their peers. Jury of your peers was untill quite recently considered to be an insane idea indeed. Communist party decided everything behind the scenes. Those who disagreed with the regime were deemed guilty way before trials even started. Although for a short time in 19th century Russia tried to implement the jury system, but it all ended when bolsheviks came to power. In many other aspects your comparison is right on, though. Sirius thrown to prison without a trial reminded me of Troykas during Stalin time. You know, three people get together and decide the fate of the person. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 11 02:22:47 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:22:47 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: > I have been told that the Vancouver Sun has gotten rid of all online archives, which would explain why I can't find it from the original source. < The article is available on a pay per view basis from http://www.fpinfomart.ca/ Obviously I can't post it, but here is the relevant excerpt. ----- Is she a Christian? ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' ----- Pippin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 02:23:09 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:23:09 -0000 Subject: Vulnerable to Attack! (Was Re: Platform 9 and 3/4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" wrote: > > Karen adds: > > > > I think platform 9 3/4 is a very protected place because > everybodies > > children are on that platform for 7 years of thelr lives. I cannot > > see the DE's attacking a place where their offspring might end up > in > > the cross fire. > > > > > IMO - The platform 9 3/4 needs to be a safe place guarded by > > something only the Department of Mysteries knows about. > > > > Karen > > Eustace_Scrubb now: > > I would agree that this would make sense. But only if the train > itself was also protected between London and Hogsmeade. > > But the trip to school in POA makes me wonder how true this could be. > The dementors board the train to search for Sirius Black. Why do > they think Sirius Black could have gotten on the train if it's so well > protected? > > Conversely, if there was no real chance that Sirius Black was on the > train, why were the dementors on the train? Was that just a cover > story? Was Umbridge or someone else already after Harry? > > It seems to me that if the platform and train are relatively > invulnerable, the dementor visit makes no sense. If they're not, I > think we can expect the DEs to try to explot the vulnerability > sometime in HBP or Book 7. > mhbobbin: I can't find any explanation for why Harry, Hermione and the Weasely kids take the Knight Bus back to Hogwarts after Christmas in OotP . As Harry remained at Hogwarts during previous four Christmas vacations, we've not been shown what the normal routine to return to school is but ostensibly it would be the Hogwarts Express. There are no other students on the Knight Bus with them. The Order of the Phoenix thought the Hogwarts Express was safe enough for Harry to travel to Hogwarts at the beginning of the school year, but in January, Lupin and Tonks escort Harry and the kids back via the Knight Bus. Either it is because the Order wants to ensure there is an escort with Harry all the way to Hogwarts because they consider the Hogwarts Express / Platform 9 3/4 to be vulnerable or they think Harry would be too vulnerable to attack between Grimauld Square and King's Cross. Maybe the concern is that the Hogwarts Express leaves at a scheduled time, therefore the Death Eaters would know and would be waiting. Maybe their paranoia has increased since September. It is interesting how paranoid the Phoenix members are about attack in Grimmauld Square, between Grimmauld Square and anyplace else, and between Privet Drive and Grimmauld Square. Very alert. Clearly they feel vulnerable to attack or being detected. I'm pretty surprised they haven't been attacked already--ostensibly in the first LV war, members did come under attack while on the move. I suspect that we will see such attacks...I'm already scared. mhbobbin From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 02:41:23 2004 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:41:23 -0000 Subject: Finding one's views in the author's mind was Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112667 Pippin quoted: > Is she a Christian? > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' I knew it! Dumbledore is going to turn out to be God. Well, it fits, doesn't it? The long white hair and beard, the hands-off approach that drives lesser beings crazy. And if you translate "Grindelwald" into Dutch, then into Swahili, then write it upside down and backwards and translate it into Urdu, the final re- translated English version means "Prince of Darkness." That was all a joke, people. Carolyn and I were talking about this offlist, but I just want to say here that my world view is about as far from fundamentalist Christian as it can get and I didn't feel at all that Steve was making assumptions about anyone else's faith. He stated his own, he stated his opinion about JKR's, and more than either he made a cogent argument about how an author's worldview tends to come through in her fiction. I really did not feel that he was being provocative and I shared his astonishment. To some people, any conversation about religion (if it deviates from their own) is provocative. To others, feminism is the hot button; to others it's foreign-policy politics; etc. I hope we can continue to talk about these sensitive subjects, as Poppy Elf assured us we can, and know to bow out and take a nice brisk run around the block if the conversation gets too hot for our personal taste. Our brave Elves will make sure everyone's polite about it, right, Elves? It is very interesting to me how badly I want JKR's views to reflect my own. Sometimes they just clearly don't. (For example, a couple of the chapter titles in Umbridge's DADA text annoyed my would-be- pacifist soul deeply.) Usually I don't mind, but sometimes it bothers me . . . silly, I know, but if I'm honest I want JKR and her wonderful creations to be On My Side. So if I may lift this conversation to a meta-level, do we read the books to be affirmed in our views, challenged in them, a mix, or neither? Amy Z --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Your father thinks very highly of Mad-Eye Moody," said Mrs. Weasley sternly. "Yeah, well, Dad collects plugs, doesn't he?" said Fred quietly, as Mrs. Weasley left the room. "Birds of a feather . . . " From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 11 02:51:03 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:51:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112668 SSSusan wrote: >>How could time [1800, 1974, whatever] already have happened **and** this individual "simply had not, from their own personal, subjective point of view, *done* it yet" *if* they did something important in 1800 or 1974?? How could they have done it and also not yet know that they'd done it? [I'm sure many of you are just shaking your heads at me, saying, "Nope, there's no hope for THAT one." But surely there's at least one other person out there who can't quite grasp this!? Damn--I'm Phi Beta Kappa, but I can't "get" time travel!!!]<< Romuluslupin: > When you time turn, your life followas a strange pattern, instead > of going 1970, 71, 72.... 2003, 2004 etc, it goes 1970, 71, 72.... > 2003, 1800, 1801 etc. In *your* life, 1800 comes after 2003, > instead of 2004, so you haven't experienced it yet, you don't know > what *you* did it, but in *the world's* experience 1800 happened > way before 2003, it's past, it's history and you know of it. Let > me make an example here. Let's say tomorrow you decide to time > turn back to the 18th century. You find yourself in Skye and help > Bonnie Prince Charlie escape disguised as a woman. Today, you > don't know *you* did it, but you know *of* the fact, because it > can be found in history books. I hope that helps. > > Romulus Lupin who wonders what a Phi Beta Kappa might be (apart > from letters of the Greek alphabet, but somehow I guess that's not > what you meant :o). SSSusan: While I understand your presentation, RL, I'm afraid in one way it didn't help me. :-| In JKR's version of TT, as we see it w/ H&H, they turned back 3 hours and **lived them again** in order to be, once again, in the Hospital Wing at midnight. If a person TTs back to 1800 from 2004, how does s/he get up the next day and re-appear in 2004? This would require an ability to *forward*-turn, too, rather than a requirement to complete the entire time frame between where one started and where one turned back. In other words, in JKR's system (as we know it), if H&H turned back to 1800, wouldn't they have to live out the full 204 years to get back to 2004? Oh--and Phi Beta Kappa is simply an academic-leadership-service honorary which is awarded to some students upon completion of their undergraduate college degree. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 02:51:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:51:29 -0000 Subject: Finding one's views in the author's mind was Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112669 Amy Z: snip. > So if I may lift this conversation to a meta-level, do we read the > books to be affirmed in our views, challenged in them, a mix, or > neither? > Alla: Great post, Amy. I can only answer this question for myself, of course. When I started to read the books, my answer would be neither, because I started to read them simply out of curiosity. But, when I read first four books, I think that in many aspects, especially ethics wise, I found the books to affirm my views AND I guess that I will be dissapointed if at the end the books will challenge my views on profound ethics or morality issues. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 03:07:23 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Vulnerable to Attack! (Was Re: Platform 9 and 3/4) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911030723.12301.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112670 --- mhbobbin wrote: > The Order of the Phoenix thought the Hogwarts Express was safe > enough for Harry to travel to Hogwarts at the beginning of the > school year, but in January, Lupin and Tonks escort Harry and the > kids back via the Knight Bus. Either it is because the Order wants > to ensure there is an escort with Harry all the way to Hogwarts > because they consider the Hogwarts Express / Platform 9 3/4 to be > vulnerable or they think Harry would be too vulnerable to attack > between Grimauld Square and King's Cross. Maybe the concern is > that > the Hogwarts Express leaves at a scheduled time, therefore the > Death Eaters would know and would be waiting. > > mhbobbin > Or perhaps they thought Harry and the others would be pestered by the other kids on the train (which is a confined space and they wouldn't be able to leave it) about why they'd disappeared so abruptly before Christmas. At Hogwarts it would be easier to avoid nosy parkers who ask a lot of questions. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 03:07:43 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:07:43 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Magic and Author's Intention (was: Magic and the Dursleys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112671 Carol wrote: > Your inference that magic exists in HP on a physical plane, and that > even some Muggles are aware of it, follows logically and inevitably > from this evidence (which can be applied to the whole Dursley family > and other Muggles who are less afraid of it, as well). But you could > also argue that magic exists on a *spiritual* plane in the WW (though > not necessarily in the world of Vernon Dursley!). The veil, the > (apparently) true prophecies bottled by the MoM, the very existence of > a Department of Mysteries that studies such intangibles as death and > time, and even the existence of ghosts would appear to support this > view. The fact that magic in the HP books exists on a physical plane > perceivable by Muggles does not exclude the possibility that it *also* > exists on a spiritual one only partially understood even by wizards > themselves, any more than the existence of body necessarily precludes > the existence of spirit in the WW or the world as we know it. Laurasia: Yes. I agree. I like the idea of magic existing on a spiritual plane. But not *all* magic. Most magic is about learning spells by number- the right wand movement, the right pronunciation, the right number of times to stir your potion in an anti-clockwise direction, etc. Magic could be seen as a purely physical force- it creates light, it creates heat, it create sounds. The weaker at apparating you are (we assume) the less POP! the more CRACK! which suggests that magic is about moving matter in space and time. Two opposing spells can bounce off each other. There are great theories about the electro-magnetic spectrum of magic and how wands are tuned to these different numerical ranges; and how spells of opposing value get attracted to one another like negative and positive charges; how spells can be added together like at the end of GoF. And even a really great theory about how Priori Incantatem can be explained scientifically using the scientific idea of opposites attract and alike repels. It would seem that magic, in general, is just a matter of scientific accuracy. However, the Department of Mysteries is the most perfect example of how some magic exists on a spiritual plane, which is something I alluded to earlier with the concept of Love as a spiritual form of magic. The whole Dep. of Myst. is apparently devoted to magic which is beyond logic and reason. And the fact that the Love Door is kept locked at all times suggests that it is the ultimate spiritual force which Wizards don't even want to begin to find an explanation for. The Veil, Time, etc are all being investigated which suggest that the wizarding population *wants* a nice physical, logical explanation for these types of magic. This is why I think the overriding theme of Harry Potter is about the nature of Love. We don't have Veils and ghosts in our real world, but we certainly have Love. And I think JKR wants to suggest that even Muggles share this very ancient form of magic. And, IMO, the fact that fact-obsessed Hermione is even interested in the idea of prophesy (at the end of OotP in the Hospital Wing) suggests that even the most logical interpretation of magic is lacking. I don't think it's any coincidence that we meet Luna Lovegood in OotP when the purely scientific idea of magic is specifically questioned by the Department of Mysteries. Even though we see ordinary, mundane magic as a physical force, there are certainly incomprehensible magical forces at play. Carol wrote: > To argue (as you appear to be doing) that because Vernon Dursley is > aware of magic on a physical plane, JKR herself must somehow believe > in "the real-world occult," is also not logical. Laurasia: Yes. I was trying to prove my point by making an illogical statement (How illogical does that sound?). I was trying to say 'Hey, JKR shows how magic exists on a physical plane. Does this mean JKR is a witch? Does this mean she is anti-magic and being ironic? Or does it mean she just thinks it's fun?' I think JKR thinks magic is fun. And the complete whimsy of a lot of JKR's magic certainly suggest it. If magic wasn't meant to be fun, then why is Uric the Oddball doing as the Wizard of the Month with a jellyfish of his head? What have Janus Thickey fake his own death by Lethifold? Why make vomit flavoured sweets? I think JKR, not intentionally being ironic (IMO) and certainly not being literally a magician, is more or less showing that most of the time magic is just an everyday commodity and it's funny. I was trying to point out that there are more than two options. It is not so clear cut as 'JKR thinks she is a witch' or 'JKR hates magic and purposely wrote a book about it to ironically show it.' Carol wrote: > I disagree (politely and civilly) with your view that > all opinions are equal. Suppose I said that Dumbledore and Dursley are > clearly the same person because their names both begin with "D"? That > opinion *would* be absurd, however uncivil it would be to label it so. > An opinion, to be worthy of debate, must be based on inductive or > deductive reasoning (not emotions or personal preference or "how it > looks to me") and must be supportable with evidence that others will > accept as valid. Not all opinions can meet these criteria, so not all > opinions are equal. Laurasia: Yeah. I was just frustrated that my opinion was being labelled wrong, even though I actually had canon support for it, merely because it was an opinion. I was also frustrated that my opinions on *how* to approach reading a book were dismissed, even though they go back hundreds and thousands of years and I certainly didn't invent them. I also feel that there can never be 'one true, sole' interpretation of any book. And that immediately saying that 'not all opinions are equal' makes it sound like JKR's is the only perfect opinion. Whilst JKR certainly has the best idea of what's going on, she doesn't always cover everything. For example: JKR meant for Lupin's lycanthropy to represent disabilities in general. But the very s pecific interpretation of Lupin representing AIDS and homosexuality is, IMO, actually better. If JKR was a god, we would have to disregard this opinion because she's never said it. That's why I dislike making a 'hierarchy of opinions.' So, yes, opinions without justification are weaker than those with justification. I was just responding in the microcosm of one debate where both opposing opinions had fair justification. And I conceded that the idea of whether magic is physical or spiritual will never be fully resolved (in my agree to disagree post) because of this reason. I like the idea of magic existing on a spiritual level. Carol wrote: >If the author solely determines the meaning and all that matters is the words on the page, why are we here discussing the books? Read them once and forget about them. There's only one meaning that's obvious to everyone (clearly not the case).< Laurasia: Oh, I didn't mean any such thing. I meant to focus only on the words of the page so that there *wouldn't be* one interpretation of the work. Focusing solely on the words on the page means that the author's one true interpretation isn't alone but every individual reader's interpretation is valid. What *you* can bring to the work far outweighs what the author intended. Carol wrote: >I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to the larger question of author's intention, which is extremely complex and has never been satisfactorily resolved, but you might recall that the Greeks who wrote the epics and the tragedies that we still read 2,500 years later did not credit themselves with creating those works. < Laurasia: Very true. The Greeks believed in the notion of an anonymous artist. They believed that the author should be anonymous for the sake of the work. That way the work itself was about universal truths, rather than a specific person's truth. By refusing to credit themselves with the work it automatically removes the issue of sub-conscious versus conscious creation. Ignore the author entirely and it doesn't matter whether things are conscious or sub-conscious. But if we were to specifically evaluate a non-anonymous author who puts her own name on her work and answer questions about it... A different story. Should JKR/any author get credit for things they didn't mean to happen but did? I say no. And I say the credit goes to the reader who interpret things that way. Go to Elkin's site. http://elkins.theennead.com/hp/ Does JKR get credit for all of that great stuff? I say Elkins does. Carol wrote: >So are the books inferior or inadequate if she failed to make the readers see the characters as she wants us to? I think otherwise. The books, in this instance, are greater than the author, talented though she undoubtedly is. < Laurasia: Yes. That's why I dislike focusing on intention and ignoring it. Why should speculation on Draco be closed off by JKR saying he is simply nasty? So many people (like fan-fic writers) want to see him as a 3 dimensional character with a few virtues hidden in there. Why say that Lily is simply 2 dimensionally good when we all want to see that she is 3D and part evil? These are the times when the author's intent actually changes the work for worse. Author's intent immediately distances readers. This is why I agree with the idea of making author's intent only the same as any reader's. Because I think Slytherin!Lily is far more interesting than Pure!Lily. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 11 03:15:27 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:15:27 -0000 Subject: Finding one's views in the author's mind was Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112672 Amy Z.: > It is very interesting to me how badly I want JKR's views to reflect > my own. Sometimes they just clearly don't. (For example, a couple > of the chapter titles in Umbridge's DADA text annoyed my would-be- > pacifist soul deeply.) Usually I don't mind, but sometimes it > bothers me . . . silly, I know, but if I'm honest I want JKR and her > wonderful creations to be On My Side. > > So if I may lift this conversation to a meta-level, do we read the > books to be affirmed in our views, challenged in them, a mix, or > neither? Jen: I actually find this list challenges my views more than the books do! Since I read all five books and had my own interpretation of characters and events before joining the group, the sheer volume of differing opinion was daunting. My strong desire to understand OOTP within the context of the series is what kept me reading and posting, even though certain theories were hard to read and consider as a possible outcome. So, in a way, I gravitate toward like-minded posters to feel assurance that JKR is On My Side as Amy pointed out, but I also read and ponder theories that make me uncomfortable. Sort of preparing myself for the worst, I guess. As for the books themselves, well, I'm open to a few surprises, but in the end want to "be affirmed in my views." Jen Reese From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 03:22:21 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:22:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112673 Carol: I wasn't really suggesting that Dumbledore *knew* Sirius had been made Secret Keeper but didn't know the SK had been changed. That's possible, I suppose, but all I meant was that he knew James *intended* to make Sirius the SK and that DD doubted the wisdom of that choice and offered himself in Sirius' place. He knew that James had refused that offer and made someone else Secret Keeper. He had no reason to believe that that someone was anyone other than Sirius, which is why he testified that Sirius had been the SK. Nora: Not quite enough information to tell what was really going on in the events that actually transpired. I think what's being expressed is a general disappointment that Dumbledore, who often seems so willing and ready to help the abject who wouldn't be given a second chance by many other people *cough*, seems to have dropped the ball on this one. Alla: You maybe right with obstruction of justice proposition, otherwise it just sounds as another plot hole to me. Bookworm: Way back in February (msg 91517) I said: << Personally, I think Dumbledore knew about the change in Secret- Keepers. He never said Sirius Black was or wasn't. His comment was that he had given evidence to that effect. What evidence? To whom? When? Dumbledore may not lie, but he doesn't always tell the whole truth.>> I will add to that: he knows *much* more than he lets on. How did he know Harry was visiting the Mirror of Erised? Or what Ron saw in it? Somehow, Dumbledore just knows things. It won't surprise me at all that the switch in Secret-Keepers is one of those things. If Dumbledore knew that Sirius was not the S-K and knows the details of what happened the Halloween night, visiting Sirius in prison might have revealed information to the DEs. It would definitely have caused speculation about why Dumbledore would visit a known murderer. (No, I don't know *what* information. I'm speculating and am sure JKR will be keeping the details of that night to herself until book 7.) Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 03:37:35 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:37:35 -0000 Subject: Finding one's views in the author's mind was Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112674 > Jen: snip. So, in a way, I gravitate toward like-minded > posters to feel assurance that JKR is On My Side as Amy pointed out, > but I also read and ponder theories that make me uncomfortable. Sort > of preparing myself for the worst, I guess. As for the books > themselves, well, I'm open to a few surprises, but in the end want > to "be affirmed in my views." > Alla: Yes, I read and try to debate the theories that make me uncomfortable for the same reason you are, I suppose. But, honestly, even though many of them are very intriguing, I am "scared" so to speak of only few of them. (Waves to Pippin. :o)) I find many theories, no matter how well argued they are, to be overcomplicated for the series and therefore unlikely to come true. Yes, yes, I know JKR stated that she writes the books for themselves, not for the children, but quite honestly I think that books are clearly oriented towards the younger audience. Of course, ther is always a huge possibility for me to be proven wrong. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 03:43:53 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:43:53 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Protection WAS: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112675 Meri: I am paraphrasing, but DD said that as long as Harry can call Privet Drive home and return there at least once a year, he will still be protected there. This is, also if I am interpreting things correctly, conditional on Aunt Petunia (and possibly Dudley) staying alive. JKR said that Harry is looking at his shortest stay on Privet Drive in book six... Bookworm: Just a stray thought here ? could this be his shortest stay on Privet Drive because something happens to Petunia `this' summer and Harry loses that protection? Or will JKR keep Petunia around until book 7? Thoughts? Ravenclaw Bookworm From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 03:45:37 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:45:37 -0000 Subject: The Nature of Magic and Author's Intention (was: Magic and the Dursleys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote: > Laurasia: > > Yes. That's why I dislike focusing on intention and ignoring it. > Why should speculation on Draco be closed off by JKR saying > he is simply nasty? So many people (like fan-fic writers) want > to see him as a 3 dimensional character with a few virtues > hidden in there. Why say that Lily is simply 2 dimensionally > good when we all want to see that she is 3D and part evil? > These are the times when the author's intent actually changes > the work for worse. Author's intent immediately distances > readers. This is why I agree with the idea of making author's > intent only the same as any reader's. Because I think > Slytherin!Lily is far more interesting than Pure!Lily. Perhaps that last is a bad example because we've been told, on a purely factual and objective basis, no interpretation involved, that Slytherin!Lily isn't true--and my mindset on such things is that there's no point in speculating on issues of simple fact when they've been shot down. No, it's not in the book texts (or canon, if you will) yet that Lily was a Gryffindor--but it's pretty sure that it will be. Speculation is great and fine and good, and every reader does it, but it's a carefully delineated sport for the conscientious reader, and something a little distasteful to the analyst. That kind of speculation and elaboration really stands outside the realm of analysis, but has its place in interpretation--except, of course, that a supportable interpretation has to also be based on a well-done analysis. For example, if you want to interpret a character as representing, for example, the failure of the will, you have to be able to provide situations that illustrate that. While it may be fun to speculate on the sensitive Draco who is full of contradictions, the more analytically sound conclusion is that Draco is, well, pretty shallow. :) There's nothing wrong with picturing Lily as a three-dimensional character, but there's something wrong with doing so in a way that directly contradicts the text. Otherwise we get a literary free-for- all, and despite what the (now largely discredited--I talk to my friends in English) deconstructionists were telling us, not all interpretations are equally valid. Evidentiary standards matter. So every reader is, at present time in this WiP, free to interpret and predict as he or she wishes. Those avenues will objectively start to close off as we get more information, because new canon always forces re-reading and re-examination of old canon. I freely admit my biases here. I'm interested in analysis, and I'm interested in hermeneutics that I can provide a good foundation for. Criticism is profoundly uninteresting at present, because it's far too dependent upon the critic. I want more information to plug the simple holes of fact, before going on to bigger and better things. In my experiences, labeling a book with the primary adjective of 'interesting' is a kiss-of-death; it generally means "Sure, it's fun, but the methodology is wacked and you won't get anything really useable out of it". I fear that most all of our speculations will fall into that category eventually--such is the profound danger of the work-in-progress. -Nora still reads the New Critics, but notes they really didn't read for context, as all good classicists learn to do From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Sat Sep 11 03:56:15 2004 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (ivogun) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:56:15 -0000 Subject: Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" > I'm tackling the Christianity issue by looking for the 'basic > bedrock of the Christian faith' described in the Apostle's > Creed... There may be symbols or allusions in each work > which may reflect or refer back to these tenets that I'm > missing, and if there are, please email me privately > to discuss them as I hate to incite the wrath of the House > Elves with off-topic chatter. ? I don't think a reply that centers itself on JKR's "cannon" can be considered off-topic. Irritating perhaps, but not off topic...so I will risk the elve's wrath. Christian symbols or allusions? The phoenix is common Christian symbol. I did a quick Internet search and discovered almost immediately found this at (http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/phoenix.htm) which I excerpted: (Quote)"...Wherever it is found, the phoenix is associated with resurrection, immortality, triumph over adversity, and that which rises out of the ashes. Thus it became a favorite symbol on early Christian tombstones. In chapters 25-26 of his letter to the Corinthians, St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, upheld the legendary phoenix as an evidence of Christ's ability to accomplish the resurrection of the faithful. He quotes Job as saying, 'Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things.'...In numerous ways, the phoenix was found to be a symbol of Christ..." (Moi) Notice that Fawkes arrives to save Harry in the CoS after Harry shows loyalty (faith) in Dumbledore. It wasn't Harry's knowledge, virtue or ability, but rather it's Harry's trust that "saves" him. When Fawkes arrives, he gives Harry the hat from which Harry pulls out a sword to fight the snake. (Hmm) Notice too that in OotP, Fawkes dies a substitutionary death for Dumbledore during the big battle and then rises from the ashes. Faith, substitutionary death, and resurrection are part of the "basic bedrock of the Christian faith," and they appear in the HP cannon too. Of course, the phoenix is used symbolically in other religions too, but Fawkes seems to partake of the attributes peculiar to the Christian version. Of course, there are a lot of things we won't really know until JKR finishes all ther books. There is some inconsistancy on how Dumbledore fits with both of these allusions, but certainly, JKR has utilized a traditional Christian symbol. We will see... I really like Geoff's phrase that Harry is 'Everyman," I just am not sold on HP being a Christ figure though. No, I just don't see that at all. Barbara Roberts (Ivogun), who hopes, dare I say, prays, that Hurricane Ivan keeps away and heads somewhere else. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 04:43:46 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 04:43:46 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112678 Valky: > Was it Snape who made to give lonesome > tragic Remus a kindness he had never known and > was unfairly denied. > No it was James and Sirius. > > > Hannah: So Snape deserved to be condemned on the fact he > didn't befriend Remus Lupin? > Valky: Actually no, nothing of the sort. Actually, trying to say that James and Sirius hold in very high regard the *principles in themselves* that lay behind their lack of bigotry. I still don't think I have actually said it right. It *really* means *something* to Sirius that he believes in principles above bigotry and prejudice. And I *think* that Sirius infers to Harry that James felt it was very important too. They were young and stupid and did *not* think the way they treated Snape was bigotry, although it was. But they did *really* _believe_ in living above it. Maybe I *still* haven't said it right.... Valky: > > So James and Sirius thought they were superior to Snape, are they entitled to their delusion of superiority, after all? > >Hannah: > Well, it really depends on whether their delusion of superiority *was* based on the fact Snape was into dark arts, or whether they felt they were better than him because he was greasy, studious, and bad at sport, while they were handsome, popular and good at quidditch. My argument is that it was the latter reason that made them feel superior, Valkys reply: Wow Hannah! You make such an excellent point. In most cases a debater would, but I will not, drag any inference of an impasse into this debate. Instead, I make no argument out respect for the quality of your statement. It deserves to stand uncontested. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Sep 11 05:17:19 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:17:19 -0000 Subject: Finding one's views in the author's mind was Christianity and HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > Pippin quoted: > > > Is she a Christian? > > > > ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious > > right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every > > time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I > > do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than > > that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too > > freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or > 60, > > will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' > [snip] > To some people, any conversation about religion (if it deviates from > their own) is provocative. To others, feminism is the hot button; > to others it's foreign-policy politics; etc. I hope we can continue > to talk about these sensitive subjects, as Poppy Elf assured us we > can, and know to bow out and take a nice brisk run around the block > if the conversation gets too hot for our personal taste. Our brave > Elves will make sure everyone's polite about it, right, Elves? > [more snipping] Pat here: This is so important. As I said in a previous post, one of the best ways for us to learn about each other is through discussing our ideas--and that includes all the ones that make some people run screaming from the room--religion and politics, especially. But you are so right, that some are threatened by any disagreement with their own views. (Not here, but on another forum, this was such an issue that all talk of religion and politics was banned--which makes any book discussions a bit boring and flat, to be honest.) But it is crucial to remember that there is a real person on the other end of our own computers, whose views and culture might be drastically different. Respect is so important--and sometimes we all hit upon a topic that requires that we take that run around the block, and perhaps just stay away from a topic altogether. > So if I may lift this conversation to a meta-level, do we read the > books to be affirmed in our views, challenged in them, a mix, or > neither? > > Amy Z > Pat here: Good question, Amy. I, like many others I'm sure, started reading the books out of curiosity. Why were they so hugely successful and why were there groups that wanted to ban them in the US before very many had had the opportunity to read them? Banning books is my hot topic, so I went to the store and bought the first book. (Before I had finished reading it, I went back and bought the 2nd and 3rd books, and encouraged my teenage daughter to start reading them.) I wasn't looking for anything in particular, even through the first 3. But what I have found with the 4th and 5th books is that they do affirm my views--or many of them. That's still not my motivation to keep reading, though. I'm thoroughly engrossed in the story and want to know where JKR is going to take it. And I've decided that I won't be disappointed if it isn't "my" vision of what should happen. Most of "my" theories didn't work out anyway, but there isn't anything I would change. It just happens to be comfortable for me, that the moral directions of the books lines up with my own, at least so far. The discussions of the books have actually made me do more soul- searching than the books themselves, and that has to do with other people seeing things from their point of view that might be very different than my own. I see that as a positive, even when talking to someone with whom I will never agree. It's important to sometimes agree to disagree. And I think that is one of the themes in the book--with Hermione wanting to free the House Elves. Her intent is noble, but the others just don't see things her way--and might never agree with her. I want to add a thank you to the Elves for allowing this kind of discussion--it's an opportunity for all of us to gain more insight into each other and into the books and their meaning. Pat From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Sep 11 05:40:32 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:40:32 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mumweasley7" wrote: Having Fred and George > in town with a joke shop could also prove handy since they know all > the secret tunnels between Hogsmeade and Hogwarts without using the > map. > > Shalimar Pat here: That would be handy, and I agree that the collapsed tunnels probably will be important. The only thing is that when Fred and George left they said their joke shop would be in Diagon Alley, not in Hogsmeade. Still, running a joke shop has all kinds of possibilities for finding out what people are up to, other than buying joke shop items. Pat From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 11 06:30:58 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:30:58 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112681 NearlyheadlessRyan: >>Everyone keeps talking about how Hermione should have been placed in Slytherin because of all the traits of Slytherin that she shows throughout the books, but in this instance she shows us why she wasn't chosen for Slytherin. When the four founders of Hogwarts split, it was because Salazar Slytherin wanted to be selective about who was allowed to attend Hogwarts, as far as the DA was concerned, Hermione was just the opposite and wanted to give all who wanted instruction, the oppertunity to learn.<< HunterGreen: Indeed she did. However, don't get confused about what traits Slytherin the person has, versis the traits Slytherin the man had. Because by that line of reasoning Draco doesn't belong in Slytherin because he hasn't hidden any monsters in a secret chamber (extreme example, I know). Anyway, he was only selective when it came to allowing muggleborns into the school. And in this case it didn't even look that much like Marietta was there to learn, she was more there because Cho had dragged her there. NearlyheadlessRyan: >>I know this won't end the debate about whether or not she was chosen for the right house, but I'm hoping that it will cut her some slack for a while.<< HunterGreen: Having Slytherin traits is not a bad thing though. Her being ambitious is what leads her to do so well in school, disregarding the rules helped Harry get to the stone (among other things), and using any means to achieve her ends saved Harry from being Crucio-ed by Umbridge. All very helpful. From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 07:24:59 2004 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:24:59 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: (of Draco) He > seems sure that he's right and that his side will win, and he wants > Harry to remember that he told him so: essentially, "you had your > chance to join me, Potter, and you blew it. If you're killed fighting > Lord Voldemort, it's your own fault." I can never get over how Draco repeatedly misses the connection that Voldemort killed Harry's parents. How can he think Harry would want to associate with Death Eater types after that? It must be either extreme nearsightedness or a Slytherin assumption that others care just about associating with power for their own benefit. Draco misses the point as well in taunting Harry for fainting around dementors when it is because Draco's family's crowd and LV caused the memories that make Harry pass out. And he says, "I'll kill you" at the end of OOTP after Harry simply landed Lucius in jail via fighting back-- does Draco not realize how stupid and ironic any of this is? If he is angry at Harry for causing Lucius to be in jail, how can he expect Harry to go along with Death Eaters or LV who killed his parents... There, I've finally said that beef. A.J. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 11 07:59:41 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:59:41 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112683 Del wrote: > Second, the Jinx is very much an injustice, for multiple reasons : > > 1. Nobody was warned about it. They agreed not to tell, but there was > never any mention of what would happen if they did, and especially > there was no mention of something so dreadful. Amy Z replied: >>What makes a person a lawbreaker is not that she acts despite threat of punishment--it is that she violates the law. Are you saying that if you break a promise to me, I can't tell everyone you did that unless I specifically warned you beforehand that that's what I would do?<< HunterGreen: What if the punishment for breaking the promise was cutting off her hand? When they signed the document, it was made out to be an honor system thing. In fact, the purpose of the document was first said to be just a record of who was there, not a contract. Hermione then slipped in the part about not telling Umbridge or anyone else about the group. Of course, the reason she didn't tell anyone about the hex is obvious, no one would have signed it if she did. Already everyone was hesistant about signing. Amy Z: >>Only Marietta is responsible for her having signed the agreement. If she wasn't willing to be a part of a secret group, she had the chance to leave instead of signing.<< HunterGreen: Well, at the time she signed it wasn't really a "secret group", at least not in the same way it was when they started meeting. It went from something that was being kept quiet for safety's sake (but was still technically not breaking any rules) to being an illegal group that she could be expelled for being a member of. Those are two *very* different things. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 11 08:19:10 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:19:10 -0000 Subject: QUESTION!!!! (Draco & Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112684 A.J. wrote: >>I can never get over how Draco repeatedly misses the connection that Voldemort killed Harry's parents. How can he think Harry would want to associate with Death Eater types after that? It must be either extreme nearsightedness or a Slytherin assumption that others care just about associating with power for their own benefit.<< HunterGreen: I think its a mixture of short-sightedness and just plain taunting Harry. I've also wondered how that would have helped Harry if he had indeed aligned himself with Draco and the Slytherins (now that sounds like a good band name). Voldemort would still want to kill him, it would just be a lot *easier* for him in that case. Perhaps Draco is just too stupid to see that connection, his statements would make a lot more sense if it had been *Ron* that he had tried to befriend. I think that Draco genuinally tried to make friends with Harry (probably because he thought Harry would be a powerful friend to have), and has been forever angry (and possibly hurt) that Harry rejected him. That was probably what that comment was about, trying to make it Harry's *stupididy* that didn't choose him, and by implication nothing about him. A.J.: >>Draco misses the point as well in taunting Harry for fainting around dementors when it is because Draco's family's crowd and LV caused the memories that make Harry pass out.<< HunterGreen: He probably didn't exactly know the mechanism of the Dementors, and even if he did, making fun of Harry for fainting was just too easy in this case (like making fun of things that kids can't control, like being short, or having horrendous acne, or having a large nose...). A.J.: >> And he says, "I'll kill you" at the end of OOTP after Harry simply landed Lucius in jail via fighting back-- does Draco not realize how stupid and ironic any of this is? If he is angry at Harry for causing Lucius to be in jail, how can he expect Harry to go along with Death Eaters or LV who killed his parents...<< HunterGreen: Yeah that didn't make sense. Its *Lucius'* fault for going to the DoM in the first place. However, it makes about as much sense as Harry blaming Snape for Sirius' death, which we know he did. So Draco could be suffering from the same displaced rage (rather than being mad at his father for being a DE and getting caught as one, he's made at Harry for getting him caught). From zendemort at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 11 02:29:45 2004 From: zendemort at yahoo.co.uk (zendemort) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:29:45 -0000 Subject: Dobby's Painting Might Be Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" > wrote: > > Ok, so I had one of those flashes of brilliance sure to baffle > everybody. > > In re-reading OoP, I was focused on the description of the > painting Dobby > > gave Harry for Christmas. What if that painting is not of Harry, > but of > > Sirius? Is that possible or have I lost all remaining rational > thought? > > Zendemort in jubiliation: This is an excellent idea. In fact, it is one of the best theories I have yet heard. Why would an elf paint a regular muggle painting??? hmmm.... It just doesn't seem like Dobby. Actually, the socks I understand. Dobby is in love with socks, so of course he could give Harry regular socks. But paintings are a completely different matter. Dobby has never shown any interest in paintings, nor any interest in doing the painting, except when he gives Harry the christmass present. There must be something more to that painting!!!!!! but as to the painting being of Sirius, hmmm... We DO know that Harry's name is written on the back, but could it be a painting of anyone Harry wants it to be??? House-elves are very powerful magical creatures. You never can guess what Dobby has up his sleeve. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Sep 11 02:58:01 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:58:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] totally shallow Snape q Message-ID: <20040910.231849.3100.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112686 Carol said: >I think it was Aura who responded to this idea by adding the part >about Snape's greasy hair. (Am I right, Aura?) Yeah, sounds right. You said the thing about McG having older-sisterly feelings about Snape, and then I tacked on my bitchy teen-girl complaints about Snape's hair. :) Hannah said: > Or maybe he does wash it, but it just doesn't get rid of the > grease. I reckon he's in need of that range of Gilderoy Lockhart > hair care products! :-) My initial reading of "greasy hair" was "too much product." I thought he was one of those guys who hasn't a clue about how to control his hair, so he slaps on whatever's easiest. (Ross Gellar, I'm looking at you.) But as the books went on, I had to let go of that illusion. Alex said: > My initial impresison of the Snape's Hair Thing > (along with it's pal,the Snape's Nose Thing) But aside from the hair, the other things aren't very voluntary. Lots of people have a big nose, and it isn't necesarily an unattractive feature, same with being bony and tall; yellow, crooked teeth can't really be helped without expensive dental work, which is too muggle for Snape; and I suppose hanging around the dungeon too much gives him sallow skin. So, what I'm saying is, the other things say something about his lifestyle choices affecting his appearance, but the greasy hair thing just comes off as over-the-top "cartoon villian" to me. Alex, ITA that Snape's appearance is meant to make him seem evil; in subsequent books, JKR expects us to look beyond the surface. Well, I liked Snape and assumed he was a White Hat from the beginning, greasy nastyness and all, so maybe this is one of those things about HP were you just have to say, "it's a kids' book, don't pay too much attention to it." Alex again: >The other thing I thought of as I was typing this up is that Snape's >appearance has almost all of the hallmarks of the stereotypical Wicked >Witch (his gender and lack of wart are the two missing elements of the >sterotype). Not sure what to make of that. Hee. "Fly, Draco, fly! Bring back Potter, and his little friends, too!" Maybe it says that JKR finds Snape utterly asexual and horrible, and is annoyed and confused by fans who find him as sexy as Damn Sexy Sirius. ;) Aura PS: I got my Republicans For Voldemort tshirt in the mail today! And 2 bonus bumper stickers. I can't wait to shock some squares .... ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 06:54:31 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:54:31 -0000 Subject: Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor(prophecy reference) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ivogun" wrote: > > There was some discussion not too long ago about how Neville is hindered by=> using his > father's wand. And I began wondering again about other ways that Neville i=> s > disadvantaged. What if Neville's problems in potions is exacerbated, or ev=> en caused, by > the type of cauldron that he uses? No other student melts his /her cauldro=> n, and they do > concoct some horrid, stinky, smoky, off-colored potions, but no one else se=> ems to melt > the things. Not like Neville, anyway. I really wonder if Neville uses the=> type of cheap > cauldrons that is the subject of Percy's long government report and the kin=> d that Mung > illegally trades. There is a bit of a is a hint with his name "Longbottom."=> In reality, Neville > ought to be using well-built, thick cauldrons, but instead cheap. > > My theory is that thin cauldrons are a major plaque of the wizarding poor. = In all honesty, if money was an issue Neville would be running around to use someone else's "extra" cauldron..(which given his potion lessons experiences few would be willing to do).. I do not believe Neville's grandmother gives him his dad's wand for use in school out of her monthly budget, but out of family pride. In all honesty, how would a grandmother mainain love, respect, loyalty to a parent that was not dead, but basically in a mental health ward through no fault of his/her own. The most nagging question I have about Neville and his family is: Where is his mothers family??!?!??!?... Can't you just imagine....Alice Longbottome re: Alice Evans....or Alice Potter? Perhaps this is why the prophecy tends to be so ambiguous. Doddiemoemoe From boyinleaves at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 07:01:02 2004 From: boyinleaves at hotmail.com (boyinleaves) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:01:02 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112688 I'm new too, Hi! Don't know if there's enough info in canon to answer whether things have to be taken care of in a certain amount of time, but I've gotten the impression from descriptions Moody's character that he actually wears his scars and disabilities as a badge of honour. No doubt the leg could be an inconvenience at times, yet perhaps there exists some simple charm, or inherent quality in the leg itself that makes it act almost like a normal leg. His magical eye is obviously eminently useful for someone in his profession, so I can't imagine him wanting to grow a new eye. During the scene of Moody's arrival with the advance guard to pick up Harry at the beginning of OotP, and then again on the very last page of the same book, Moody seems very comfortable with every aspect of his appearance, and even finds his sinister aspect and eye useful for intimidating Vernon Dursley. Despite his now overwhelming paranoia, he's still considered one of the greatest Aurors ever, and the more battle hardened he looks, the more fearsome his reputation perhaps, and that could be considered another layer of protection, something he would consider more valuable than his looks. In any case, when there exist spells for the alteration of one's appearance he shouldn't need to be too worried about what he looks like, as long as he still functions. Boyinleaves From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 07:37:15 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:37:15 -0000 Subject: LV is ANCESTOR of SS? (taken from Re: Why Voldemort Would Have Spared Lily) In-Reply-To: <000701c492fa$f6d5e9f0$0500a8c0@Jessi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112689 Jessi says: > I also have some ideas about Harry being related to both Godric Gryffindor > and Salazar Slytherin (meaning of course he would also be of relation to > LV). I find it to be very interesting that it was mentioned in some > versions of CS that Voldemort is the last remaining ANCESTOR of Salazar > Slytherin. (Read a small tidbit about it on the Lexicon here: > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/puzzles2.html ) If it was just a mistake > and it was corrected, then why did JKR have it put back in later editions > and suggested the word ancestor was used intentionally? > In an interview 10/6/2000 someone asks JKR: Is Voldemort some sort of > relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother? > JKR replies: I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it? <> Doddiemoe here: Voldemort may have been at that time the last ancestor of Salazar Slytherin...however, we as readers do not know how much and what parts Voldemort transfered to Harry(only DD's supositions) upon the Avada Kedavara curse used when he was a little more than one year old. (Keep in mind that only the "heir of Slytherin" could open the chamber of secrets according to EVERYONE...YET Harry did, in fact, open the chamber of secrets!!!!!! I for one, do not think that Salazar was fool enough to leave the opening of the COS to a parseltongue alone...there must be something more there.. If Voldemort truly marked Harry as his equal, then Harry too is an heir of Slytherin. In essence...they are twins...yet not...identical/fraternal...doesn't matter...twins are always twins they have a certain "stigma"...JK gives us an example of Fred and George in the books. They can even confuse their own mother and they appear to be identical...just as Harry may have confused the entrances to the COS.. I suppose the crux will be the character mentioned in the books that we have heard the least about...the Tom Riddle Sr...and maybe even his family.(ewwww what if Tom Riddle Sr. was the half-blood prince?!?) If only the "heir of Slytherin" could open the chamber of secrets...then both Harry and Voldemort(at least Tom Riddle) are both Heirs....one way or another...) Doddiemoemoe (who is glad that someone making better 'choices' opened the COS) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 07:39:56 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 07:39:56 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112690 "girl_next_door704" wrote: > > In Book Five, Aunt Petunia says she knows of the Dementors > and about the wizards' prison Azkaban because she had once heard > James Potter talking about it with Lily. How is this possible if, > according to Book Four, the dementors joined the Ministry's side > after Voldemort's regime ceased, and that this happened after the > death of James and Lily > Doddiemoemoe here: What if Lily and Petunia had another sibling who died?!?!(Another sib with wizarding powers no less) Doddiemoe From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 11 09:56:33 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:56:33 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112691 Amy Z: > >>Only Marietta is responsible for her having signed the agreement. > If she wasn't willing to be a part of a secret group, she had the > chance to leave instead of signing.<< > > HunterGreen: > Well, at the time she signed it wasn't really a "secret group", at > least not in the same way it was when they started meeting. It went > from something that was being kept quiet for safety's sake (but was > still technically not breaking any rules) to being an illegal group > that she could be expelled for being a member of. Those are two > *very* different things. But once it was made an illegal group she could have easily gone and told them she wanted to back out (she would have had a perfectly good reason) or she could have asked Cho to do it. Just by signing she wasn't bound to HAVE to continue with it! She didn't! All the books are about choices Marrietta made hers and set off a bad chain of events because of it. I agree that she couldn't have really known what would happen but that doesn't excuse her actions. Plus do you really think after the events of OOTP Harry is really going to even give her a second thought after what happened at the MOM. "Jennifer" From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 12:31:55 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:31:55 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112692 mhbobbin writes: In previous posts, I--and others--have questioned whether there will be a dispute about Grimmauld Place now that Sirius is dead. IMO, two things must happen before the Malfoys--or anyone else--can lay claim to GP: 1. The Death of Sirius has to become known in the WW. 2. The inheritors would have to be able to find it---and that would depend on the details of the Fidelius Charm and how/when it terminates. Since the Order is what is being hidden, it seems to me the Fidelius Charm will not wear off solely because of Sirius' death but only JKR knows for sure. I was rereading the end of the OotP, and what struck me this time was that there were numerous Prophet articles that announced the return of Voldethingy, the revolt of the Dementors, the vindication of Harry, the appearance of DEs at the Mom but not a word about the presumed death of Sirius Black. Not a word. I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people know. With one exception. Nearly Headless Nick knows. So I'm wondering if Nick was briefed personally by DD, in preparation for Harry to discuss death with him, or if there is more information available that JKR has just omitted. Like the obituary on Page 6 of the Prophet. I suspect it was just DD telling Nick and in confidence. Again, I don't see any reason for the Order to have revealed the Death. Bellatrix witnessed the death but she has to rear her ugly head again and inform her sister etc. AND then how would they prove it? Of course, I still believe that sometime before the end of Book 7, Harry will go beyond the veil and come out again. Maybe with Sirius. Maybe without. mhbbobbin From Lynx412 at AOL.com Sat Sep 11 13:01:03 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:01:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Time-turning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112693 In a message dated 9/10/2004 5:49:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, cldrolet at sympatico.ca writes: > Staying completely out of the TimeTurning business because I just don't get > it...but I did notice this. > > "What amazes me most is the behaviour of the Dementors ... you've really no > idea what made them retreat, Snape?" > "No, Minister. By the time I had come round they were heading back to their > positions at the entrances .." > > So you're saying Snape is lying here when he tells Fudge he doesn't know > what happened? Hm. Still DD does comment about the shape of Harry's Patronus. Snape is the most reasonable suspect to have described it. Perhaps Hermione saw it? Still, I suspect that Snape was lying, by omission at least, about one part of the night's events. Think about what he said about the map. He looks at it, sees it's a map and locates Lupin heading into the Willow tunnel where he KNOWS MWPP used to meet. Snape assumes that Lupin's going to meet Sirius. Wouldn't he immediately try to locate Harry? What he would see at that point with the trio [including Harry1 and Hermione1] already in the Shrieking Shack? Harry2, Hermione2 and...Buckbeak! Well, now he knows the annoying brat did rescue the creature. He also sees that the stupid boy is outside, with a werewolf and a murderer. Off he charges to the rescue, forgetting to bring the potion. Still, in all the later confusion, Snape never mentions that part. I have my own theory about Snape's behavior at that time, but it's not really a part of the TT discussion so I'll save it for another post. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 13:23:15 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dobby's Painting Might Be Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911132315.52246.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112694 > Ok, so I had one of those flashes of brilliance sure to baffle > everybody. In re-reading OoP, I was focused on the description of > the painting Dobby gave Harry for Christmas. What if that painting > is not of Harry, but of Sirius? I doubt it. Does Dobby even know who Sirius is? Besides, Fred says the painting looks like "a gibbon with two black eyes." Obviously Dobby's included Harry's glasses on the portrait and Sirius doesn't wear glasses. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 13:34:19 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Petunia's Protection WAS: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911133419.17417.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112695 > Just a stray thought here could this be his shortest stay on > Privet Drive because something happens to Petunia `this' > summer and Harry loses that protection? Or will JKR keep Petunia > around until book 7? Thoughts? > > Ravenclaw Bookworm No, I think the Order will swoop in and bring Harry back to 12GP and we'll find out what decision has been made about Sirius' death. Did Dumbledore tell Fudge about Sirius? Or will the MoM just assume that Sirius is still out there somewhere? That will tell us whether 12GP continues to be Order HQ. And then what will happen to Kreacher who knows Sirius is dead and thus doesn't have to obey anyone else in the house? Also I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some kind of memorial service within the Order and that would be the immediate cause of getting Harry away from Privet Drive. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 11 14:34:14 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:34:14 -0000 Subject: Time-turning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112696 The Other Cheryl wrote: Hm. Still DD does comment about the shape of Harry's Patronus. Snape > is the most reasonable suspect to have described it. Perhaps Hermione saw it? Hannah replies: I think he was referring to the patronus cast by Harry during the quidditch match against Ravenclaw, which charged down Malfoy and co. I don't think anyone had seen the patronus by the lake. Cheryl again: >Still, I suspect that Snape was lying, by omission at least, about one part of the night's events. >Think about what he said about the map. He looks at it, sees it's a > map and locates Lupin heading into the Willow tunnel where he KNOWS MWPP used to > meet. Snape assumes that Lupin's going to meet Sirius. Wouldn't he > immediately try to locate Harry? What he would see at that point with the trio > [including Harry1 and Hermione1] already in the Shrieking Shack? Harry2, Hermione2 and...Buckbeak! Well, now he knows the annoyingbrat did rescue the creature. He also sees that the stupid boy is outside, with a werewolf and a murderer. Off he charges to the rescue, forgetting to bring the potion. Hannah: Good point about him seeing time-travelled H and H with Buckbeak, I'd never thought of that! But he wouldn't have seen those in the Shrieking Shack as it is out of Hogwarts grounds. He saw Lupin heading that way and realised he was probably up to something he shouldn't be, and raced off in the hope of catching him and Black. I don't think that he even considered Harry at this point, especially if he had already seen him and Hermione elsewhere on the map. He had no reason to even think Harry was in need of rescue. He just saw his chance to 'get' Lupin and hopefully Black. Only when he reached the shack did he find Harry there in supposed danger. He may have wondered later how H and H had got into the shack when he'd seen them elsewhere on the map a short time before, but in the excitement he probably forgot all about it. Hannah, who as a Snape fan wishes she could believe in a more noble interpretation of his actions, and would be very interested to hear Cheryl's theory on Snape's actions that evening. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 14:58:00 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:58:00 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" wrote: > > But once it was made an illegal group she could have easily gone and told them she wanted to back out (she would have had a perfectly good reason) or she could have asked Cho to do it. Just by signing she wasn't bound to HAVE to continue with it! She didn't! All the books are about choices Marrietta made hers and set off a bad chain of events because of it. I agree that she couldn't have really known > what would happen but that doesn't excuse her actions. > > "Jennifer" Tonks here: I agree that this is another example of choice. And since these are "Children's" books, this story line is there for a reason. It shows children what can happen if you don't stop and think first before you act. Having her facial condition for about 8 weeks, is a minor thing for an adult(I know some disagree on this), but a major thing to a kid. I think JKR uses this as another teaching session on choice. It also shows what can happen if you go along with the crowd, when you don't really think that you should. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 15:19:39 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:19:39 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112698 I have been thinking about the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottoms gives to her visitors and the one she gave to Neville. He does not throw it away like his grandmother tells him too. Maybe Mrs. Longbottoms tries to get a message to her son. Maybe there is something written on the wrappers that makes sense to Neville. And JKR's desk on her website is full of gum wrappers. At first I just thought she was a smoker trying to quit. But now I think it is a clue. So any thoughts as to what message might be on the gum wrappers? Tonks_op From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 16:43:30 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911164330.80303.qmail@web20027.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112699 --- Tonks wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" > wrote: > > > > But once it was made an illegal group she could > have easily gone > and told them she wanted to back out (she would have > had a perfectly > good reason) or she could have asked Cho to do it. > Just by signing > she wasn't bound to HAVE to continue with it! She > didn't! All the > books are about choices Marrietta made hers and set > off a bad chain > of events because of it. I agree that she couldn't > have really known > > what would happen but that doesn't excuse her > actions. > > > "Jennifer" > > > Tonks here: > > I agree that this is another example of choice. And > since these > are "Children's" books, this story line is there for > a reason. It > shows children what can happen if you don't stop and > think first > before you act. Having her facial condition for > about 8 weeks, is a > minor thing for an adult(I know some disagree on > this), but a major > thing to a kid. I think JKR uses this as another > teaching session on > choice. It also shows what can happen if you go > along with the > crowd, when you don't really think that you should. > > Tonks_op We have no indication that "facial condition" will ever clear up. We can either surmise that it was a brilliant bit of Magic by Hermione, or that the school Nurse deliberately allowed the condition to remain (with the poor student having no memory of why she has it). And, for the record, Marietta was "going along with the crowd" when she didn't think she should when she joined the D.A. We really don't know her thoughts when she told. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sat Sep 11 17:39:30 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:39:30 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112700 > HunterGreen: > Having Slytherin traits is not a bad thing though. Her being > ambitious is what leads her to do so well in school, disregarding the > rules helped Harry get to the stone (among other things), and using > any means to achieve her ends saved Harry from being Crucio-ed by > Umbridge. All very helpful. Huntergreen, I see an enormous difference between *having ambitions* and *being* ambitious... Slytherin are often the later, meaning they want power for power (or because they are afraid of others, like the wimp), but having an ambition, if it is incased in strict morals, is ok (Percy's case does not have the morals). From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sat Sep 11 17:48:28 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:48:28 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040911164330.80303.qmail@web20027.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112701 Rebecca wrote: > And, for the record, Marietta was "going along with > the crowd" when she didn't think she should when she > joined the D.A. We really don't know her thoughts > when she told. Marietta knew a few things though, or could deduce them: [1] Umbridge was after Harry's blood, and his expulsion. [2] Umbridge would not stop just at Harry (Lee Jordan in detention, Fred and George stopped from quidditch too) [3] Umbridge wanted to sack the teacher and Dumbledore By siding with Umbridge and the ministry, Marietta showed she was *against* those that Umbridge wanted to sack... Even though she couldn't know about Dumbledore, it was an *offense* against the regular teacher. Plus, she agreed without bothering to trade a job of her mother (and we aren't even sure she'll been sacked) to the whole life of more than one boy (remember the snapping of wand.....). What Marietta did was NOT acceptable, by any measure. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 11 18:22:52 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:22:52 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112702 mhbobbin writes: > > In previous posts, I--and others--have questioned whether there > will be a dispute about Grimmauld Place now that Sirius is dead. Karen L. here, With regards to GP and the supposed inheritance of said building, Didn't Sirius "give" GP to DD as headquarters for the OoP? I would assume that DD would have made sure that the house went directly to him in the event of Sirius's death. Although Sirius does not seem the sort to plan ahead, DD is. And with the dangerous "business" that the OoP is involved in, IMHO, DD would have made everything perfectly legal in the event of Sirius' death. (even though Sirius is "locked up" in GP, DD knows that Sirius would get involved somehow in something that may lead to his death, the man "knows" everything!) So I believe that the inheritance of GP would go to DD not the Malfoy's. And as far as the fidelis charm wearing off, with DD being the Secret Keeper and being that he is still alive, the location of the House would still be a secret. So I believe that Sirius' death would be a moot point with regards to GP, because it should already be taken care of by DD. It is curious though that his death was not mentioned in the DP, I guess they had other more pressing things to write about. > > mhbobbin writes: > > In previous posts, I--and others--have questioned whether there > will be a dispute about Grimmauld Place now that Sirius is dead. > IMO, two things must happen before the Malfoys--or anyone else--can > lay claim to GP: > 1. The Death of Sirius has to become known in the WW. > 2. The inheritors would have to be able to find it---and that would > depend on the details of the Fidelius Charm and how/when it > terminates. Since the Order is what is being hidden, it seems to me > the Fidelius Charm will not wear off solely because of Sirius' death > but only JKR knows for sure. > > I was rereading the end of the OotP, and what struck me this time > was that there were numerous Prophet articles that announced the > return of Voldethingy, the revolt of the Dementors, the vindication > of Harry, the appearance of DEs at the Mom but not a word about the > presumed death of Sirius Black. Not a word. > > I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was > only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and > his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt > opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people > know. > > With one exception. Nearly Headless Nick knows. So I'm wondering > if Nick was briefed personally by DD, in preparation for Harry to > discuss death with him, or if there is more information available > that JKR has just omitted. Like the obituary on Page 6 of the > Prophet. > > I suspect it was just DD telling Nick and in confidence. Again, I > don't see any reason for the Order to have revealed the Death. > Bellatrix witnessed the death but she has to rear her ugly head > again and inform her sister etc. AND then how would they prove it? > > Of course, I still believe that sometime before the end of Book 7, > Harry will go beyond the veil and come out again. Maybe with Sirius. > Maybe without. > > mhbbobbin From staceymateo at gmail.com Sat Sep 11 18:30:17 2004 From: staceymateo at gmail.com (staceymateo) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:30:17 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > > mhbobbin writes: > > I was rereading the end of the OotP, and what struck me this time > was that there were numerous Prophet articles that announced the > return of Voldethingy, the revolt of the Dementors, the vindication > of Harry, the appearance of DEs at the Mom but not a word about the > presumed death of Sirius Black. Not a word. Stacey here: Well, according to the MoM and the Prophet, Sirius was still a wanted felon. His status at no time during OoTP changed from wanted fugitive with his whereabouts unknown. By releasing that Sirius died, that also opens up the information that Sirius was IN the Department of Mysteries and that he was working with the Order and Dumbledore. Since Pettigrew is still "Missing in Action", so to speak, Sirius is not considered "not guilty" of the street incident in which Pettigrew "died". Better to not make it a public announcement which creates more questions than gives answers. > > I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was > only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and > his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt > opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people > know. > > With one exception. Nearly Headless Nick knows. So I'm wondering > if Nick was briefed personally by DD, in preparation for Harry to > discuss death with him, or if there is more information available > that JKR has just omitted. Like the obituary on Page 6 of the > Prophet. > > I suspect it was just DD telling Nick and in confidence. Stacey here: I don't suspect that Nick found out from Dumbledore about the death of Sirius. Without having my copy with me here at work, I am working from memory, and in Nick's conversation with Harry, they discuss how someone becomes a ghost. Nick plainly states that the person has to be afraid of dying to cling to the living world as a ghost. Nick also states that the person has to unhappy with their life to become a ghost. I can't think of anyone (save Harry) who was more unhappy with their life than Sirius. I think Nick knows this about Sirius because he has seen him, and Sirius will become a ghost. My theory - We will see Sirius return in the final books, but as a ghost. JKR has stated that Sirius is dead. She has not given any information though that Sirius is completely out of the story. From Lynx412 at AOL.com Sat Sep 11 20:34:02 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:34:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <1cd.2abf5d4f.2e74bb3a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112704 In a message dated 9/11/2004 12:39:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk writes: > Hannah: Good point about him seeing time-travelled H and H with > Buckbeak, I'd never thought of that! But he wouldn't have seen > those in the Shrieking Shack as it is out of Hogwarts grounds. He > saw Lupin heading that way and realised he was probably up to > something he shouldn't be, and raced off in the hope of catching him > and Black. > > I don't think that he even considered Harry at this point, > especially if he had already seen him and Hermione elsewhere on the > map. He had no reason to even think Harry was in need of rescue. > He just saw his chance to 'get' Lupin and hopefully Black. Only > when he reached the shack did he find Harry there in supposed danger. > > He may have wondered later how H and H had got into the shack when > he'd seen them elsewhere on the map a short time before, but in the > excitement he probably forgot all about it. > > Hannah, who as a Snape fan wishes she could believe in a more noble > interpretation of his actions, and would be very interested to hear > Cheryl's theory on Snape's actions that evening. Actually, that comment on seeing the trio in the Shack was supposed to be rhetorical, since I knew the Shack was off he map. I phrased it badly and apologize for the confusion. As for Snape's actions, my theory is based on his delay in the Shack. Look at when he must have arrived. Lupin has just commented that there used to be three unregistered Animagi at Hogwarts, black had demanded he hurry the explanation, Lupin says "I only know how it began..." _Lupin broke off, there had been a loud creak behind him. The bedroom door had opened of its own accord._ That has to be Snape entering, under Harry's invisibility cloak. He then sits through the explanation, right up until the Prank is mentioned. Only then does he step out...and then he ties up LUPIN. Not Sirius, Lupin. Snape then starts into an explanation of how he found them...in which he REMINDS Lupin that he [Lupin] hasn't taken his potion. Then he and Sirius get into it, but he never secures Sirius. Odd, considering how dangerous he believes Sirius to be, how much he hates him. He taunts Sirius, threatening to summon the Dementors immediately, but would he? Would Snape, cool, cautious, clever Snape, have risked Dumbledore's good will like that? Risked loosing DD's faith in him? Then there's his final fit... The first time I read the fit in the Hospital wing, I thought, he's faking it, this is out of character. I think he was laughing his...anatomy...off. I think he listened to the story and wondered, until the reminder of the Prank recalled to mind that Lupin hadn't taken his potion. So he secures Lupin and resolves to take Sirius and the group to DD. Doing so is a win-win scenario for Snape. If the tale is a lie, he wins over his schoolboy rivals, permanently, and has saved the Potter brat in a way the boy can't deny. If it's true, his hated rivals are safe, and owe him a debt. He's still a hero, for bringing them in and capturing the real villain, if the rat really is Pettigrew. Either way he still has DD's favor and the boy owes him a debt, canceling out Snapes' debt to James. And, remember, Snape is a superb occulamens, who can tell when he's being lied to. He has to be trying to use it there, if for no other reason than to come up with evidence to support his side. Then the unforeseen...the Dementor attack. He's failed, sort of. DD seems to believe Sirius, but nothing can be done to save him. Snape still benefits, of course, but not as much as if he'd proven Sirius and Lupin liars or found Pettigrew. Then Sirius makes a miraculous last-miniute escape. Potter, of course. He knows that, but perhaps not how. He has to seem upset, so he rants. He then heads to the Hospital wing, too curious to let it rest. And DD tells him how it was done. "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once". Snape glares, then storms out...he now knows how it was done. Hermione's time-turner. Not DD's answer. Snape only accused HARRY. He never mentioned Hermione. So, why did DD mention her if not to clue in Snape? No, Snape isn't nice, but here, he was doing the right thing, in his own Snapely fashion. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 11 18:43:46 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:43:46 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Protection WAS: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112705 Bookworm: > Just a stray thought here ? could this be his shortest stay on > Privet Drive because something happens to Petunia `this' > summer and Harry loses that protection? Karen L. here, My stray thought is this. Being that JKR has stated that the next summer should be Harry's shortest stay, could it be that Harry doesn't need to stay there as long because he had received an extra layer of protection during his time in either the graveyard (GoF) or in the MoM (OoP)? LV initially overlooked the blood protection from Harry's mother, underestimating the old magic at his own cost. LV could have done it again! His narrow minded goal of killing Harry could have once again clouded his "reasoning". Remember in GoF when Harry thought he saw a "gleam of something like triumph in DD's eyes" after he told DD about Womtail taking his blood to use in the potion to bring back LV? That "gleam of something like triumph" is interesting to me. It must mean something! Any thoughts? From mandyallen286 at fsmail.net Sat Sep 11 19:05:41 2004 From: mandyallen286 at fsmail.net (wapp13) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:05:41 -0000 Subject: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112706 "girl_next_door704" wrote: <> Actually she didn't mention James Potter at all. She said she heard "that awful boy" telling Lily about them. Debates exist on this site about whether the awful boy could in fact be someone else. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 11 21:23:33 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:23:33 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112707 HunterGreen previously: > Well, at the time she signed it wasn't really a "secret group", at > least not in the same way it was when they started meeting. It went > from something that was being kept quiet for safety's sake (but was > still technically not breaking any rules) to being an illegal group > that she could be expelled for being a member of. Those are two > *very* different things. Jennifer replied: >>But once it was made an illegal group she could have easily gone and told them she wanted to back out (she would have had a perfectly good reason) or she could have asked Cho to do it. Just by signing she wasn't bound to HAVE to continue with it! She didn't!<< HunterGreen: It didn't matter. By that point her name was already on the list. Even if she never went to another meeting, if the list was found, she would still be considered a member. I don't know why she kept going to meetings, perhaps she's weak-willed or something, but that doesn't excuse Hermione for not warning anyone about the hex. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 11 21:28:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:28:07 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112708 Stacey here: > My theory - We will see Sirius return in the final books, but as a > ghost. JKR has stated that Sirius is dead. She has not given any > information though that Sirius is completely out of the story. SSSusan: But, Stacey, I think if you re-read that section again you'll see that Sirius, according to Nick, WON'T become a ghost. I got the impression that one must decide at the time of death, and that Nick was telling Harry Sirius had already decided--against becoming a ghost. "He won't come back.... He will not come back. He will have...gone on." [US hardback, p. 8861] Unless one assumes that Nick is just hypothesizing, then it's a pretty closed issue. At least, I read it as Nick really had reason to *know* that Sirius had made his choice. He didn't give Harry ANY room for hope, at least. Siriusly Snapey Susan From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 22:16:19 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:16:19 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112709 > > Karen adds: > > > > I think platform 9 3/4 is a very protected place because > everybodies > > children are on that platform for 7 years of thelr lives. I cannot > > see the DE's attacking a place where their offspring might end up > in > > the cross fire. > > > > > IMO - The platform 9 3/4 needs to be a safe place guarded by > > something only the Department of Mysteries knows about. > > > > Karen Is it uncouth to jump back into a thread you started? Hope not, cause here I go. I had a brainstorm at work today, thinking about some of the other things that always struck me as weird about SS and another one of those is the fact that Hagrid hands Harry a ticket for his journey telling Harry the time, platform and date of his departure. But there is never any other mention of tickets for other students, for Harry's later journeys or of any sort of conductor coming round to collect them. Then following a reread of Order something seemed similar to me: at the end of the Advance Guard chapter Moody hands Harry a piece of paper with the location (in DD's writing) of Order HQ so that Harry can get in. Perhaps, and this is a stretch, Platform 9 and 3/4 is protected by a charm similar to the Fidelus and that a Muggle raised kid like Harry needs to be let in on the secret as it were so he or she can reach the platform? Just guessing. Meri From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 22:23:52 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:23:52 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > > HunterGreen: > It didn't matter. By that point her name was already on the list. > Even if she never went to another meeting, if the list was found, she would still be considered a member. I don't know why she kept going to meetings, perhaps she's weak-willed or something, but that doesn't excuse Hermione for not warning anyone about the hex. Tonks here: Sometimes when someone goes against a contract and against what they promised there are consequences that are not know at the time. So it is here as well. If you made a promise not to tell anyone, then you should NOT tell anyone. There is no excuse for what Marietta did, just as there is no excuse for what Wormtail did. There is such a thing as duty and honor, and I think that is what is being taught here. Marietta had a choice every step of the way. No one put a wand to her head and said "sign". She did not make good choices. She made what seemed like small choices at the time and got in deeper and deeper, apparently all the while not wanting to do what she was doing. She is responsible for her actions all of them. She is not doomed to hell for them, we can forgive her, but she has to pay the consequences all the same. Blaming Hermione is not going to get Marietta off!! Hermione is not the bad guy here, Marietta is. She may be weak willed and we can have pity on her, but there is a very fine line between what she did and what Wormtail did, and we need to remember and learn from that. Tonks_op From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Sep 11 23:02:27 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:02:27 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: <13d.e9704f.2e74de03@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112711 In a message dated 9/11/2004 6:04:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, patientx3 at aol.com writes: It didn't matter. By that point her name was already on the list. Even if she never went to another meeting, if the list was found, she would still be considered a member. I don't know why she kept going to meetings, perhaps she's weak-willed or something, but that doesn't excuse Hermione for not warning anyone about the hex. People tend to forget that these aren't real people. Hermione, probably would have warned everyone, but JKR knew that it would make for a better story if the hex wasn't revealed until someone activated it. The resultant effect was much greater on the reader, not knowing what would happen. Neil The Nefarious Court Jester of the Royal Family of Cliffies [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 11 23:37:30 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:37:30 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112712 Tonks wrote: >>Sometimes when someone goes against a contract and against what they promised there are consequences that are not know at the time. So it is here as well. If you made a promise not to tell anyone, then you should NOT tell anyone.<< HunterGreen: It was *not* a contract. [OotP, chpt 16, pg 346, US edi.] " 'I-I think everyone should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also think,' she took a deep breath, 'that we all ought to agree ot to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge -- or anyone else -- what we're up to.' " That's hardly a contract. It was just a piece of paper actually. Hermione talked it into a contract, but at no point was that word used. Tonks: >> There is no excuse for what Marietta did, just as there is no excuse for what Wormtail did.<< HunterGreen: You aren't trying to equate what Wormtail did with what Marietta did, are you? Because those are two very different situations. Wormtail was a member of an organization whose only aim was defeating Voldemort. The DA was originally set up as a study group to learn defensive spells. Maybe some of the members thought of it as an 'anti- Umbridge' group, but that's not what it was. They weren't learning spells to defeat Umbridge. I think the 'anti-MoM' and 'anti-school rules' ideal that the group had is what made Marietta so uncomfortable. Was what she did wrong? Yes. No excuse for it? Not at all. Tonks: >> Blaming Hermione is not going to get Marietta off!! Hermione is not the bad guy here, Marietta is. She may be weak willed and we can have pity on her, but there is a very fine line between what she did and what Wormtail did, and we need to remember and learn from that.<< HunterGreen: Well, Hermione and whether or not the sneak mark was fair is what this thread is about. Marietta's actions were dragged in to get Hermione off the hook. I still think putting a hex on the paper without telling anyone about it was unfair, even if it was apt (i just think she should have warned everyone that that something will happen if they betray the group). And, again, there is not a fine line between what Wormtail did and what she did. There is a large disctinction between getting two of your best friends and their son killed, then framing another friend for the murder and killing 12 other people, and telling the headmistress about an illegal group that might get some students expelled (not KILLED). Considering the atmosphere of the school at the time, and the opinions of her family (her mother at least), I can guess there was a considerable amount of pressure on Marietta. I don't think she was right in telling, but I can understand why *she* thought it was the right thing to do (whereas, in Wormtail's case, he knew betraying the Order *wasn't* the right thing to do). From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 23:45:16 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911234516.77690.qmail@web20022.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112713 --- totorivers wrote: > Rebecca wrote: > > > And, for the record, Marietta was "going along > with > > the crowd" when she didn't think she should when > she > > joined the D.A. We really don't know her thoughts > > when she told. > > Marietta knew a few things though, or could deduce > them: > > [1] Umbridge was after Harry's blood, and his > expulsion. > > [2] Umbridge would not stop just at Harry (Lee > Jordan in detention, > Fred and George stopped from quidditch too) > > [3] Umbridge wanted to sack the teacher and > Dumbledore > > By siding with Umbridge and the ministry, Marietta > showed she was > *against* those that Umbridge wanted to sack... Even > though she > couldn't know about Dumbledore, it was an *offense* > against the > regular teacher. Plus, she agreed without bothering > to trade a job of > her mother (and we aren't even sure she'll been > sacked) to the whole > life of more than one boy (remember the snapping of > wand.....). What > Marietta did was NOT acceptable, by any measure. I didn't say it was acceptable. But, frankly speaking, we don't know if she was threatened, if her mother's job was exchanged, or if she secretly dreamed of marrying Umbridge and starting a Fudge-worshipping cult. We know only that she told - nothing else. But nonetheless, I wasn't arguing the morality of her actions. I was simply disputing that "going along with the crowd" was the negative behavior JKR was punishing. It is nearly indisputable, IMO, that it was in joining the DA that Marietta went along with the crowd (or Cho) and succumbed to peer pressure instead of doing what she wanted/thought was right. We have no input as to whether Marietta was pressured to tell or if she truly and independently believed it was the right thing. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 23:47:56 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040911234756.15294.qmail@web20026.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112714 --- Tonks wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > "huntergreen_3" > wrote: > > > > HunterGreen: > > It didn't matter. By that point her name was > already on the list. > > Even if she never went to another meeting, if the > list was found, > she would still be considered a member. I don't know > why she kept > going to meetings, perhaps she's weak-willed or > something, but that > doesn't excuse Hermione for not warning anyone about > the hex. > > > Tonks here: > > Sometimes when someone goes against a contract and > against what they > promised there are consequences that are not know at > the time. So it > is here as well. If you made a promise not to tell > anyone, then you > should NOT tell anyone. There is no excuse for what > Marietta did, > just as there is no excuse for what Wormtail did. > There is such a > thing as duty and honor, and I think that is what is > being taught > here. Marietta had a choice every step of the way. > No one put a > wand to her head and said "sign". She did not make > good choices. > She made what seemed like small choices at the time > and got in > deeper and deeper, apparently all the while not > wanting to do what > she was doing. She is responsible for her actions > all of them. She > is not doomed to hell for them, we can forgive her, > but she has to > pay the consequences all the same. Blaming Hermione > is not going to > get Marietta off!! Hermione is not the bad guy > here, Marietta is. > She may be weak willed and we can have pity on her, > but there is a > very fine line between what she did and what > Wormtail did, and we > need to remember and learn from that. > > Tonks_op What if you join a group, with some peer pressure, and promise not to tell about it. Then you find out it's a group for murdering people of a different race or nationality? Does your promise still make it morally wrong for you to go to the police? Now, I am by no means saying that the DA is equivalent to such a group. I'm simply saying that all promises aren't meant to be kept all the time - it is sometimes more wrong not to tell than to break the promise. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From Lynx412 at AOL.com Sun Sep 12 00:33:39 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:33:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-turning Message-ID: <67.33216fc9.2e74f363@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112715 In a message dated 9/10/2004 12:38:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: > SSSusan: > Perhaps it's movie contamination? It's one of the changes made > there, that Hermione reports to Harry that Snape said he saw the > patronus. Don't believe it matches canon, though. Sigh, possible. I do know in cannon DD comments on the form Harry's Patronus takes, and I took it to mean that he knew that TT!Harry's Patronus had been a Stag as well. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ejblack at rogers.com Sun Sep 12 00:42:18 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 00:42:18 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > > Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are > still visible? The reason I ask is Madam P. is able to regrow > bones, shrink teeth, de-fur Hermionie, de-beard the Weasley > twins, unpetrify people, heal burns almost instantly, etc......if > the WW has the potions/medicines and knowledge to perform such > "cures", then why does Moody have part of his nose missing, a > wooden leg and a pockmarked face? It may be HOW he got the scars/missing bits. Perhaps if they are caused by curse magic or some other nasty spell they are permanent: think Harry's scar. Jeanette From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 01:16:54 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:16:54 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jcb54me" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" > wrote: > > > > Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are > > still visible? The reason I ask is Madam P. is able to regrow > > bones, shrink teeth, de-fur Hermionie, de-beard the Weasley > > twins, unpetrify people, heal burns almost instantly, etc......if > > the WW has the potions/medicines and knowledge to perform such > > "cures", then why does Moody have part of his nose missing, a > > wooden leg and a pockmarked face? > > It may be HOW he got the scars/missing bits. Perhaps if they are > caused by curse magic or some other nasty spell they are permanent: > think Harry's scar. > > Jeanette Or maybe he just likes them. They do, after all, make him look very frightening and imposing, which probably helps his rep as a badass Auror! Meri From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 12 01:50:22 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:50:22 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries - Collapsed tunnel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112718 Shalimar wrote: > > Having Fred and George > > in town with a joke shop could also prove handy since they know > all > > the secret tunnels between Hogsmeade and Hogwarts without using > the > > map. > > > > Shalimar > > Pat here: > > That would be handy, and I agree that the collapsed tunnels probably > will be important. The only thing is that when Fred and George left > they said their joke shop would be in Diagon Alley, not in > Hogsmeade. Still, running a joke shop has all kinds of > possibilities for finding out what people are up to, other than > buying joke shop items. > Karen adds her two cents: After only a few months the joke shop has been successful enough for them to buy Dragon Hide jackets. Now that Lee Jordon is finished at Hogwarts and can run the Diagon Alley shop for them, I can see the Weasly's opening a second shop in Hogsmead. IMO they are too close to Ginny not to keep a careful big brother eye on her now that she is dating. - Karen From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 12 02:20:41 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:20:41 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family (Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112719 Doddiemoemoe writes: > The most nagging > question I have about Neville and his family is: Where is his > mothers family??!?!??!?... > > Can't you just imagine....Alice Longbottome re: Alice Evans....or > Alice Potter? Perhaps this is why the prophecy tends to be so > ambiguous. > Karen writes: Neville is a full-blood so Alice Evans doesn't work. But I really like the idea of Alice Potter. I think this weaves very well in the tapestry of JKRs writing. This leads to some other questions that I have been considering for a while. They were probably discussed before but trying to search this list is not always easy. Is there also a Potter family house, mansion or even castle somewhere with a Potter family tree hanging on the wall? James was wealthy enough to leave Harry a lot of gold. Did the Potter's also have a house elf or two?? Are the Potter elves waiting for Harry to come of age before reveling themselves? Do the Potter elves serve as moderaters of a discussion group somewhere in the Muggle world? I know the list elves can't tell because like all good elves they keep their family secrets! - Karen From dk59us at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 02:50:41 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:50:41 -0000 Subject: When Fudge Became MoM (WAS: Lily,James and Azkaban. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112720 KathyK wrote: > And according to the _Quibbler_ article in > Chapter 10 of OoP, Fudge was elected to the position. > > Arthur Weasley talking about Dumbledore and Fudge: > > (OoP Ch 5, US ed pg. 93) > > "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." > > KathyK Eustace_Scrubb: Yes, Fudge was "elected," according to the Quibbler, but there are elections and then there are elections. We don't know who elected him: his predecessor, the Wizengamot, a bureaucratic committee of the MoM, an electoral college, or a broad electorate of the Wizarding citizens of Britain. And when Arthur says Dumbledore "never applied for the job," do we take it literally that one fills out an application to be Minister? Or did he just decline to become a candidate in a political race? Arthur goes on to mention that Dumbledore had a lot of "popular support." But we don't know whether popular support has any role in the choice of the Minister. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 03:14:20 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:14:20 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "staceymateo" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" > wrote: > > > > mhbobbin writes: > > > > I was rereading the end of the OotP, and what struck me this time > > was that there were numerous Prophet articles that announced the > > return of Voldethingy, the revolt of the Dementors, the vindication > > of Harry, the appearance of DEs at the Mom but not a word about the > > presumed death of Sirius Black. Not a word. > > Stacey here: > snip..Since Pettigrew is still "Missing in Action", so to > speak, Sirius is not considered "not guilty" of the street incident > in which Pettigrew "died". Better to not make it a public > announcement which creates more questions than gives answers. mhbobbin: snip... > > I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was > > only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and > > his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt > > opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people > > know. > > > > With one exception. Nearly Headless Nick knows. So I'm wondering > > if Nick was briefed personally by DD, in preparation for Harry to > > discuss death with him, or if there is more information available > > that JKR has just omitted. Like the obituary on Page 6 of the > > Prophet. > > > > I suspect it was just DD telling Nick and in confidence. > > Stacey here: > I don't suspect that Nick found out from Dumbledore about the death > of Sirius. Without having my copy with me here at work, I am working > from memory, and in Nick's conversation with Harry, they discuss how > someone becomes a ghost. Nick plainly states that the person has to > be afraid of dying to cling to the living world as a ghost. Nick > also states that the person has to unhappy with their life to become > a ghost. I can't think of anyone (save Harry) who was more unhappy > with their life than Sirius. I think Nick knows this about Sirius > because he has seen him, and Sirius will become a ghost. > > mhbobbin now: Nick knows about the death of Sirius. My question is how does Nick know? It's not public information. The only ones who mention it are Order members and the kids who went with Harry to the Ministry. Nick knows why Harry seeks him out. Nick knows that Sirius is dead AND that Sirius was important to Harry. Outside Harry's circle, those two pieces of information are not known. So if you don't suspect that DD informed Nick in anticipation that Harry would eventually seek Nick out...do you have any other explanation for Nick's knowledge? Mhbobbin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 03:55:08 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:55:08 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family (Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > >> Karen writes: > > Neville is a full-blood so Alice Evans doesn't work. But I really > like the idea of Alice Potter. I think this weaves very well in the tapestry of JKRs writing. Tonks: The Potters died a least a week or so before the Longbottoms ended up in St. Mungo's. Harry was taken to Petunia's house within 24 hours of the death of Lily and James. Therefore if Alice was a Potter, Harry would have had some other blood relative that he could have gone with besides Petunia. But Petunia was the only one left. So the Alice Potter idea is out too. Tonks_op From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 04:01:55 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:01:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112723 I apologize for the late reply but this subject led me into quite a bit of thought. Kneasy's comment to this thread had me totally sold and it still does. There is defiantly something up with this killing curse vs. the AK curse. (Up Thread for background details) Kneasy commented on my response to his post: Crouch!Moody says that Harry survived an AK but also says that there's no counter-curse to it and no blocking it. Emphatically and repeatedly. Seems a bit contradictory to me. So I take the easy way out - if it's a spell that was countered by an ancient magic charm then it couldn't by definition have been an AK. Crouch!Moody was guessing, he didn't *know* what happened. Snow: Yes! Exactly. The curse that was used by Voldemort to kill Harry could not be the AK curse (but it was a killing curse) because as Fake Moody said there is no countercurse to an AK. Along with the fact that Tom Riddle quite plainly says, "So. Your mother died to save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm." Riddle admits that the curse was countered by a charm therefore the AK which cannot be countered could not have been the killing curse that was attempted by Voldemort on baby Harry. There is also the fact that Harry only remembers one flash of green light that accompanies the AK curse, which killed Lily. [My (latest) epiphany] Voldemort's plan may have been to go to GH and kill the prophecy child but once Voldemort had destroyed Harry's protectors, James and Lily, he had an opportunity to observe the child before he killed him. It was just Voldemort and baby Harry starring at each other; Legilemency. Snape said in the Occlumency chapter "It (Legilemency) is the ability to extract feelings and memories from another person's mind." (Not just looking into someone's mind but to extract from the mind.) When Harry used the `protection' spell, Protego, during Occlumency lessons with Snape, Snape's memories were the ones that were extracted and seen by Harry in Harry's mind. Lily had used a type of protection spell which could have acted somewhat the same way as Harry's Protego. When Voldemort made the attempt at killing Harry, Voldemort may have been looking into Harry's eyes (Lily's eyes) and instead of Harry receiving Voldemort's memories he received some of Voldemort's powers that could not return to its own body where it belonged because the curse he had used already rebounded at the same time, which meant there was no body to go back to. It well may be that Voldemort cannot truly die until he his whole again. Voldemort hasn't been whole since his confrontation with little Harry. Voldemort has lost whatever efforts he formerly made at assuring himself immortality and now has to start over with his quest for it. Voldemort doesn't realize yet that this goal can never be fulfilled without the rest of his being which has now become a part of Harry. Even if Voldemort were able to successfully retrieve that part of him that is in Harry, he could never survive with that part of his former self that has been greatly influenced by Harry's power, it would kill him! Dumbledore told Harry in the very first encounter with Voldemort that the effort made in stopping Quirrell nearly killed him. Harry's scar hurt to the point of blinding him and his scar still reacts this way especially when Voldemort attempted to possess him in the Ministry, where the pain became so intense that Harry wished he were dead. It sounds like something was being ripped out from inside of Harry to the point were he wished he were dead because there could be no greater pain. Voldemort himself describes this same type of feeling "pain beyond pain" and also being ripped from his body when his own being was split. Voldemort felt the pain beyond pain in one instance; Harry has had to live with that same unbearable pain ever since his first encounter with the remaining portion of what lies within him; Voldemort. Is it all that amazing that both Harry and Voldemort describe this same pain so similarly and yet reacts so very differently? Harry not fearing death says, "Just let us die" whereas Voldemort does not beg for such an end to his suffering. Voldemort fears death, Harry doesn't. It is the one who has no fear, of even a name, that will live. Snow From htfulcher at comcast.net Sun Sep 12 04:05:35 2004 From: htfulcher at comcast.net (marephraim) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:05:35 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112724 My daughter is reading POA for the upteenth time and asked me this question. In chapter 19 it says, "gowled Black, his own wand pointing at Pettigrew, too..." >From where did he get "his own wand"? I opined that perhaps he was using Snape's wand, but she pointed out that in OoP he is clearly using his own wand in the MoM. From where did he get it? I guessed that Lupin got him one or that perhaps Mr Olivander is secretly in the Order -- lame, I'll admit; but it's late. I'm sure this has been answered (or discussed) before but amd too weary to look it up. Any thoughts, leads, answers? Thanks, M.E. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 04:15:52 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 04:15:52 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040911234756.15294.qmail@web20026.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Stephens wrote: > > What if you join a group, with some peer pressure, and > promise not to tell about it. Then you find out it's > a group for murdering people of a different race or > nationality? Does your promise still make it morally > wrong for you to go to the police? Now, I am by no > means saying that the DA is equivalent to such a > group. I'm simply saying that all promises aren't > meant to be kept all the time - it is sometimes more > wrong not to tell than to break the promise. > > > Rebecca > Tonks here: Yes, I would agree with that. But it was not that type of group. If the group had turned out to be a Jr. DE group, then the right thing to do would be to tell and face the consequences, even if you did not know fully what those might be. Again, I think that the point is that one can get into a situation through a series of choices that seem not so terribly wrong at the time and end up in a real fix. And to answer Hunter Green: I think the difference between what Marietta did and what Wormtail did is a matter of degree. The basic action was the same. Marietta may not have gotten anyone killed, just potentially expelled. But being expelled is no small thing either. It is the personal and moral weakness that is the same for both characters. The consequences of their actions are worlds apart, yes, but the seed from which both developed is the same. Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347) Hermione was a salesman to be sure. She did not force anyone to sign, but she did *encourage* Ernie to sign after he objected. After he made the choice to sign "nobody raised objections after Ernie..." As to Hermione, it would have been courteous of her to tell the others about the jinx. It is typical Hermione behavior to assume that what she does is the best thing without taking counsel from anyone. She must have had some concern that someone might tell or she would not have done it. But lets look at the lesson here: What might be a motive for the author to not punish Hermione? Maybe the lesson is that one is expected to do the right thing, not because you are threatened if you don't, but because it is the right thing. One is expected to have an internalized sense of values as opposed to one imposed from the outside by someone else. Tonks_op From sad1199 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 05:12:27 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 05:12:27 -0000 Subject: More fuel for the fire regarding Fred and George Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112729 sad1199 here: Previously there was a thread about maybe the Weasley twins not actually being sons of Molly and Arthur because of the way Molly didn't account for them at one time and because she could not tell them apart. Well, Mr. Weasley has the same problem. GoF (American paperback, page 87) "Ah-yes," said Mr.Weasley, grinning, "this is my son Percy. He's just started at the Ministry-and this is Fred-no, George, sorry- that's(ital.) Fred-Bill, Charlie, Ron-my daughter, Ginny- and Ron's friends Hermione granger and Harry Potter." I am of the opinion that they are just parents of a large household and the twins ARE identical. I call my 4 kids by each others names and they're not even any twins. Also, the thread about Time-Turning Fred and George knowing how the Quidditch match would end. I think they just took a lucky guess because of their loyalty to the Irish team and their admiration for Krum combined. IF they had turned time wouldn't they have known about the Death Mark in advance? I know it happened later but Fred and George seem the like the type to stay and party for a while... Happy, Caring, Loving... sad1199 From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Sep 12 08:53:32 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 08:53:32 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112730 Tonks wrote: >>And to answer Hunter Green: I think the difference between what Marietta did and what Wormtail did is a matter of degree. The basic action was the same.<< HunterGreen: And I still disagree. Wormtail willingly joined a group that had the GOAL of fighting a specific impression. Marietta was going along with the crowd to join a DADA group, which LATER became against the rules and LATER became an 'anti-Umbridge/anti-Ministry' group of sorts. I know the group was never supposed to be 'advertised' to Umbridge, but it wasn't supposed to be fighting her, at least not from what Marietta was led to believe. Tonks: >> It is the personal and moral weakness that is the same for both characters. The consequences of their actions are worlds apart, yes, but the seed from which both developed is the same.<< HunterGreen: I don't think it was moral weakness at all. It was clearly moral weakness in the case of Wormtail, of course, he chose to betray the order even though he knew it was wrong. I don't think Marietta thought it was wrong to betray the DA; I think she thought telling Umbridge was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of kids who were breaking school and Ministry policies, and thought it was wrong to keep that a secret. We, as readers, know that the group isn't causing any problems and the only reason its illegal is because of Ministry paranoia, but does someone loyal to the Ministry see it that way? I think she did what *she* thought was right, which took quite a bit of moral strength (although she was severely misguided, and it would have been better if she had at least spoken Harry or Hermione first about her concerns). Tonks: >>Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347)<< HunterGreen: It may have *felt* like it, but the fact that its mentioned "*as though* they had just signed some kind of contract." (emphasis mine) would imply that its NOT a contract, otherwise that statement doesn't make sense. Tonks: >>As to Hermione, it would have been courteous of her to tell the others about the jinx. It is typical Hermione behavior to assume that what she does is the best thing without taking counsel from anyone. She must have had some concern that someone might tell or she would not have done it.<< HunterGreen: Yes, well, I think it being typical of Hermione is what the thread is about. On occasion she can be very ruthless. In this case, I don't think it was fair, but I agree that its in her character to do something like this. Tonks: >>But lets look at the lesson here: What might be a motive for the author to not punish Hermione? Maybe the lesson is that one is expected to do the right thing, not because you are threatened if you don't, but because it is the right thing. One is expected to have an internalized sense of values as opposed to one imposed from the outside by someone else.<< HunterGreen: But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with values, everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, where to obey or disobey authority is so subjective, varying from person to person, mostly based on the experiences they've had, and (as evidenced by Seamus and Neville) their family. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 12 10:13:19 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:13:19 -0400 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! Message-ID: <000a01c498b1$211d7af0$76c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112731 DuffyPoo responded: > She could have written the letter sometime during her nine-month (I presume witches ....) pregnancy and left the letter with the facility she was in.< Carol: "Why would she do that, though? Presumably she didn't know that she, a witch, would die in childbirth (or, technically, moments afterward). She probably thought she'd be raising the child herself as a single mother." DuffyPoo: Why wouldn't she? Lots of women start letters/journals/scrapbooks/photo albums/whatever for their babies practically the moment they find out they are pregnant. Why would Mrs. Riddle be any different? Carol: "Why hypothesize about letters when that bit of canon will suffice to explain what Tom knew about his heritage" DuffyPoo: Because you're the one who stated that first, when you posted "...she couldn't have written to Tom..." My response was that she *could* have, that's all. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 10:18:42 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:18:42 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112732 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > I have been thinking about the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottoms > gives to her visitors and the one she gave to Neville. He does not > throw it away like his grandmother tells him too. Maybe Mrs. > Longbottoms tries to get a message to her son. Maybe there is > something written on the wrappers that makes sense to Neville. And > JKR's desk on her website is full of gum wrappers. At first I just > thought she was a smoker trying to quit. But now I think it is a > clue. So any thoughts as to what message might be on the gum > wrappers? I don't think that the gum wrappers contain a message, and this for two reasons: 1. Alice is insane. This is not just a matter of an institutional decision, but described for us clearly. She is unconnected to reality and to herself. I don't think she is in a mental conditiona that would enable her to do something as integrated as saving a gum wrapper, writing a message on it, hiding it and then giving it to her son. 2. More importantly is the emotional content of the scene - Alice, insane and unconnected, tries to reach her son from the fog she is in. If this was a disingenous attempt at communicating (and why couldn't she just talk to him?), it would rob the scene of its emotional impact. Also, it would mean that she is not insane, or not as insane as she seems, which would make her an extremely cruel mother - having her son believe her insane when she is not. Naama From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 11:43:30 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:43:30 -0000 Subject: Alice Longbottom and the Potters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112733 Karen writes: > > Neville is a full-blood so Alice Evans doesn't work. But I really > like the idea of Alice Potter. I think this weaves very well in the tapestry of JKRs writing. Tonks: >The Potters died a least a week or so before the Longbottoms ended >up in St. Mungo's. Harry was taken to Petunia's house within 24 >hours of the death of Lily and James. Therefore if Alice was a >Potter, Harry would have had some other blood relative that he could >have gone with besides Petunia. But Petunia was the only one left. >So the Alice Potter idea is out too. Leah: Harry has to be in the place where 'his mother's blood dwells', so if Alice is a Potter not an Evans, she would not have any of Lily's blood and would not have been any use to him. From leala28 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 11 21:42:46 2004 From: leala28 at hotmail.com (tadpole0332000) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:42:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Power Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112734 Staying with the subject as to why Harry's stay at Privet Dr. is short in book 6. I think it might have something to do with his powers. Throughout the series, we have seen him grow up. No one knows about the potency of his powers. Even DD and LV doesn't know everything that Harry can do. After all isn't the weather putting a constant damper on things. His stay at Privet Dr. will be short because he has out grown his protection that was placed on him shortly before and (possibly) after the Halloween attack. At that time, DD had no idea how strong those powers were that transferred from LV to Harry. Yes, he's still a minor, legally he should still call Privet Dr. his home...but his magical strength doesn't allow for it to continue. We know he's capable of a lot. Just look at his guidance with the DA. Nearly all the kids didn't know how to do half the stuff he could, even when he was planning lessons. From kmj13 at earthlink.net Sat Sep 11 22:03:37 2004 From: kmj13 at earthlink.net (karenmarie713) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:03:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black and Severus Snape brothers? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112735 Does anyone else think it's possible that Sirius Black and Severus Snape are fraternal twins who, for some reason, were separated at birth? They're the same age, similar in appearance, even their names are similar. SiriUS, SeverUS, and Sirius had a brother named RegulUS. Look at the meaning of Snape's name: sever- to cut; to separate. Also, Sirius came from a family of dark wizards. From redlena_web at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 21:31:55 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:31:55 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Mrs. Weasley asks aloud, "What's the > platform number again?" and Ginny replies "Nine and three quarters." > Now it is entirely possible that this was just a sort of staged > conversation in order to confirm to Harry that these are in fact > wizards going to Hogwarts, but this still strikes me as a weird > thing to ask. After all, Mrs. Weasley has allready escorted Bill and > Charile to school, so why is it that in Ron's first year she needs > reminding of nine and three quarters? Although I do think that JKR included that question and answer as something additional for Harry to overhear (beyond the previous thing he hears about Muggles) and recognize that he's listening to a wizarding family, I think there is additional interpretation to this exchange. I don't read it as Mrs. Weasley doesn't remember the platform number. I read it as Mrs. Weasley's wants to know if the children remember the platform number. The sort of motherly quizzing that is very in keeping with the character. I can imagine an earlier exchange at the Burrow going something like this... Mrs. Weasley: Ok, now, when we're at King's Cross I want you all to stay together. But if we do get separated, we're going to Platform 9 and 3/4. I don't want any of you missing the train to Hogwarts. Fred? George? Are you listening to me? Fred: Yes. of course woman, we're going to Platform 4 and 3/9, isn't it? George: No, I think she said Platform 3 and 9/4. Mrs. Weasley: No, no, no. You two are going to confuse Ron and Ginny. It's Platform 9 and 3/4. Now, go upstairs and get your trunks. Ron? Ginny? Now, what platform is it?... So I see it as having the dual purpose of giving Harry something more to overhear to allow him to connect with the Weasleys and also to help establish the character of Mrs. Weasley. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Is this perhaps and > implications that there are other WW train platforms hidden in > King's Cross? I have always thought that there must be other wizard tracks/platforms in between the other Muggle ones. But I have never expected them to be brought into the Harry Potter stories. I just envision them there as part of the complete world. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 11 23:12:10 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:12:10 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <1cd.2abf5d4f.2e74bb3a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112737 The Other Cheryl wrote: He (Snape) sits through the explanation, right up until the Prank is mentioned. Only then does he step out...and then he ties up LUPIN. Not Sirius, Lupin. >He taunts Sirius, threatening to summon the Dementors immediately, but would he? Would Snape, cool, cautious, clever Snape, have risked Dumbledore's good will like that? Risked loosing DD's faith in him? I think he listened to the story and wondered, until the reminder of the Prank recalled to mind that Lupin hadn't taken his potion. So he secures Lupin and resolves to take Sirius and the group to DD. >Doing so is a win-win scenario for Snape. If the tale is a lie, he wins over his schoolboy rivals, permanently, and has saved the Potter brat in a way the boy can't deny. If it's true, his hated rivals are safe, and owe him a debt. He's still a hero, for bringing them in and capturing the real villain, if the rat really is Pettigrew. Either way he still has DD's favor and the boy owes him a debt, canceling out Snapes' debt to James. > Hannah: I really like this theory, so I'm loathe to point out any problems. But the trouble is, although Lupin does say about the marauders being animagi, he never says what animal Pettigrew was, never says Pettigrew was the traitor, and never says anything about him being right there, as 'Scabbers the rat'. Snape never hears that, and it would take quite a leap of the imagination to guess it. >Cheryl: And, remember, Snape is a superb occulamens, who can tell when he's > being lied to. He has to be trying to use it there, if for no other reason than to come up with evidence to support his side. Hannah: That's interesting. I'd always taken occlumency as being separate from legilimency, so although Snape is brilliant at blocking his thoughts, he isn't necessarily as good at reading those of others. Harry has lied to him a few times and Snape's never *seemed* to use legilimency. But maybe the two go together - has anyone worked out if they do or not? Cheryl continued: He (Snape) has to seem upset (on discovering Sirius gone), so he rants. He then heads to the Hospital wing, too curious to let it rest. And DD tells him how it was done. "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once". Snape glares, then storms out...he now knows how it was done. Hermione's time- turner. Not DD's answer. Snape only accused HARRY. He never mentioned Hermione. So, why did DD mention her if not to clue in > Snape? Hannah: I'd never noticed how DD seems to explain before, but you're right. Snape probably would have known, as a teacher, about Hermione having the time turner. I'm still not sure when Snape realised that Black was innocent - if it was after this scene, or before. Once he sees that DD is convinced, maybe he just decides to give in. My original theory was that he knew Sirius was innocent all along (from just after GH), but decided not to say anything in revenge for 'the prank.' From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 01:17:11 2004 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:17:11 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112738 mhbobbin writes: > > I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people know Now Kelly: But the DE must know. Sirius fell through the veil while he was fighting Bellatrix. So she, his cousin, knows. She may be the heir to GP. If she is not the heir, but Narcissa is, I am sure she would be happy to share the news of Sirius' death. I'm not sure either of them realizes that GP is important to anyone and may not even think about claiming it as their own, however. From starsspinning at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 01:18:16 2004 From: starsspinning at yahoo.com (star fall) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia's Protection WAS: Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040912011816.36357.qmail@web21208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112739 Karen L. wrote: My stray thought is this. Being that JKR has stated that the next summer should be Harry's shortest stay, could it be that Harry doesn't need to stay there as long because he had received an extra layer of protection during his time in either the graveyard (GoF) or in the MoM (OoP)? LV initially overlooked the blood protection from Harry's mother, underestimating the old magic at his own cost. LV could have done it again! His narrow minded goal of killing Harry could have once again clouded his "reasoning". Remember in GoF when Harry thought he saw a "gleam of something like triumph in DD's eyes" after he told DD about Womtail taking his blood to use in the potion to bring back LV? That "gleam of something like triumph" is interesting to me. It must mean something! Any thoughts? star: I was thinking about this just this morning. I thought it odd that LV would rescue Bellatrix (or Trixie as I think of her) when fleeing from MoM & DD in OotP. When LV took over Harry, Harry's love for Sirius and his acceptence of death made LV leave Harry's body. DD has stated that Harry's protection is in his blood - think antibody or a virus. LV has Wormtail "infect" him with Harry's blood. The "virus" lays dormant until LV takes over Harry and Harry's love activates the virus "love bug". Which would explain why LV rescued Trixie, who was trapped under a statue. Remember what Sirius' greatgrandfather said about saving oneself first is the main goal of any Slytherin. Stopping to rescue Trixie while fighting DD is definitely not something LV would normaly do. Maybe people have been misinterpreting the Prophecy, it stated the Dark Lord must die not Tom Marvolo Riddle must die. The Dark Lord is a creation of TMR. Maybe that creation, that has never known love, is what will die when TMR truely knows love. Does this make any sense? Mary, aka star --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moura1371 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 02:59:40 2004 From: moura1371 at yahoo.com (moura1371) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:59:40 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112740 Is it possible, Snape was one of the Death Eaters with Voldemort at James and Lilys house the night they were killed. It just seems a little unreasonable for him to loath Harry so much just because he didn't like James. Or is there another reason to think Snape's unbalanced. Just something that popped into my head. Wanted a few other opinions. From boyinleaves at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 03:57:19 2004 From: boyinleaves at hotmail.com (boyinleaves) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:57:19 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112741 Why on earth would a wizard or witch find it unusual or paradoxical to be confronted with 'themselves' as a result of time travel? To these people, the unusual is commonplace, and can usually be 'explained' in some manner or another. They have Polyjuice potion! That could be one of many simple explanations for why 2 Hermiones or two Harrys simultaneously exist. One of them could be a metamorphmagus, or be under some other appearance altering effect. I honestly can't understand why being seen by oneself when time travelling could be such a problem. Harry states that he would think he had gone mad, or that there was Dark Magic going on if he saw himself, yet this from someone who used polyjuice at 11, and finds magic more natural than anything in his life? Yes, it might be unusual to see ones time travelling self, but I seriously doubt anyone would kill themselves over it. Oh, yeah, and according to these rules about time travel you guys have been hypothesising, specifically that time travel merely fulfils the sequence of events that have already happened, (which personally I believe IS how it works in HP), it shouldn't be possible to kill one's own past self, else how could one's future self exist to do it? Whew, this would make Hermione incorrect when she states "loads of them (wizards) ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake". They technically could kill their future selves, and then continue on, and return in time to be killed by their past self, but honestly, are wizards that stupid? Okay, so here's a question for you. If you did happen to kill a future version of yourself that had returned in time, and then were faced with the possibility of returning in time, would the fact that you know what your past/future held/holds for you allow you to actually change the sequence of events? In PoA, Harry and Hermione don't know what the past/future held for their time travelling selves, so all they did was fulfill the sequence of events that had already happened. But if a time travelling wizard knew what his time travelling self would do, or had already done, would this knowledge place him on a different path, or would he still somehow be forced to fulfill his 'destiny'? If you've ever done any freewill and determinism subjects in a philosophy course you might understand how terribly unfulfilling discussion of time travel and choice can be. I certainly do, but its fun nevertheless. From mandyallen286 at fsmail.net Sun Sep 12 09:41:37 2004 From: mandyallen286 at fsmail.net (wapp13) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:41:37 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Is it uncouth to jump back into a thread you started? Hope not, > cause here I go. I had a brainstorm at work today, thinking about > some of the other things that always struck me as weird about SS and > another one of those is the fact that Hagrid hands Harry a ticket > for his journey telling Harry the time, platform and date of his > departure. But there is never any other mention of tickets for other > students, for Harry's later journeys or of any sort of conductor > coming round to collect them. Then following a reread of Order > something seemed similar to me: at the end of the Advance Guard > chapter Moody hands Harry a piece of paper with the location (in > DD's writing) of Order HQ so that Harry can get in. Perhaps, and > this is a stretch, Platform 9 and 3/4 is protected by a charm > similar to the Fidelus and that a Muggle raised kid like Harry needs > to be let in on the secret as it were so he or she can reach the > platform? Just guessing. Hmm, interesting, but with GP DD was the secret keeper and no-one else could pass on the secret, that is why Moody handed Harry a paper written in DD's writing. In PS Harry told Uncle Vernon where he was going, which prompted Uncle Vernon to have a rather amusing little dig at Harry by telling him there was no such place and leaving him stranded at the station. Harry could still not see the platform, even though he knew it was there. In OotP as soon as Harry read the address GP appeared to him. And it sounds like no-one could actually tell him the address except DD, hence the note being in his writing. I do like the protection theory though! From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 12:07:25 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:07:25 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112743 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I have been thinking about the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottoms gives to her visitors and the one she gave to Neville. He does not throw it away like his grandmother tells him too. Maybe Mrs. Longbottoms tries to get a message to her son. Maybe there is something written on the wrappers that makes sense to Neville. And JKR's desk on her website is full of gum wrappers. At first I just thought she was a smoker trying to quit. But now I think it is a clue. So any thoughts as to what message might be on the gum wrappers? > Naama: > I don't think that the gum wrappers contain a message, and this for two reasons: 1. Alice is insane. This is not just a matter of an institutional dcision, but described for us clearly. She is unconnected to reality and to herself. snip 2. More importantly is the emotional content of the scene - Alice, insane and unconnected, tries to reach her son from the fog she is in. If this was a disingenous attempt at communicating (and why couldn't she just talk to him?), it would rob the scene of its emotional impact. Also, it would mean that she is not insane, or not as insane as she seems, which would make her an extremely cruel - having her son believe her insane when she is not. mhbobbin: I think the gum wrappers are important although I don't think that Alice is writing on them--only because that involves more risk and Alice has magical powers. I wonder if they are intended to provide some sort of protection to Neville. Alice may not be in her right mind but she does recognize Neville and she has powerful magical skills. And I suspect that Neville is in great need of protection-- Uncle Algie dropped him on his head as a baby, we have no idea what that weird plant is that spits up on everyone and his grandmother constantly undermines his confidence. Not to mention the mystery surrounding his memory and whether underneath he knows more than is safe for him. Could it also be possible that Alice is getting better? Not well but better. If she is, she needs to be cautious--look what happened to Bode when he started to get his mind back. The scene is emotionally powerful but that does not negate that the scene includes important clues that will come into play in the final books. That, in part, is the beauty of JKR's writing IMO--that scenes can be read for their emotional power--and then reread for the clues we missed as we originally focused on the emotional meaning. Mhbobbin From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 12:13:50 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:13:50 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112744 Naama wrote: >More importantly is the emotional content of the scene - Alice, >insane and unconnected, tries to reach her son from the fog she is >in. If this was a disingenous attempt at communicating (and why >couldn't she just talk to him?), it would rob the scene of its >emotional impact. Also, it would mean that she is not insane, or not >as insane as she seems, which would make her an extremely cruel >mother - having her son believe her insane when she is not. Leah: I would be quite disappointed if the gum wrappers turned out to be another Mark Evans. As Tonks says, there they are all over the website and there are so many references to rubbish in the books, that I incline to the view that they have some significance. And while I agree with Naama about the emotional context of the St Mungo's scene, I'm not sure this would be diluted by the gum wrappers having a hidden meaning. I don't see this would have to mean Alice is faking insanity; I agree that would be unforgivably cruel. She is in a fog, and in that fog, the gum wrapper represents something to her that she knows to have been significant, and she also knows through the fog that Neville is someone significant, therefore she tries to convey the one to the other. DD tells Harry in GOF that Alice and Frank don't recognise Neville, so it's not an attempt to reach her son per se, but she knows there is something, certainly about Neville, and perhaps about the wrappers, that she should be remembering. While, it's not conclusive, if we weren't meant to notice the wrapper, couldn't Alice just have touched her son's face in an uncomprehending way? From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 12:23:46 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:23:46 -0000 Subject: Who Knows of the Death of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "witchypooh67" wrote: > mhbobbin writes: > > > > I tried to determine who knew already about the death and it was > only the kids who were there or the members of the Order.Draco and > his gang don't mention it and they've never passed up a taunt > opportunity. So it seems only like a very close circle of people > know > > Now Kelly: > > But the DE must know. Sirius fell through the veil while he was > fighting Bellatrix. So she, his cousin, knows. She may be the heir > to GP. If she is not the heir, but Narcissa is, I am sure she would > be happy to share the news of Sirius' death. I'm not sure either of > them realizes that GP is important to anyone and may not even think > about claiming it as their own, however. mhbobbin: Correct. Bellatrix knows and, therefore, the Malfoys will know. But my point was that Bellatrix would not be a good enough witness for the WW at large, not to mention she's hiding right now. How would Narcissa Malfoy prove that Sirius is dead in order to lay claim to GP? Unless the other witnesses talk, or DD talks, there is no way the Wizarding World is going to know. Don't know what the legal process of inheritance would be in the WW but ostensibly someone would have to prove Sirius' death. Rereading the Daily Prophet bits when the news breaks of Voldethingy's return, it is pretty clear that DD did not inform Fudge of the Death of their --to that moment---most wanted criminal. There's no motivation for the Order or the Kids to reveal that information yet. And Bellatrix's info is important to the DEs and the conflict, but not the official WW. As to my original point: Two events must happen before GP becomes an issue---Sirius' death has to be accepted in the WW and Grimauld Place would have to be located---before the Order could lose GP. It's not clear that either can happen. But Nick knows of the death of Sirius, knows that Sirius is important to Harry, and suspects that Harry will find him to disucss it. How does he know this? My guess is that DD briefed him. I've always assumed that Nick is a major source of information for DD as to what is happening in Griffyndor House and with Harry specifically. And I wonder if Nick is a secret member of The ORder? mhbobbin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 13:01:30 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040912130130.30690.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112746 > Hannah: > I'm still not sure when Snape realised that > Black was innocent - if it was after this scene, or before. Once > he > sees that DD is convinced, maybe he just decides to give in. My > original theory was that he knew Sirius was innocent all along > (from > just after GH), but decided not to say anything in revenge for 'the > prank.' He genuinely thought Sirius was guilty. Only if Sirius was really and truly guilty would Snape have derived the most unspeakably wonderful satisfaction from turning him in. Snape's pinned a lot of his own personal self-esteem on being right about Sirius Black for over 20 years while everyone else - including that uber-prat James Potter - was completely taken in by Sirius' so-called charm and supposed good looks. Only by presenting a guilty Sirius Black to Dumbledore and saying "Ah ha! NOW you have to admit that I was right! But no matter. I forgive you, Headmaster for doubting me all thse years." An innocent Sirius being dementored would not have been satisfying at all. It ignores Snape's iron morality with his exquisitely honed sense of fairness. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sun Sep 12 13:27:08 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:27:08 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are > still visible? > Karen L. AmanitaMuscaria now : As Dumbledore says, scars can be useful, regarding his scar that is a map of the London Underground. Charlie, too, has a burn scar from his dragon wrangling. I would guess it's a bit like RW - some people (cough - Lockhart - cough) would get every blemish fixed, others wouldn't. As another poster stated, Moody's false eye, at least, is very useful. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 12 13:27:21 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:27:21 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black and Severus Snape brothers? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karenmarie713" wrote: > Does anyone else think it's possible that Sirius Black and Severus > Snape are fraternal twins who, for some reason, were separated at > birth? They're the same age, similar in appearance, even their > names are similar. SiriUS, SeverUS, and Sirius had a brother named > RegulUS. Look at the meaning of Snape's name: sever- to cut; to > separate. Also, Sirius came from a family of dark wizards. SSSusan: While I don't really believe in this, no, it *would* make my name all the more fun! ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 13:54:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:54:26 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <20040912130130.30690.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112749 Magda: snip. > An innocent Sirius being dementored would not have been satisfying at > all. It ignores Snape's iron morality with his exquisitely honed > sense of fairness. Alla: Not that I really disagree that Snape did not know about Sirius' innocence in the Shack (I would not give it 100%, but 90% probably yes), but I am interested what do we know about Snape's iron morality with "sense of FAIRNESS". So far I can give you many examples of Snape being UNFAIR to children and adults around him and cannot think of one example of him being fair. Could you point me please? Thanks From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 14:31:16 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:31:16 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <20040912130130.30690.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > He genuinely thought Sirius was guilty. Only if Sirius was really > and truly guilty would Snape have derived the most unspeakably > wonderful satisfaction from turning him in. Snape's pinned a lot of > his own personal self-esteem on being right about Sirius Black for > over 20 years while everyone else - including that uber-prat James > Potter - was completely taken in by Sirius' so-called charm and > supposed good looks. Only by presenting a guilty Sirius Black to > Dumbledore and saying "Ah ha! NOW you have to admit that I was > right! But no matter. I forgive you, Headmaster for doubting me > all thse years." > > An innocent Sirius being dementored would not have been satisfying > at all. It ignores Snape's iron morality with his exquisitely honed > sense of fairness. You mean 'exquisitely idiosyncratic sense of fairness', right? :) I think that is correct--Snape really does believe that Black is guilty. Of course, he does so *in part* because he wants to believe it so badly; let me pimp my old chronology back at message 107020, for those who want to look at it. That whole scene has always been the thing that troubles me most about Snape, and this is why: he generally *does* seem to have a fairly strict sense of responsibility about doing the generally right thing, even when he sometimes goes about it in a way that leaves something to be desired--I can deal with that. I...I...I just don't know quite what to make of: "You see, Minister?" said Snape. "Confunded, both of them....Black's done a very good job on them...." (p. 389, hb) and "But if -- if there was a mistake --" "KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!" Snape shouted, looking suddenly quite deranged. "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" (p. 360, hb) To be in a condition of such absolute fury about a doubt being raised means that one must be *conscious* that a doubt has been raised, and therefore be partaking in that doubt to at least some degree, enough to have a strong desire to crush it. To have a desire about one's desires is one of the classic definitions of being a person--JKR really makes Snape live here, doesn't she? I'm split, here. I think there's a possibility that Snape was starting to suspect that Black was innocent, but wanted him dementored anyways, and I might locate that at the shift in behavior when he starts sucking up to Fudge. But I *do* think he really thought Black was guilty for all of those years, and there's some kind of strange personal investment going on here that we just don't know about. I don't see Snape as evil enough to keep silent about an innocent Black in Azkaban for all those years, and I don't see it quite meshing with his behavior in PoA. -Nora, cautious ex-devotee of the MAGIC DISHWASHER From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 14:56:29 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:56:29 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "moura1371" wrote: > Is it possible, Snape was one of the Death Eaters with Voldemort at > James and Lilys house the night they were killed. It just seems a > little unreasonable for him to loath Harry so much just because he > didn't like James. Or is there another reason to think Snape's > unbalanced. Just something that popped into my head. Wanted a few > other opinions. Actually we don't have cannon that says that anyone went with LV the night he attacked the Potters. He very well could have gone alone in order to ensure that the thing was done right (something in the line of "If you want something done right you better do it yourself"). I believe the popular theory on Snape is that he was the one who overheard the prophecy in the Hog's Head. And I personally still believe that his hatred for Harry is nothing but a relic of his schoolboy hatred for James. Even if he was at GH why would anything that happened there make him dislike Harry even more? Meri From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 12 15:02:15 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Sep 2004 15:02:15 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1095001335.16.78006.m23@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112752 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 12, 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 catportkey at aol.com Sun Sep 12 15:20:15 2004 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:20:15 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Harry=20dies=20=E2=80=93=20sort=20of.?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112753 Harry dies ? sort of. It is expected that in some way Harry and V. will have a battle against each other. The real question is, will Harry die or not? If he does, can he be saved? And if so, by whom? In book one, Snape tells his students, "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death." Could it be that Snape will be the one who brings Harry back to life by bottling Harry's death? And, if so, why? Could it be that while Snape may have hated Harry's father, Snape may still have an affection for Lily? In Snape's memory, it was Lily who told James to stop tormenting him. Even though Snape spurned her, he may have regretted such an act. Obviously it was Lily who changed James' bullying ways . . . freeing Snape from further torment. JKR: "There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drliss at comcast.net Sun Sep 12 16:02:32 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (Lissa Hess) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:02:32 -0400 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: <1094961945.8641.45986.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20040912115658.01786d80@mail.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112754 M.E.: My daughter is reading POA for the upteenth time and asked me this question. In chapter 19 it says, "gowled Black, his own wand pointing at Pettigrew, too..." From where did he get "his own wand"? I opined that perhaps he was using Snape's wand, but she pointed out that in OoP he is clearly using his own wand in the MoM. From where did he get it? I guessed that Lupin got him one or that perhaps Mr Olivander is secretly in the Order -- lame, I'll admit; but it's late. I'm sure this has been answered (or discussed) before but amd too weary to look it up. Any thoughts, leads, answers? Thanks, M.E. Lissa: I'm pretty sure you're right about POA- Sirius is using Snape's wand in the Shrieking Shack. I think there the "his own wand" bit is just referring to the wand in his hand, not that it's the wand he owns. As far as OotP, there's a couple solutions: 1.) Dumbledore or Lupin has gotten him a wand. Either of them would know the wood/core combination (I assume) of Sirius's wands. 2.) Peter Pettigrew has held on to Voldemort's wand all these years. I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that Lupin would have held on to Sirius's, or at least an older wand of Sirius's. It's a popular idea that Lupin and Sirius lived together before the Potters died (either for shipping reasons or the simple fact that Lupin wasn't exactly making much), but even disregarding that he could have gone back to Sirius's place for an old wand? (That theory DEFINITELY requires the shipping...) The only problem with Lupin having Sirius's wand is I would assume that his wand would be snapped when he went to Azkaban, and he had to have had his wand on him when he was taken. (Geeze. Wouldn't you think SOMEONE would at least do Prior Incantum on Sirius's wand? Quickest way in the world to prove his innocence. Hmmm. Maybe he DIDN'T have his wand on him!) I'd tend to go with #1, but #2 seems plausible as well. Lissa From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 16:42:48 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:42:48 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112755 Just to muddy the discussion, here is a definition of contract: 1a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. b. The writing or document containing such an agreement. http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/C0605300.html <> Bookworm: According to the definition, the "piece of paper" is the record of an agreement. As you quoted, "So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge -- or anyone else -- what we're up to." Hermione tells them outright that they are signing an agreement, i.e. a contract. And she specifically mentioned Umbridge. Whether or not the contract is `legally' enforceable depends on WW law. But Hermione took care of that in her own way ? which was definitely sneaky. Tonks: >>Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347)<< Hermione was a salesman to be sure. She did not force anyone to sign, but she did *encourage* Ernie to sign after he objected. After he made the choice to sign "nobody raised objections after Ernie..." HunterGreen: It may have *felt* like it, but the fact that its mentioned "*as though* they had just signed some kind of contract." (emphasis mine) would imply that its NOT a contract, otherwise that statement doesn't make sense. Bookworm: This is something that should have raised a red flag. JKR often uses "as though", "as if" or "like" to give us a hint. Here she told us that they *had* just signed a contract. Hermione is opinionated but I wouldn't have considered her persuasive before this. In this scene, and in the scene with Rita Skeeter, we see additional depths to her character that haven't been obvious before. (We had a hint when she trapped Rita.) She has learned to make a hard sell. The results seem to be drastic, sort of like shaving the heads of women who had affairs with German soldiers in WWII. Is it a punishment, a warning, or both? As a group we argue both (1) that these are just teenagers, not adults, and shouldn't be expected to act like adults, and (2) that they are in the middle of a war, have to grow up quickly and act like adults. Hermione's actions are more like an adult's. Viewed as a teenager's prank, the Sneak mark goes too far. But viewed in a war-time setting...? Ravenclaw Bookworm From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 16:58:54 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:58:54 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112756 Amy Z: (No, the betrayal wasn't to LV, just to Umbridge. But the need for DA was desperate and Umbridge's interference with it well-nigh criminal; this wasn't just a petty matter of getting kids in trouble with the headmistress, but an attack on a very important project. And there are clear overtones of undercover DEs here, being that JKR has dwelt a great deal on the suffering that's been brought about by people who "signed" and then reneged on promises.) Bookworm: The rest of the DA may not have know about the war with Voldemort, but Hermione, Harry, the Weasleys, etc. did. The others had heard versions of the story, so they knew Hermione would consider learning defensive spells very important. Hermione mentioned Umbridge by name because she was the one preventing them from learning. Ravenclaw Bookworm From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 17:08:30 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040912170830.89096.qmail@web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Florentine Maier" wrote: > I just re-read book two, keeping my eyes open for "discoveries". > Apart from all the things that have been mentioned in this thread > before, I think another potential "discovery" is that Harry speaks > Parsel. - This is something neither himself nor others had known > before. After CoS, this power never played an important role again. > > Now what could the discovery of Harry's Parsel knowledge foreshadow? > I suspect that it hints at something that happened the night Harry's > parents were killed, especially what happened between himself and > Voldemort: The transferral of magical powers, the mental > connection,... Maybe Harry got another magical power transferred from > Voldemort that night? Griffin782002: I wonder if Harry will discover another power, will it be Legilimency. In OotP, a short time before falling asleep and have that fake dream, he having a look at the head of one of his classmates, sorry I don't have the book right now, and he remembers something about an O.W.L. question. Griffin782002 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 17:12:46 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040912171246.97439.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112758 >> Magda Grantwich wrote: >> An innocent Sirius being dementored would not have been >> satisfying at all. It ignores Snape's iron morality with his >> exquisitely honed sense of fairness. > Nora wrote: > You mean 'exquisitely idiosyncratic sense of fairness', right? :) > SNIPPING TAKES PLACE HERE > That whole scene has always been the thing that troubles me most > about Snape, and this is why: he generally *does* seem to have a > fairly strict sense of responsibility about doing the generally > right > thing, even when he sometimes goes about it in a way that leaves > something to be desired--I can deal with that. I...I...I just > don't know quite what to make of: > > "You see, Minister?" said Snape. "Confunded, both of > them....Black's > done a very good job on them...." (p. 389, hb) > > and > > "But if -- if there was a mistake --" > > "KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!" Snape shouted, looking suddenly > quite > deranged. "DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" (p. 360, > hb) Well in that particular instance - in the Shack - Snape is right in that Hermione doesn't know what he would regard as the whole story. And the whole story in Snape's view would be that ever since he was a teenager, Black has fooled everyone into thinking that he's just a regular guy whereas Snape knows (KNOWS!!!!, I tell you!) that in actual fact he was a wanna-be murderer at the age of 16 and that he was just fooling everyone into thinking he wasn't. Then at the age of about 21/22 he showed the world his true colours (HIS TRUE COLOURS!!!!!, mind you!) by betraying his best friend to Voldemort. Etc. Etc. So for Hermione the issue is the here-and-now whereas Snape is in another time-space entirely, namely twenty years in the past and what's happening in the Shack is simply the latest episode in a long-running epic saga - which is about to reach its climax when Snape hands both Lupin and Sirius over to Dumbledore and receives the vindication that he feels is long overdue. Put simply, Snape feels he knows Sirius better than anyone else: everyone else is duped by Sirius' charm or good looks or status of a Gryffindor or whatever. He knows the REAL person within. And of course, Snape knows Lupin is Sirius' helper because that's Lupin's speciality: taking part while managing to keep his own hands clean. At the end of POA, the reader has no choice but to think Snape is completely wrong because we know better and also because throughout three books we've seen Snape being unreasonable about a lot of things including James. Not until OOTP do we realize that Snape had a point about a lot of things and that from his perspective, his comments about Sirius, Lupin and James look dismayingly accurate. (Which is not to say they were nothing but bullying gits, but rather that whatever good qualities they possessed were not displayed towards Snape and therefore he doesn't believe they existed.) Returning to the point that started this whole thing: Snape has a lot of emotional capital invested in being right. He's got to be right about Sirius Black being Potter-betraying scum because he's got this wonderful revenge fantasy where Dumbledore concedes that he was wrong and Snape was right all those years ago and humbly begs his forgiveness. Which Snape will grant, as he's as fond of Dumbledore as of anybody. For Sirius to be innocent will absolutely ruin this wonderful fantasy. For an innocent Sirius to be dementored would mean yet another load of guilt for Snape to assume. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From chrissilein at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 17:23:55 2004 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (Lady Of The Pensieve) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:23:55 -0000 Subject: Off Topic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112759 Hello, sorry I dare posting a non HP related thread. Anyway I want to recommend you a really great book. It?s written by Susanna Clarke and it?s called: Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Published by Bloomsbury. http://www.jonathanstrange.com It?s an amazing story about two magicans in England. Any further information is to find at the mentioned website. It?s a big read, I promise. Greetings From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 17:38:18 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:38:18 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <20040912171246.97439.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Put simply, Snape feels he knows Sirius better than anyone else: > everyone else is duped by Sirius' charm or good looks or status of a > Gryffindor or whatever. He knows the REAL person within. And of > course, Snape knows Lupin is Sirius' helper because that's Lupin's > speciality: taking part while managing to keep his own hands clean. I buy this, but I would put the emphasis on the *feels* here. Isn't it fascinating how both Lupin and Snape rationalize to themselves throughout the entire book? Snape is merely trying to alert the world to the true dangers which everyone seems to be willfully neglecting, Lupin knows that Black must have learned Dark Magic that he's using...an odd pair, those two make. I wonder what the post-PoA conversation between Snape and Dumbledore was like. I really wonder what went through Snape's head when he found out that little Peter, the obsequious tag-along, was the grand traitor--not the flamboyant Black. I want to see a Snape and Wormtail scene in books 6 or 7. Oh, yeah. > At the end of POA, the reader has no choice but to think Snape is > completely wrong because we know better and also because throughout > three books we've seen Snape being unreasonable about a lot of > things including James. Not until OOTP do we realize that Snape > had a point about a lot of things and that from his perspective, > his comments about Sirius, Lupin and James look dismayingly > accurate. (Which is not to say they were nothing but bullying > gits, but rather that whatever good qualities they possessed were > not displayed towards Snape and therefore he doesn't believe they > existed.) OotP was a corrective--a partial rounding out of the picture. What we don't quite have yet is the information and circumstances to fit the two 'halves' of the Portrait of the Marauders together and make one set of information talk to the other. I might add that we, of course, don't have that information for Snape either. And a little context, particularly in JKR's world, makes seemingly identical actions by different people come out with a whole different moral weight and/or general interpretation on them. > Returning to the point that started this whole thing: Snape has a > lot of emotional capital invested in being right. He's got to be > right about Sirius Black being Potter-betraying scum because he's > got this wonderful revenge fantasy where Dumbledore concedes that > he was wrong and Snape was right all those years ago and humbly > begs his forgiveness. Which Snape will grant, as he's as fond of > Dumbledore as of anybody. For Sirius to be innocent will > absolutely ruin this wonderful fantasy. For an innocent Sirius to > be dementored would mean yet another load of guilt for Snape to > assume. Okay--I understand the points, now. What I think we both agree on is that Snape is deeply invested in his perception of reality--and that he's trying to do everything he can to keep it hanging together. Now, this is not to say that some aspects of Snape's perception of the situation are not absolutely dead on. Snape has a real knack for deduction--about half the time. What's simultaneously fascinating and damning about his character is how sharp he is and yet how often selective in reading the evidence. I think we agreed in the past that Snape doesn't 'hear' the kids, or Black and Lupin when Black is pleading with him in the Shack, or Dumbledore, because he, at a profound level, doesn't *want* to hear them. At least for this reader, it borders painfully on a particularly uncomfortable partially blind self-righteousness, the dark flip side of the mind that sees the patterns no one else seems to. -Nora doesn't *want* to go to the nasty cold library when it's sunny and clear and blue skies outside From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 12 17:46:28 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:46:28 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family (Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112761 > Tonks: snip Therefore if Alice was a > Potter, Harry would have had some other blood relative that he could > have gone with besides Petunia. But Petunia was the only one left. > So the Alice Potter idea is out too. > Potioncat: But the blood connection was with Lily and her family, not with James. So I don't think it's ruled out. But I would have expected Gram to say something at St. Mungo's, about the boys being cousins. Or about Harry being related to Alice. Potioncat From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 12 17:46:56 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:46:56 -0400 Subject: Sirius' Innocence Message-ID: <001001c498f0$7f9b1760$5d62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112762 IIRC, at the end of PoA, the following people knew Sirius was innocent: Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin, Pettigrew (always knew) Snape knew but didn't believe it Fudge may have known but didn't believe it Also, the following knew Sirius was an animagus: Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin (always knew), Pettigrew (always knew) By the end of GoF, Snape and Molly also knew Sirius was an animagus (Bill had already left the hospital wing). Snape still believes Sirius is guilty. It is also believed that Pettigrew has, by this time, informed LV who has informed his DE's. I would have thought Pettigrew would have told during the first Voldy War. But, Dumbledore sends Sirius - in animagus form - to Lupin (who already knew both innocence and animagus), Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher and 'the old crowd' who, I think we can assume meant Dedalus Diggle, Emmaline Vance, Sturgis Podmore, Elphias Dodge, and possibly Aberforth. Mad-Eye Moody, of the old crowd, was at the school so I presume DD told him. Wouldn't any of these people be a little more than alarmed if a mass murderer, Azkaban escapee showed up on their doorstep? The person they believe betrayed the Potters? In the form of a dog? And transformed in front of their eyes? Most of these people are magical, would none of them think to stun (at the very least) Sirius until the Magical Law Enforcement Squad could come and get him? Also, within two weeks (approx. Ron says "It was the first week back after term ended. We were about to come and join the Order. Percy came home and told us he'd been promoted.") somebody has convinced Arthur, Molly, Bill, Charlie, Kingsley (who is the MoM employee in charge of the search for Sirius the murderer/escapee), Tonks, and Hestia Jones, as well as the 'old crowd,' that Siris is not only innocent, but that Voldemort is back and they need to join (or re-join) the Order to fight him, and that Fudge is a little deluded because he doesn't believe Voldie is back and also convinced Tonks, Arthur, and Kingsley to 'spy' at the Ministry. All a little too slick, easy and quick IMO (but what do I know). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 12 17:52:29 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:52:29 -0400 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands Message-ID: <001b01c498f1$461fb580$5d62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112763 Lissa "As far as OotP, there's a couple solutions: 1.) Dumbledore or Lupin has gotten him a wand. Either of them would know the wood/core combination (I assume) of Sirius's wands. 2.) Peter Pettigrew has held on to Voldemort's wand all these years. I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that Lupin would have held on to Sirius's, or at least an older wand of Sirius's. " DuffyPoo: 3) The wand Sirius uses in the DoM is one from the Black family home that belonged to either his Mother or Father or Regulus. I think Sirius probably had his wand with him when he was captured. It would have been broken or at the very least taken from him. He was going after Pettigrew, after all, and while I wouldn't put it past Sirius to kill Wormtail with his bare hands, it would have been quicker with a wand. ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 12 18:04:49 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:04:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape at Godric's Hollow References: <1095006890.17842.56550.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002001c498f2$fede36e0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 112764 Meri wrote: >Actually we don't have cannon that says that anyone went with LV the >night he attacked the Potters. He very well could have gone alone in >order to ensure that the thing was done right (something in the line >of "If you want something done right you better do it yourself"). I We know that Peter went with him - firstly because he had to, to tell Voldemort where it was, secondly because we know that Sirius found him absent from home and realised what had happened, and thirdly because JKR indicated that Peter had spirited Voldemort's wand away afterwards. I'm not sure whether the third point is really canon evidence, as I'm not quite sure how he'd have had time even to accio it out before he did a runner but who knows? >believe the popular theory on Snape is that he was the one who >overheard the prophecy in the Hog's Head. And I personally still It's interesting to note that if he was the eavesdropper, then he couldn't have been working for Dumbledore at the time. Otherwise, why throw him out so precipitately - it would have been enough for Dumbledore to say "Severus, you realise that this must go no further". The other alternative, that DD _deliberately_ agreed that Snape should only pass on the first part, doesn't really sit with the fact that the eavesdropper was attestedly thrown out while Sybil was busy prophesying. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 18:08:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:08:09 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family (Neville, Cauldrons & the Poor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112765 > Potioncat: snip. But I would have expected > Gram to say something at St. Mungo's, about the boys being cousins. > Or about Harry being related to Alice. > Alla: Hi! Not necessarily, I think. Neville's Gran strikes me as a lady who keeps quite a lot of secrets, because JKR told her to. :o) (I think the same can be applied to many characters of potterverse). For example, I think that she knows more about why Neville's parents were tortured than she lets on. She also may know about Neville as possible candidat for fulfillement of the Prohecy, but she did not mention it to Neville. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 19:45:53 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:45:53 -0000 Subject: Time-Turning (was Re: Snape and DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "boyinleaves" wrote: > Why on earth would a wizard or witch find it unusual or paradoxical > to be confronted with 'themselves' as a result of time travel? To > these people, the unusual is commonplace, and can usually > be 'explained' in some manner or another. They have Polyjuice > potion! That could be one of many simple explanations for why 2 > Hermiones or two Harrys simultaneously exist. One of them could be a > metamorphmagus, or be under some other appearance altering effect. GEO: Because they're afraid that it might end up with the wizards killing one of their selves. I > honestly can't understand why being seen by oneself when time > travelling could be such a problem. Harry states that he would think > he had gone mad, or that there was Dark Magic going on if he saw > himself, yet this from someone who used polyjuice at 11, and finds > magic more natural than anything in his life? Yes, it might be > unusual to see ones time travelling self, but I seriously doubt > anyone would kill themselves over it. GEO: Again you stated that they have polyjuice and shape shifters and don't forget the inherent violence of the place with the more occasional dark wizard and witch. If you see an almost exact replica wouldn't you suspect that it's some kind of an imposter of you perhaps with more sinister intentions and the first thought that you'd have would be to attack him? What other explaination would there be for someone to turn into you and the wizards don't appear to be big on asking questions first and attacking later. > Oh, yeah, and according to these rules about time travel you guys > have been hypothesising, specifically that time travel merely > fulfils the sequence of events that have already happened, (which > personally I believe IS how it works in HP), it shouldn't be > possible to kill one's own past self, else how could one's future > self exist to do it? GEO: Yes it is. Slow acting curses or poisons fulfill that category quite well. > Whew, this would make Hermione incorrect when she states "loads of > them (wizards) ended up killing their past or future selves by > mistake". They technically could kill their future selves, and then > continue on, and return in time to be killed by their past self, but > honestly, are wizards that stupid? GEO: Yes they are besides I'm guessing that many times these wizards don't know that they are killing their future selves and that it's usually a case of mistake identity. > Okay, so here's a question for you. If you did happen to kill a > future version of yourself that had returned in time, and then were > faced with the possibility of returning in time, would the fact that > you know what your past/future held/holds for you allow you to > actually change the sequence of events? GEO: As I said I don't think in many of these instances that the wizards know they are killing themselves. Again I believe in this conundrum that free will is NOT negated and that killing happens due to lack of information like the future selves going back and trying to figure out who they killed only to end up being their own victim or the future selves going back to warn their past selves only to die at their own hands. > In PoA, Harry and Hermione > don't know what the past/future held for their time travelling > selves, so all they did was fulfill the sequence of events that had > already happened. But if a time travelling wizard knew what his time > travelling self would do, or had already done, would this knowledge > place him on a different path, or would he still somehow be forced > to fulfill his 'destiny'? GEO: No the future, past and present can't be changed. If someone tries to change the sequence either he's going to fail or he finds out that his attempt was essential for the sequence to come into existence(think Terminator I). > If you've ever done any freewill and determinism subjects in a > philosophy course you might understand how terribly unfulfilling > discussion of time travel and choice can be. I certainly do, but its > fun nevertheless. GEO: This subject has been discussed several times, but the conclusion is that your free will still remains intact(much like the prophecies spewed out by Trelawney). Afterall no one exactly forced Harry to fire off the Patronus, it was his own decision just as it was Lily's decision to sacrifice herself for her son and Pettigrew's to go back to Voldemort. From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Sep 12 20:33:58 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:33:58 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112767 Bookworm: >>As a group we argue both (1) that these are just teenagers, not adults, and shouldn't be expected to act like adults, and (2) that they are in the middle of a war, have to grow up quickly and act like adults. Hermione's actions are more like an adult's. Viewed as a teenager's prank, the Sneak mark goes too far. But viewed in a war-time setting...?<< HunterGreen: I don't see it as an act of war though. Was it up to Hermione to attack those who didn't believe that Voldemort was back? Essentially this is what it comes down to. Marietta joined the group to learn defensive spells, thats it. The group became like an anti-Umbridge group, but that was not something that she believed in or was comfortable with. You can't persecute her for not growing up fast and acting like an adult, because she's not one yet. She's still living with her parents (when she's not at school), and the other teenagers we've seen in the story (Neville, Dean, Seamus, Draco) are *very* influenced by what their parents think. I have trouble seeing the sneak mark as a 'war time' thing, because the only war that they were involved with was a war against Umbridge, which Marietta never joined. Also, punishing someone *after* the fact of telling on the group only achieves spite. It would have been far more effective if she had warned the group that this would happen. IMO, they should have talked to Cho after the group became illegal and asked her if Marietta *really* wanted to be a member. It would have been better not to have someone who wasn't against the Ministry in the group in the first place. From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 20:53:09 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:53:09 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?UmU6IEhhcnJ5IGRpZXMg4oCTIHNvcnQgb2Yu?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MESSAGE 112753, catportkey at a... wrote: > The real question is, will Harry die or not? If he does, can he >be saved? And if so, by whom? > In book one, Snape tells his students, "I can teach you how to >bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death." > Could it be that Snape will be the one who brings Harry back to >life by bottling Harry's death? "K": I tend to believe "stopper death" means death may be put on hold for a while. Not that a persona can be brought back after they have died. I also believe we will find out exactly what 'stopper death' is. catportkey: > And, if so, why? Could it be that while Snape may have hated >Harry's father, Snape may still have an affection for Lily? "K": All I will say on this subject is that I find it very hard to believe most or all of Snape's actions (past, present, or future) revolve around Lily. ^-^ catportkey > JKR: "There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape." "K": Actually, JKR never made that statement. Here is the interview: The Connection 12 October 1999 INTERVIEWER: What about Snape? JKR: 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. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. No, I'm not trying to drum up more sales, go to the library and get it out. I'd rather people read it. INTERVIEWER: One of our internet correspondents wondered if Snape is going to fall in love. (JKR laughs) -Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea. INTERVIEWER: 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. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 20:56:35 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:56:35 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112769 HunterGreen: I don't see it as an act of war though. Was it up to Hermione to attack those who didn't believe that Voldemort was back? Essentially this is what it comes down to. Marietta joined the group to learn defensive spells, thats it. The group became like an anti-Umbridge group, but that was not something that she believed in or was comfortable with. You can't persecute her for not growing up fast and acting like an adult, because she's not one yet. HunterGreen (message 112712): Well, Hermione and whether or not the sneak mark was fair is what this thread is about. Bookworm: Hermione didn't "attack those who didn't believe that Voldemort was back", she assigned consequences to those who broke their promise. She set up a jinx to identify those who might harm the DA. Whether it was appropriate or not is obviously debatable. Are we talking about Hermione's or Marietta's actions? My comments referred to Hermione. The group didn't become anti-Umbridge, it started out that way. Hermione specifically mentioned not telling Umbridge, and it was because of Umbridge's refusal to teach practical DADA that the group met in the first place. Ravenclaw Bookworm From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 12 12:19:53 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:19:53 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112770 > HunterGreen: > But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a > different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with > values, everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, > where to obey or disobey authority is so subjective, varying > from person to person, mostly based on the experiences they've > had, and (as evidenced by Seamus and Neville) their family. Huntergreen- You made some pretty good points in my opinion. What are Hermione's motivations for doing all this though? (I actually want to know that, it's not a rhetorical question). But getting back to the point I think yes it was unfair to not give them proper warning of the parchment they were signing or even simply stating that if they have doubts they should leave right away, I don't think she hammered home the point enough or just didn't want to. I still don't excuse anything Marietta did though but I think the point you made of her doing what she thought was right then was actually pretty important. She would have gone of her own accord because nobody could have pressured her (no one else knew) and Umbridge would have no reason to think to use her against Harry. I guess you could argue she was standing up to Cho as well. But clearly she was looking out for her best interests and it came back and bit her on the ass, I don't actually feel any pity for her whatsoever but I am by no means saying she deserves to be walking around weeks on like that. She had every opportunity to leave or not to join and she didn't, her choices and the outcome are of her own doing. I have a hard time believing that any of the teachers would have allowed her to walk around with SNEAK on her face on purpose, I don't think, even as a lesson, they would do that. Maybe it's supposed to illustrate just how accomplished Hermione is! She's clever enough to know to use the things Voldemort teaches as blue prints (like the coins) to their advantage. But also the sorting hat didn't think to put her in Slytherin, wasn't the other house Ravenclaw? "Jennifer" From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Sep 12 13:41:58 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:41:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gum Wrappers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > I have been thinking about the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottom > gives to her visitors and the one she gave to Neville. He does not > throw it away like his grandmother tells him too. Maybe Mrs. > Longbottom tries to get a message to her son. ******************************************************* I think actually a lot of people have been wondering about this (not necessarily on this site) but I found something when I was looking on and came across this. When I saw your question, it popped back into my mind.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Drooble's Best Blowing Gum is an anagram of Gold bribe below St. Mungos Very interesting...in book 5, Neville's Mum gives him a gum wrapper. Is she passing on an important message? (http://www.mugglenet.com/books/anagrams.shtml) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Whether it really means anything or not I don't know. I did read something on JKR's site that she was quitting smoking and been chewing more gum. So that could account for the wrappers on her site, but maybe not. It is rather odd that of all the things Alice could give Neville she continuously gives him gum wrappers. And for that matter where does she get the gum from in the first place? Anyone else have any thoughts? Chancie From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 13:40:16 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:40:16 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112772 > HunterGreen: > But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a > different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with > values, everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, > where to obey or disobey authority is so subjective, varying > from person to person, mostly based on the experiences they've > had, and (as evidenced by Seamus and Neville) their family. Values? Where are the values on going against a group that should not be illegal, learing lessons that a normal teacher would have taught them... The group was deemed illegal because it was Harry Potter who did it, and because the ministry didn't want able children... There was no "right" that Marietta could see in it. In fact, we learn from who that she betrayed out of fear, and she chose students to be expelled over the fear of her mother who *could* have been sacked. And do I have to remind you that being expelled means no more magic for the whole person's life, meaning that, as they don't either have a muggle education, they are screwed? Marietta was selfish *and* egotistical. She knew and agreed that Umbridge went too far (or else Cho and her group came only because of Cho's crush on Harry)... "totorivers" From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 13:52:22 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:52:22 -0000 Subject: Alice Longbottom and the Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112773 > Leah: > Harry has to be in the place where 'his mother's blood dwells', so > if Alice is a Potter not an Evans, she would not have any of Lily's > blood and would not have been any use to him. That's if you go by the spell, but the spell isn't a good reason for the ministry.... Petunia and Vernon ARE the only relatives. "totorivers" From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 14:35:43 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:35:43 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112774 > Alla: > Not that I really disagree that Snape did not know about Sirius' > innocence in the Shack (I would not give it 100%, but 90% probably > yes), but I am interested what do we know about Snape's iron > morality with "sense of FAIRNESS". > > So far I can give you many examples of Snape being UNFAIR to > children and adults around him and cannot think of one example of > him being fair. Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*, and have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. Rowling also declared that Snape was a true DE for a time, meaning that he tortured/raped children, and he probably enjoyed it (Dark arts being addictice, blablabla... would explain too the refusal of teaching dada). I have trouble as envisioning such a man as *moral*. Another thing I have trouble with Snape: an awful lot of people see him as *rational* and *calm*... While he has proven everything but that. We have seen him with Moody and how his vein is apparants in anger, how he is unable to lie or to calm himself... Snape is *not* good with subterfuge. The reason that Voldemort didn't realise he was a spy is probably *because* of that, after all, Snape is the kind of person to truly enjoy DE's duties... "totorivers" From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 14:39:21 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:39:21 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112775 Nora: > But I *do* think he really thought Black was guilty for all of > those years, and there's some kind of strange personal investment > going on here that we just don't know about. I don't see Snape > as evil enough to keep silent about an innocent Black in Azkaban > for all those years, and I don't see it quite meshing with his > behavior in PoA. I do agree with you when you say that Snape didn't know, but not because he isn't *evil* or anything. It's just that he knew that lying about that would mean his only road to power (the Dumbledore road) would not be open to him anymore.... I do wonder where you saw snape ever having a sense of justice though...... Toto From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 15:59:19 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:59:19 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112776 > Leah: > As Tonks says, there they are all over the website and there are > so many references to rubbish in the books, that I incline to the > view that they have some significance. And while I agree with > Naama about the emotional context of the St Mungo's scene, I'm > not sure this would be diluted by the gum wrappers having a hidden > meaning. DD tells Harry in GOF that Alice and Frank don't > recognise Neville, so it's not an attempt to reach her son per se, > but she knows there is something, certainly about Neville, and > perhaps about the wrappers, that she should be remembering. Frugalarugala: Okay, if socks mean freedom, and cabbages something like security or santuary, gum wrappers mean... what? Appreciation? Emotional connection? Sincere thanks? From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 12 18:08:39 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040912180839.27440.qmail@web80306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112777 Tonks wrote: >>And to answer Hunter Green: I think the difference between what Marietta did and what Wormtail did is a matter of degree. The basic action was the same.<< >HunterGreen: And I still disagree. Wormtail willingly joined a group that had the GOAL of fighting a specific impression. Marietta was going along with the crowd to join a DADA group, which LATER became against the rules and LATER became an 'anti-Umbridge/anti-Ministry' group of sorts. I know the group was never supposed to be 'advertised' to Umbridge, but it wasn't supposed to be fighting her, at least not from what Marietta was led to believe. [snip]< ------------------ Theotokos: The group *was* anti-Umbridge in the sense that it was against her way of teaching: "I had the idea--that it might me good if people who wanted to study Defense Against the Dark Arts--and I mean, really study it, you know, not the rubbish that Umbridge is doing with us" snip "because nobody could call that Defense Against the Dark Arts"[snip]"well, I thought it would be good if we, well, took matters into our own hands."(p.339) "We think the reason Umbridge doesn't want us trained in Defense Against the Dark Arts," said Hermione, "is that she's got some... some mad idea that Dumbledore could use the students in the school as a kind of private army. She thinks he'd mobilize us against the Ministry." (p.344) However, I think the group was more than that. People have been posting that it was not anti-LV and it was only about passing O.W.L.s and such but that is not true: "You want to pass your Defense Against the Dark Arts O.W.L too though, I bet?" said Michael Corner, who was watching her closely. "Of course I do," said Hermione at once. "But I want more than that, I want to be properly trained in Defense because... because ..." She took a great breath and finished, "Because Lord Voldemort's back." [snip people gasping] "Well...thats the plan anyway," said Hermione. "If you want to join us, we need to decide how we're going to--"(p.340) There was never any secret what the true intention was. Even toward the end of the book when Neville, Luna, and Ginny are insisting to go the MOM with HR&H to rescue Sirius, the *whole point* of the DA is brought up: "We were all in the D.A. together," said Neville quietly. "It was all supposed to be about fighting You-Know-Who, wasn't it?" (pg.761) ----------------------- >HunterGreen: I don't think Marietta thought it was wrong to betray the DA; I think she thought telling Umbridge was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of kids who were breaking school and Ministry policies, and thought it was wrong to keep that a secret. [snip] I think she did what *she* thought was right, which took quite a bit of moral strength (although she was severely misguided, [snip]< ---------------------------- Theotokos: I don't think Marietta cared a flip for right or wrong. I think she never liked Harry, and never wanted Cho to like Harry. Cho had been upset with Harry's insensitivity towards her emotional needs but forgave him after the interview came out in the Quibbler. I think Marietta wanted to split them up. "Cho had just smiled at him and sat down on Ron's right. Her friend, who had curly reddish-blonde hair, did not smile, but gave Harry a thoroughly mistrustful look that told Harry plainly that, given her way, she would not be here at all." (p.339) There are several other instances when Marietta glares at Harry while in the presence of Cho. She doesn't like him and doesn't want Cho to like him. ------------------------- Tonks: >>Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347)<< HunterGreen: >It may have *felt* like it, but the fact that its mentioned "*as though* they had just signed some kind of contract." (emphasis mine) would imply that its NOT a contract, otherwise that statement doesn't make sense.< Tonks: >>As to Hermione, it would have been courteous of her to tell the others about the jinx. It is typical Hermione behavior to assume that what she does is the best thing without taking counsel from anyone. She must have had some concern that someone might tell or she would not have done it.<< HunterGreen: >Yes, well, I think it being typical of Hermione is what the thread is about. On occasion she can be very ruthless. In this case, I don't think it was fair, but I agree that its in her character to do something like this.< ------------------------ Theotokos: I agree with Tonks on just about everything so far. The group was told what the slant would be, they were asked not to tell and Hermione *did* emphasize the agreement they were making and it's importance. It has been cited before but this is important: "So if you sign, you're *agreeing NOT to tell Umbridge*--or anybody else--what we're up to." (emphasis mine, p.346) Harry saw Cho's friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her name. (p347) BUT she did add her name and she heard all Hermione said. She changed her mind later obviously but she was already committed. It is not for Hermione to have to decipher a persons intentions now and/or later. It is for that person to listen to the situation and make their own choice. Marietta did that. I also agree it is in Hermione's character to do something like this but I have a different opinion of that character. Hermione expects everyone to have a brain and use it. She gripes at Harry and Ron all the time for not thinking things through. Hermione expects the people in the Hog's Head to agree or not sign. Far be it for her to make that decision for them--they are free to use their own minds. (I wish she would be more like that with House elves--different thread) Discussion of a contract is meaningless. These are 15 year old and younger kids. The legality of a contract is irrelevant in their experience. Promises and deceit are ideas they can grasp. Besides, they just big zits. They make a point. Marietta sticks out now, she has to reckon with what she did. There is no pretending about it now. She has to face herself in the mirror and if she is honest with herself, she will know she has noone to blame but herself. Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 12 17:36:03 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:36:03 -0000 Subject: Petunia's Protection WAS: Two Questions In-Reply-To: <20040912011816.36357.qmail@web21208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112778 - Star wrote: > I thought it odd that LV would rescue Bellatrix (or Trixie as > I think of her) when fleeing from MoM & DD in OotP. When LV > took over Harry, Harry's love for Sirius and his acceptence of > death made LV leave Harry's body. DD has stated that Harry's > protection is in his blood - think antibody or a virus. LV has > Wormtail "infect" him with Harry's blood. The "virus" lays > dormant until LV takes over Harry and Harry's love activates > the virus "love bug". Which would explain why LV rescued Trixie, > who was trapped under a statue. Karen answers: That is definitely a different spin on the protection scenario; LV receives a "love bug virus" from Harry, thus keeping him (Harry) safe because of a change of heart that LV has? Am I correct in my synopsis? (I would like to hear more about this theory) I was thinking more along lines that LV taking Harry's blood and using it to return to the land of the living, somehow increased Harry's blood protection within himself, thus decreasing the amount of time he needed to spend at Privet Drive. I hadn't thought how Harry 's blood running in LV's veins would protect Harry, but it's an interesting idea. from Star: > Maybe people have been misinterpreting the Prophecy, it stated > the Dark Lord must die not Tom Marvolo Riddle must die. The Dark > Lord is a creation of TMR. Maybe that creation, that has never > known love, is what will die when TMR truely knows love. I'm not sure about TMR and LV being separate entities, though. You can't have one without the other. Remember when TMR was coming back through the diary in CoS? He said something about LV coming back when he regained a body, that is because they are one in the same. Changing one's name does not change who they are. If TMR dies so does LV. As far as rescuing "Trixie", maybe that was more of a self preservation thing, she appears to be one of his strongest supporters and apparently a very powerful witch. If he lost her, it would be a terrible loss to him. She may be the only one he trusts and to lose her would have be detrimental to his "cause". Karen L. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 12 18:45:28 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:45:28 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112779 > Naama wrote: > >More importantly is the emotional content of the scene - Alice, > >insane and unconnected, tries to reach her son from the fog she is > >in. If this was a disingenous attempt at communicating (and why > >couldn't she just talk to him?), it would rob the scene of its > >emotional impact. Also, it would mean that she is not insane, or not > >as insane as she seems, which would make her an extremely cruel > >mother - having her son believe her insane when she is not. > Leah wrote: > GOF that Alice and Frank don't recognise Neville, so it's not an > attempt to reach her son per se, but she knows there is something, > certainly about Neville, and perhaps about the wrappers, that she > should be remembering. While, it's not conclusive, if we weren't > meant to notice the wrapper, couldn't Alice just have touched her > son's face in an uncomprehending way? Hannah now: I agree that the principal point of this scene is its emotional impact, but one thing does interest me. Where is Alice getting all the gum from in the first place? Is 'blowing gum' usually handed out to mental patients? If she's given Neville enough wrappers 'to paper his room' (probably an exaggeration, but a lot anyway) she must have had access to gum/ sweets, either given her or to buy. Is Neville giving her gum, in a clumsy gesture of affection, and she handing back the wrappers? JKR chews gum constantly as a substitute for smoking (from her website). But maybe all those wrappers are meant to be a clue... From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 19:32:24 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:32:24 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112780 I, too, think that the gum wrappers are important, but doubt that they contain a message (in the sense of Alice having written something on them and deliberately concealed it). I agree that Alice does not seem sufficiently compos mentis to do something like that, and that if she were, it would be cruel. However, I think that the gum wrappers *are* a message--to Neville as well as to us-the-readers. Neville, I think, inteprets the message to be something like "I know you're my son and I care about you" (hence he keeps every gum wrapper she gives him, even though he has enough to paper his bedroom). What Alice thinks the message is remains to be seen. It's possible she's trying to communicate something much more complex than that and regards the symbolism of the Gum Wrappers as transparently obvious. (which it, of course, isn't.) I've been mulling over What Alice Could Have Meant for some time, without much result. Gum wrappers are rubbish, but you ought to save them so that you have something to wrap your gum in when you're done chewing it, so maybe something about not discarding things too early? On the other hand, they're shiny, like a mirror, so maybe something about knowing yourself? Dunno. It's also possible that Alice made gum-wrapper chains as a child, and thinks Neville might like to do one. I will be a bit disappointed as well if they turn out not to have any big reason for being in the story--that scene stuck out as significant. However, there is the possibility that JKR's web site has gum wrappers scattered around because her real deak does, and when she was writing that scene she thought "Let's see, I have to have Alice give Neville something that the readers couldn't *possibly* interpret as significant...maybe a tongue depressor? No, St. Mungoes might not even use those..." "Gum wrapper, that's the ticket!" But as I say, that would be a very disappointing explanation, so I hope it isn't correct. Alex From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 12 20:05:26 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:05:26 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <002001c498f2$fede36e0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112782 > Ffred wrote: > We know that Peter went with him - firstly because he had to, to > tell Voldemort where it was, secondly because we know that Sirius > found him absent from home and realised what had happened, and > thirdly because JKR indicated that Peter had spirited Voldemort's > wand away afterwards. Hannah replies: I don't see why Peter had to go with LV to tell him where the house was. DD reveals the location of GP to Harry through a note - DD isn't there in person. Pettigrew could have told LV verbally, or written it down. LV would then be able to find the house. Peter's absence from home is hardly surprising. Knowing he'd just betrayed the Potters and that Sirius at least knew he was the secret keeper, he wouldn't want to stick around to face the consequences. He certainly abandoned his hiding place, but not necessarily to go to GH. Peter could have gone to GH at a later date to collect the wand - retrieving that is hardly going to have been top priority of the muggles who arrived at the house, or of Hagrid, who would have been more concerned about the bodies and the baby respectively. I think, knowing Peter's cowardice, he is unlikely to have gone along with LV to actually witness the murders of the friends he has just sold. Too squeamish. LV probably wouldn't want him tagging along either, getting in the way, and maybe losing his nerve and trying to warn somebody. Hannah From tinainfay at msn.com Sun Sep 12 20:07:23 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:07:23 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112783 > Karen L. wrote: > > > Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are > > still visible? And some people consider scars to be battle wounds to be proud of. Almost a badge of honor. He certainly invoked a sense of awe with his entrance in the Great Hall. As a teacher I can especially see how the frightening/bizarre appearance would add credibility in DADA. ("Everyone seems too transfixed by Moody's bizarre appearance to do more than stare at him." GOF Am PB 185 and 186 "'What happened to him?' Hermione whispered. 'What happened to his face?' 'Dunno,' Ron whispered back, watching Moody with fascination.") Just think of being caught (as a dark wizard) by him and seeing his appearance - you would know that he is going to put up a good fight, that it won't be easy to escape. ~tina From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 22:11:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:11:46 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112784 Totorivers wrote: > snip. > > > Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown > > himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*, and > > have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. > > Rowling also declared that Snape was a true DE for a time, meaning > > that he tortured/raped children, and he probably enjoyed it (Dark > > arts being addictice, blablabla... would explain too the refusal > of > > teaching dada). I have trouble as envisioning such a man as > *moral*. > > Another thing I have trouble with Snape: an awful lot of people > see > > him as *rational* and *calm*... While he has proven everything but > > that. We have seen him with Moody and how his vein is apparants in > > anger, how he is unable to lie or to calm himself... Snape is > *not* > > good with subterfuge. The reason that Voldemort didn't realise he > > was a spy is probably *because* of that, after all, Snape is the > > kind of person to truly enjoy DE's duties... > Alla: > > I did not talk about morality, because I consider Snape capable of > making moral choices sometimes. > I agree with you that he enjoys taunting children, that is why I > have so much trouble with Magda's statement that Snape's sense of > morality includes fairness. To me, he is nowhere close being fair > person and fair teacher. > > But, untill Snape's motives are revealed I choose to think that he > is capable of doing the right thing. > The most obvious example of course is going back to Light. > > Doing the right thing and being fair are two very different things to me, though. > Yes, since I think of him as sadist, I agree with you that he was a full DE, who engaged in a very morally questionable activities, at least and quite possibly in mass murders. I am one of those who wants to believe that he came back to Dumbledore for the right reasons whatever they are. To think that he was not participating fully and actively in DE activities, untill JKR says otherwise of course, will be cheapening his redemption,IMO. > > I am not one of those posters, who sees Snape as rational and calm, > on the contrary, I see him capable going off the deep end under > pressure (two primary examples are Shack and failure of the > Occlumency). > > To make a long story short, I am always ready to bash Snape for what > he does to children and especially to Harry, but sometimes I want to > give him credit for doing the right thing. > I also don't believe in ESE!Snape. From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 20:59:58 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:58 -0000 Subject: "Redemptive pattern" for Snape (was Re: Harry dies sort of.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112785 K wrote, quoting a JKR interview: > > INTERVIEWER: 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. It is kind of fun to see it could mean everything from *Snape does everything for redemption* (would be a bit weird from canon) to *Snape is too selfish and drowing into his own misery to even want redemption, and he does everything for power :/ .... But we'll see (just hopes it hasn't anything to do with lollilop, though it's fairly safe :) ).... Toto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 22:33:38 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:33:38 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?"Redemptive_pattern"_for_Snape_(was_Re:_Harry_dies_=E2=80=93_sort_of.)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112786 "totorivers" wrote: >> It is kind of fun to see it could mean everything from *Snape does > everything for redemption* (would be a bit weird from canon) ... snip. Alla: Can you tell me why it would be wierd from canon? Isn't Dumbledore is all about giving people second chances, for example? From terpnurse at qwest.net Sun Sep 12 22:39:48 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:39:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112787 Alex wrote: > I, too, think that the gum wrappers are important, but doubt that they > contain a message (in the sense of Alice having written something on > them and deliberately concealed it). I agree that Alice does not seem > sufficiently compos mentis to do something like that, and that if she > were, it would be cruel. > > However, I think that the gum wrappers *are* a message--to Neville as > well as to us-the-readers. Neville, I think, inteprets the message to > be something like "I know you're my son and I care about you" (hence > he keeps every gum wrapper she gives him, even though he has enough to > paper his bedroom). What Alice thinks the message is remains to be > seen. It's possible she's trying to communicate something much more > complex than that and regards the symbolism of the Gum Wrappers as > transparently obvious. (which it, of course, isn't.) > > Terpnurse now: I remember this came up a month or so ago and I had a forehead-slapping moment. Someone, I believe it was Kneasy, mentioned that if not the wrapper itself, perhaps it's a message contained in the gum. We know that Droobles Bubble Gum produces bubbles (globes, spheres) that last for days. Maybe Alice is trying to get something across to Neville along those lines. Kneasy was thinking along the lines of the Prophecy Globe, but I wondered if it wasn't something 'closer to home' as it were. Alice has spent well over a decade in St. Mungo's. What is there that is spherical like the bubbles? Well, two times we, the readers, have visited the hospital, and two times the light globes were described in detail. If we look for allusions to corruption at the hospital, we'll see that Lucius makes generous donations to them. Suppose there was something sinister about those light globes? Perhaps some sort of spy-cam spell? Or a low-level noxious charm that keeps their long term patients from recovering? Any other ideas? From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 12 22:37:51 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:37:51 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112788 > > Alla: I am interested what do we know about Snape's iron > > morality with "sense of FAIRNESS". > > > > So far I can give you many examples of Snape being UNFAIR to > > children and adults around him and cannot think of one example > > of him being fair. > totorivers : > Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown > himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*,and > have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. Hannah: He has no problem *threatening* to hand a man to the dementor's kiss. When he has the chance to do so, he doesn't. And the man (Sirius) had been condemned to that punishment by the law, for crimes he had (allegedly) committed. Snape may not have known he was innocent of those crimes at this point. >totorivers continues: > Rowling also declared that Snape was a true DE for a time, meaning > that he tortured/raped children, and he probably enjoyed it (Dark > arts being addictice, blablabla... would explain too the refusal > of teaching dada). I have trouble as envisioning such a man as > *moral*. Hannah again: Not necessarily meaning that he had raped or tortured children, canon hasn't said he (or other DE's at the time) did this. Some DE's do use 'crucio' on children after the return, (Harry and Neville), but I always got the impression that attacks on children were fairly rare in the first V war (JMO however, no specific canon to back it up.) I do agree up to a point, that DEs are very nasty and that Snape was certainly a nasty DE for a time, because JKR has said so. I also think Snape is moral, in that he follows a personal code of behaviour, and seems capable of doing the 'right' thing even when he would *like* to do something else. His morals may be rather different from those of everyone else, but if he sticks to them, then that still makes him a moral person (IMO). Hannah, who is pretty rubbish at understanding all this philosophy stuff, and will be sobbing into her pillow tonight because she *wants* Snape to be nice, and *knows* he's probably not. From robkristjansson at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 22:39:46 2004 From: robkristjansson at hotmail.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:39:46 -0000 Subject: HP's powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112789 Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes LV? I figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of his powers seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics often has to sacrifice something for the people's benefit. Rob From robkristjansson at hotmail.com Sun Sep 12 22:49:33 2004 From: robkristjansson at hotmail.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:49:33 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112790 Alex wrote: > I will be a bit disappointed as well if they turn out not to have > any big reason for being in the story--that scene stuck out as > significant. I think you're gonna be dissapointed. I figure the scene's significance was in the pathos of Harry seeing Neville ( an orphan for all intents and purposes) taking this bit of garbage as a memento of his mother. The action is all the more poignant because that is all there is to it. Rob P.S. Whatever happened to Harry's paternal grandparents? From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 22:51:52 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:51:52 -0000 Subject: "Redemptive pattern" for Snape (was Re: Harry dies sort of.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112791 > "totorivers" wrote: > >> It is kind of fun to see it could mean everything from *Snape > > does everything for redemption* (would be a bit weird from canon) > > snip. > Alla: > Can you tell me why it would be wierd from canon? Isn't Dumbledore > is all about giving people second chances, for example? Yes, Dumbledore is. But Snape doesn't think he should have a *second* chance, he is trying to make himself believe he was never wrong.... And that's just one of his problems.... Even though it could change in the future, from what we know Snape is the very charaterisation of a "unredeemable arse"... Toto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 23:09:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:09:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?"Redemptive_pattern"_for_Snape_(was_Re:_Harry_dies_=E2=80=93_sort_of.)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112792 "totorivers" wrote: >> > Yes, Dumbledore is. But Snape doesn't think he should have a > *second* chance, he is trying to make himself believe he was never > wrong.... And that's just one of his problems.... Even though it > could change in the future, from what we know Snape is the very > charaterisation of a "unredeemable arse"... > Alla: Please don't think that I am picking on you, because it is rather routine practic on this list to ask each other for canon support of your argument in the discussion. :o) Could we have some canon on "Snape is trying to make himself believe he was never wrong..."? That is one of the biggest mysteries cannon offers so far - we don't know what is going on in Snape's head. Some things can be deducted from his actions, of course, but I don't see how you statement can. From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 23:13:33 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:13:33 -0000 Subject: "Redemptive pattern" for Snape (was Re: Harry dies sort of.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112793 > Alla: > Could we have some canon on "Snape is trying to make himself > believe he was never wrong..."? > > That is one of the biggest mysteries canon offers so far - we > don't know what is going on in Snape's head. Some things can be > deducted from his actions, of course, but I don't see how you > statement can. Ok, if he isn't lying all the time, and I believe he isn't, his reactions, like blaming James and Sirius and Remus, is a very good exemple of how he tries to blame others for his own mistakes... Toto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 23:38:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:38:45 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?"Redemptive_pattern"_for_Snape_(was_Re:_Harry_dies_=E2=80=93_sort_of.)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: > Ok, if he isn't lying all the time, and I believe he isn't, his > reactions, like blaming James and Sirius and Remus, is a very good > exemple of how he tries to blame others for his own mistakes... Alla: Sorry, I am still confused. I would be the first one to say that IMO Snape was not a victim throughout his wars with Marauders and could dish it out quite well, but don't you think judging by Pensieve scene that Snape has quite a lot to blame James and Sirius for? Now, if you would say for example that Snape blames Marauders for him becoming DE and back it up, then yes, I would agree with you. Right now I don't understand your argument, sorry. I can see quite a lot of Snape undeservingly blaming Harry for James' mistakes, but that is about it, frankly. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sun Sep 12 23:31:09 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:31:09 +0100 Subject: Sirius' Innocence References: <001001c498f0$7f9b1760$5d62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <004901c49921$fac60b30$5e280dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112795 Cathy wrote: "Wouldn't any of these people be a little more than alarmed if a mass murderer, Azkaban escapee showed up on their doorstep? The person they believe betrayed the Potters? In the form of a dog? And transformed in front of their eyes? Most of these people are magical, would none of them think to stun (at the very least) Sirius until the Magical Law Enforcement Squad could come and get him? Also, within two weeks (approx. Ron says "It was the first week back after term ended. We were about to come and join the Order. Percy came home and told us he'd been promoted.") somebody has convinced Arthur, Molly, Bill, Charlie, Kingsley (who is the MoM employee in charge of the search for Sirius the murderer/escapee), Tonks, and Hestia Jones, as well as the 'old crowd,' that Siris is not only innocent, but that Voldemort is back and they need to join (or re-join) the Order to fight him, and that Fudge is a little deluded because he doesn't believe Voldie is back and also convinced Tonks, Arthur, and Kingsley to 'spy' at the Ministry. All a little too slick, easy and quick IMO (but what do I know)." -------------------- Quick, yes, but that's the weight DD's word has in some circles. You're forgetting a few things though: DD sends Sirius to Lupin so the can *toguether* get in touch with the 'old crowd'. The 'old crowd' most likely knew Sirius and the affection he had for James. With Lupin stating he saw Pettigrew who confess the betrayal, and asking them to regroup on DD's command, I don't see the strangeness. I don't have time to find a quote but I recall something about Arthur knowing what an idiot Fudge is and only staying at the MoM because he loves his job. I'm sure the MoM employees all know the character quite well and have no big problem believing his not handling the situation the best way. Last but not least, Neville said (not an exact quote): "My grandmother said that if DD says his back, then his back." That's the weight DD's word. Susana From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 12 23:41:41 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040912180839.27440.qmail@web80306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040912234141.35406.qmail@web20024.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112796 --- theotokos wrote: > >HunterGreen: > > I don't think Marietta thought it was wrong to > betray the DA; I think she thought telling Umbridge > was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of > kids who were breaking school and Ministry policies, > and thought it was wrong to keep that a secret. > [snip] I think she did what *she* thought was right, > which took quite a bit of moral strength (although > she was severely misguided, [snip]< > ---------------------------- > Theotokos: > > I don't think Marietta cared a flip for right or > wrong. I think she never liked Harry, and never > wanted Cho to like Harry. Cho had been upset with > Harry's insensitivity towards her emotional needs > but forgave him after the interview came out in the > Quibbler. I think Marietta wanted to split them up. > > "Cho had just smiled at him and sat down on Ron's > right. Her friend, who had curly reddish-blonde > hair, did not smile, but gave Harry a thoroughly > mistrustful look that told Harry plainly that, given > her way, she would not be here at all." (p.339) > > There are several other instances when Marietta > glares at Harry while in the presence of Cho. She > doesn't like him and doesn't want Cho to like him. > ------------------------- > Ah, there's an interesting quote. The word used is "mistrustful." Perhaps it's not so much that Marietta doesn't like Harry as that she doesn't trust him? She may believe he's a crazy and dangerous boy. She may believe that he's putting others (including Cho) at risk. I'm not saying that that is definitely her belief. We don't know. But, I think the term used in interesting and indicative. It didn't say she looked at him with jealousy or hate - it said mistrust. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool From pegruppel at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 00:01:23 2004 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:01:23 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers--Return of the Good SHIP SILK GOWNS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112797 Big Snip > Terpnurse now: > I remember this came up a month or so ago and I had a forehead- slapping > moment. Someone, I believe it was Kneasy, mentioned that if not the > wrapper itself, perhaps it's a message contained in the gum. We know > that Droobles Bubble Gum produces bubbles (globes, spheres) that last > for days. Maybe Alice is trying to get something across to Neville > along those lines. Kneasy was thinking along the lines of the Prophecy > Globe, but I wondered if it wasn't something 'closer to home' as it > were. >(snip) > Alice has spent well over a decade in St. Mungo's. What spell? > Or a low-level noxious charm that keeps their long term patients from > recovering? Any other ideas? Now Peg: Ahoy and Avast! OK, TBAY seems to be neglected, or at least much emptier, since OOTP was published. But I was one of the crew who signed up on the good SHIP S.I.L.K. G.O.W.N.S. There were a whole series of post about this good ship, and I don't know how many more crew are still on board. A summary: The planks that make up the good SHIP are that Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom are being kept in a mental state of some kind. Lucius Malfoy is suspected of being the moving force behind their condition, whether it's to keep them from informing on other DE's or for some other reason is unknown. The Longbottoms may, in fact, be getting the potion in the gum. It does seem odd that bubblegum would be given to mentally ill patients, and if it were really Drooble's, we've been told in GoF that it produces bluebell-colored bubbles that refuse to pop for days. So, where are all the bluebell-colored bubbles? I think the bubble lights are a hint--they're described as being clear most of the time, but red or green at Christmas. No bluebell, though. Hmmm. The crew of the SILK GOWNS tried to decode the name of the gum, but didn't generate much of anything except a lot of index cards . . . If you want the whole theory, I'd suggest searching on SILK GOWNS--it will fill you in much better than this summary. And writing this up has reminded me that I saw a potion mentioned in OOtP that may be tied up in this. It's toward the beginning, and seems to be a "throw away" line, as most of JKR's clues are. 'Scuse me--I'm off to start checking this out. Peg--deckhand on the SILK GOWNS Cap'n Jennie, where are you? From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 00:45:31 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913004531.36938.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112798 > Frugalarugala: > Okay, if socks mean freedom, and cabbages something like security > or > santuary, gum wrappers mean... what? Appreciation? Emotional > connection? Sincere thanks? Actually, they mean "next visit, bring dental floss. we have enough flowers." Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 01:31:09 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:31:09 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers--Return of the Good SHIP SILK GOWNS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112799 Peg said: >If you want the whole theory, I'd suggest searching on SILK GOWNS-- it will fill you in much better than this summary.< KathyK: To save you all the trouble of trying to find a message number using Yahoomort's search function, I would like to direct your attention to the Database area where the List Elves have created a Recommended Posts area. Fortunately for all of you dying to know more about SILK GOWNS, it is listed there. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80592 Jen Reese, who recommended the post, also suggests reading: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80761 KathyK, who happened to be looking for the SILK GOWNS message number a couple weeks ago, couldn't find it, and stumbled upon it while perusing the database recently From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 01:40:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:40:58 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black and Severus Snape brothers? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karenmarie713" wrote: > Does anyone else think it's possible that Sirius Black and Severus > Snape are fraternal twins who, for some reason, were separated at > birth? They're the same age, similar in appearance, even their > names are similar. SiriUS, SeverUS, and Sirius had a brother named > RegulUS. Look at the meaning of Snape's name: sever- to cut; to > separate. Also, Sirius came from a family of dark wizards. Potioncat: I'll go so far as to say I wouldn't be surprised to discover they are closely related. I think they are very similar. And it seemed to me there was some word-play going on about the house belonging to Serius. I'm not sure how a separated at birth sort of story could play out, though. I also wonder if the Roman named characters have a link, or if it's just that JKR used a lot of Roman names. (Albus, Lucius, those you mentioned as well.) As for Severus meaning sever us...I think it is more likely to mean "severe" similar to the Roman Emperor who was known for his severe tactics (also known for uniting the empire.) I read somewhere, but cannot confirm, that JKR pronounces it Severe- us rather than Sever-us. Potioncat From patientx3 at aol.com Mon Sep 13 02:01:57 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 02:01:57 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112801 HunterGreen previously: > But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a > different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with > values, everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, > where to obey or disobey authority is so subjective, varying > from person to person, mostly based on the experiences they've > had, and (as evidenced by Seamus and Neville) their family. Totorivers replied: >>Values? Where are the values on going against a group that should not be illegal, learing lessons that a normal teacher would have taught them...<< HunterGreen: The fact is that it WAS illegal. And the school was being told that if they knew people that were breaking the rules that it was their job to step forward and report those things. Sort of like knowing that certain students are using drugs on school grounds, or cheating on tests, or doing other things that break the rules. In this case, the rule is arbitrary and stupid, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE sees it that way. Totorivers: >> There was no "right" that Marietta could see in it. In fact, we learn from who that she betrayed out of fear, and she chose students to be expelled over the fear of her mother who *could* have been sacked.<< HunterGreen: Um, where does it say that? As far as we know (as readers), the reason she betrayed the group is up for debate. Personally, I see it as a result of pressure from her family and society, not from a specific threat. Isn't it also cowardice to allow people to do something you think is wrong? Totorivers: >> And do I have to remind you that being expelled means no more magic for the whole person's life, meaning that, as they don't either have a muggle education, they are screwed? Marietta was selfish *and* egotistical. She knew and agreed that Umbridge went too far (or else Cho and her group came only because of Cho's crush on Harry)...<< HunterGreen: I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate *her* values. If Umbridge found out about the group on her own, Marietta would have been expelled along with them, even though she didn't necessarily follow the anti-Umbridge idealogy. And unlike Harry or the Weasleys, she didn't have a family who would understand why she was in a group like that. I'm sure her mother would be horrified, and may have already asked her if she knew anything about it (or spoke about it in front of her, assuming that she would NEVER be in a group like that). From SnapesRaven at web.de Mon Sep 13 03:15:05 2004 From: SnapesRaven at web.de (SnapesRaven) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:15:05 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's morality (was: Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack) References: Message-ID: <000901c4993f$de337480$0202a8c0@henrike> No: HPFGUIDX 112802 Hannah wrote: "I do agree up to a point, that DEs are very nasty and that Snape was certainly a nasty DE for a time, because JKR has said so. I also think Snape is moral, in that he follows a personal code of behaviour, and seems capable of doing the 'right' thing even when he would *like* to do something else. His morals may be rather different from those of everyone else, but if he sticks to them, then that still makes him a moral person (IMO). Hannah, who is pretty rubbish at understanding all this philosophy stuff, and will be sobbing into her pillow tonight because she *wants* Snape to be nice, and *knows* he's probably not." Now SnapesRaven: Good morning! Interesting thoughts, altogether. I'd like to add one though. BUT first of all: Don't cry, Hannah, for I (as his Raven) DO know that Snape is indeed a nice person - he just hides it very professionally. ; ) Are some of you familiar with Piaget's and later Kohlberg's theory of moral development? I dealt with it in psychology and it's rather striking. There are, according to Kohlberg, three levels of morality (preconventional, conventional and postconventional), each consisting of two stages. These stages vary from moral reasoning dependant on anticipated punishment to the universal ethical principle. The last stage, however, is said to be rarely reached; it is the stage of independent consciousness. What I want to say is that Snae probably doesn't fit into moral patterns which simply show by abiding by laws or preventing being ounished. his morality is farther developed than - as it would seem to me at this point - Percy's, for example. Percy sticks to whatever his boss (an authority) orders and adapts to his anticipated role in wizarding society. He does what he considers to be best for himself and doesn't seem to reflect on his actions very much. But Snape changed his mind and became a spy for the light when he was a Death Eater. It shows, in my view, a highly developed conscience and reflexivity. Snape puts his life on the line for his belief. He doesn't seem to look out for his own advantage, because he could have lead an easier life than the one he chose. That's how I look at it. Kohlberg's morality model also provides a clear guideline for moral 'diagnosis', i.e., 'assessment' to one of the stages/levels. According to this guideline, it is secondary *which* moral choice you make in a situation - most important is the reasoning: *why* does someone decide the way he/she does? And here it becomes clear to me: You said before that Snape even makes the 'right' choices when he would like to act differently. But he doesn't. I think in the reasons for his 'right' decisions lies the secret's key. ; ) I do believe in a GOOD Snape, if not in a 'nice' one! SnapesRaven [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 13 03:19:00 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:19:00 -0000 Subject: Draco/Morality-Ethics-Values/Flitwick/HalfBreeds/SidVici/MuggleUni/Alice/GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112803 Susana replied in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112294 : << Why do you say Draco is not a good seeker? Harry is better than Draco because he's *very* good but the Slytherin always seem to be a strong candidate to the Quidditch cup. And I recall that Draco knew how to fly before entering Hogwarts. I know he bought his place on the team, but that doesn't mean his lousy. >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. SSSusan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112389 : << Is JKR's model so recognizably a '50s system that we should all just be *assuming* that the moral/ethical considerations are being handled at home? >> It seems quite clear that different homes are teaching different moralities/ethics. Homes which teach equal rights for all magic-using humans versus those which teach the greater rights of purebloods. Homes which stress the importance of good sportsmanship (like Cedric wanting to replay the match he won because Harry was affected by the Dementors) versus those which stress the importance of winning, and perhaps instruct their children in different means of cheating. And one presumes that there are some who emphasize obedience to the official authorities versus those who emphasize following one's conscience. So if Hogwarts did have some kind of class in Ethics, called Religious Instruction or Civic Hygiene or Reading the Socratic Dialogues, there would be endless complaints from parents that DD was trying to brainwash their children against their parents' values. Huntergreen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112730 : << But she was acting on an internalized sense of values, just a different set of values than Hermione. That's the thing with values, everyone has different ones. Especially in this case, where to obey or disobey authority is so subjective, varying from person to person, mostly based on the experiences they've had, and (as evidenced by Seamus and Neville) their family. >> Like I just said (above). Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/112404 : << I'm not going to go into the responsibility of the community to police its members, okay? :) >> On this detail, I agree with Kneasy. Each individual witch or wizard has their innate power, and some are very powerful. Like Tom Riddle /LV, he can throw AKs around like crazy and blast buildings to pieces and stuff, it takes one Dumbledore or a whole army of Aurors to duel one LV. So even if the great majority of the community thought evil is bad (which I think is not even the bare majority of wizarding folk), they have very limited ability to enforce that opinion. Theotokos wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112465 : << What is Prof. Flitwick? Is he just a short wizard? >> I used to think that he had been hit by an incurable Shrinking Curse in one of his duels (he is said to have been a duelling champion), but the Elkins Enneology led to the suggestion that he was half House Elf. As there is excessive RL precedent of slave owners begetting children on female slaves. To me, that is something that surely fellow students would pick on him for, even just for the suspicion, which might account for why he got so good at duelling. And might he be another one of Dumbledore's charity cases, like Hagrid and Lupin, unable to find a job elsewhere because of discrimination, despite being very well-qualified? (Hagrid is well-qualified with magical beasts, even if not as a sorceror.) So I was thinking that his father the wizard acknowledged him and took him away from his mother the House Elf to be raised by his father's wife the witch, and wondering why his father was willing to take responsibility for such shame, and the wife was probably not all that happy about it, instead of just leaving the baby with its mother to be raised as a House Elf servant. But maybe his wizard father DID abandon him to his House Elf mother, and then his Hogwarts letter came anyway. If it was his mother the witch and his father the House Elf, that would be a whole different scenario ... it would be a lot easier for the mother to claim that the father of her child was a wizard (her husband, if she was married) than to claim that she hadn't been pregnant and borne a child. Phabala wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112494 : << For me this also brings up the question of "half breeds" and the laws regarding them. For example, we know from GoF that house-elves are not allowed wands. Neither, it seems, are centaurs or goblins. Hagrid is half-giant, and he was allowed a wand (although whether or not the Ministry knew of his parantage is questionable). I wonder when the line between "magical being" and witch/wizard become blurred. >> As far as I can tell, the Ministry views offspring, with magic powers, of one wizard/witch and one other person as being a wizard/witch, entitled to an education and to use a wand, but not to laws against discrimination. It seems the same rule whether the non-wizard parents is a Muggle or a Veela or whatever. I suppose the Hogwarts Quill must have the same rule, because Hagrid got his letter, but none of the House Elves or Centaurs get Hogwarts letters. Annegirl wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112623 : << Am I the only one who sees Sirius as a total punk? Maybe even Lupin, too, but he grew out of it more. >> Despite all Lexicon timelines, I insist on continuing to believe that Sirius and his year-mates were born in the 1957-1958 year (because I was, November '57) and therefore were Hogwarts class of '76. I absolutely totally see Sirius devoted to Led Zeppelin, bouncing around playing air guitar to their recordings. Lupin maybe liked Steeleye Span or Fairport Convention... Cunning Spirit wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112632 : << However how would students trained in WW schools provide school transfer records that muggle colleges and universities would accept? >> I feel sure that magic is very useful for forging official records, and that Confundus Charms work as well on computer databases as they do on Goblets of Fire, so a witch or wizard who wanted to pass as a Muggle for a while wouldn't have problems getting the right paperwork. Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/112640 : << Even with the adorable level of oddness and eccentricity amongst the college population, kids at Hogwarts would be hard-pressed to really fit in. >> Presumably only a Muggle-born or half-and-half, or someone who is practically obsessed with Muggles, would even *want* to go to a Muggle university. It would be to please a Muggle parent or for the sake of the 'exotic' experience, not because Muggle universities teach something they want to know. Doddiemoemoe wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112687 : << Can't you just imagine....Alice Longbottome re: Alice Evans.... or Alice Potter? Perhaps this is why the prophecy tends to be so ambiguous. >> It's already been posted that Neville's mother can't be Lily's sister because Neville is pureblood. And Neville's mother can't be James's sister because Petunia is 'all the family he has left'. Yeah, someone pointed out correctly that relatives on the Potter side wouldn't serve for the Lily's blood charm, but remember: when McG protested leaving baby Harry with those awful Dursleys, he didn't say it was a protection charm; he said they were the only family he had left. McG would have said: "What about his AUNT? Both aurors, and son the same age, what better place for him?" Karen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112719 : << Is there also a Potter family house, mansion or even castle somewhere with a Potter family tree hanging on the wall? James was wealthy enough to leave Harry a lot of gold. Did the Potter's also have a house elf or two?? Are the Potter elves waiting for Harry to come of age before reveling themselves? >> Some listies think that the hiding place in Godric's Hollow was the old Potter family home -- with Fidelius, a known place can become a hiding place. (Other listies think that it was a rented Muggle house in Godric's Hollow.) Some listies think that Dobby was the Potter House Elf and that is why he's so loyal to Harry. Hannah wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112782 : << I think, knowing Peter's cowardice, he is unlikely to have gone along with LV to actually witness the murders of the friends he has just sold. >> I don't think LV gave him any choice in the matter. I used to think LV made Peter personally take him to the Potter so that Peter wouldn't fob him off with a lie (no Potters = Cruciatus'ed Peter) or lead him into a trap (trap closes on Peter), but LV's Legilimency makes that unneccessary (unless Peter was an Occulemens). Still, LV could have forced him to lead in person simply out of LV cruelty. The possibility that Severus and Lucius were ALSO in the murder party is suggested by Harry's dream that conflated Quirrell's turban with the Sorting Hat: "Perhaps Harry had eaten a bit too much, because he had a very strange dream. He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully -- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it -then Malfoy turned 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." From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 06:27:37 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:27:37 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112804 Personally, I think Hermione warned everyone well enough by stating the mission of the group and then having them sign. Sure, Marietta was pressured by Cho, but she did sign, which gives her some responsibility toward keeping her oath. HOWEVER, as wrong as I think she was, it is POSSIBLE to look at her actions as courageous. She never trusted that Potter boy, and the club became illegal almost immediately. She might have decided she'd been pressured into it, and promises made under duress shouldn't count. She might believe she was doing the right thing by turning them in. In which case, though, the SNEAK mark wouldn't really be a sign of shame for however long it took to cure, but something she was willing to brave to do the "right" thing. Just as Neville stood up to the Trio in PS/SS. Trying to do what's right and stay out of trouble.... Oh, forget it. She's a little rat-fink. -TL From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 07:50:07 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:50:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: <004901c49921$fac60b30$5e280dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > Quick, yes, but that's the weight DD's word has in some circles. You're > forgetting a few things though: > > DD sends Sirius to Lupin so the can *toguether* get in touch with the 'old > crowd'. > > The 'old crowd' most likely knew Sirius and the affection he had for James. > With Lupin stating he saw Pettigrew who confess the betrayal, and asking > them to regroup on DD's command, I don't see the strangeness. - snip- > Last but not least, Neville said (not an exact quote): "My grandmother said > that if DD says his back, then his back." > > That's the weight DD's word. > Finwitch: As to where he got such weight: Albus Dumbledore was a teacher, if not the Head Master, to *every* member of the Order, and to the parents and maybe even the grandparents of some... (he is 150, remember!) He's in the Chocolate Frog Cards of famous wizards and witches... And during all this time, it seems, Albus Dumbledore has not once, as far as anyone can remember, lied or broken his word. He has made mistakes, and each time, as soon as he discovered he had made the a mistake, he takes steps to correct it, if at all possible. Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 13 08:01:32 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:01:32 -0400 Subject: HP's powers Message-ID: <001d01c49967$e252b990$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112806 Rob said: "Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes LV? I figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of his powers seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics often has to sacrifice something for the people's benefit." DuffyPoo: Not I. He was a wizard baby boy before LV he'll be a wizard after - if he lives. I personally can't see any proof, yet, that any of his powers came from LV. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 13 08:04:56 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:04:56 -0400 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family Message-ID: <002301c49968$5c43c410$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112807 > Tonks: snip Therefore if Alice was a > Potter, Harry would have had some other blood relative that he could > have gone with besides Petunia. But Petunia was the only one left. > So the Alice Potter idea is out too. > Potioncat: "But the blood connection was with Lily and her family, not with James. So I don't think it's ruled out. But I would have expected Gram to say something at St. Mungo's, about the boys being cousins. Or about Harry being related to Alice." DuffyPoo: IMO (for what it's worth) the blood connection charm that DD used was with Lily/Petunia because she was the only living relative HP had. If Alice were James' sister, there would have been a choice for DD to place HP. There was not. Also, IMO, there are two protection charms at work in HP's life (until the end of GoF when there remains only one). The sacrificial charm of Lily dying to save HP, and the blood protection charm (which, IMO is not the same thing and not connected to the first) that DD uses so that HP is protected as long as he can call the place home where his mother's blood dwells. If James had had a relative living, instead of L:ily, I believe the charm DD placed could have worked equally well, because it wasn't based on Lily's sacrifice but on blood. The second charm is still in effect because HP is still, or can still, live at the Dursleys. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 03:54:58 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913035458.64680.qmail@web80309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112808 Totorivers replied: >>Values? Where are the values on going against a group that shouldnot be illegal, learing lessons that a normal teacher would have taught them...<< HunterGreen: The fact is that it WAS illegal. And the school was being told that if they knew people that were breaking the rules that it was their job to step forward and report those things. Sort of like knowing that certain students are using drugs on school grounds, or cheating on tests, or doing other things that break the rules. In this case, the rule is arbitrary and stupid, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE sees it that way. ------------------------------ Theotokos: Isn't that also a bit like the "Black List" in Hollywood during the 50's and the Red Scare? People being asked to turn in others as Communists? How fondly do we look on those who followed the law and turned in names? I, for one, look more favorably on those who refused to cooperate with such tactics. ----------------------- HunterGreen: >I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate *her* values.< ------------ Theotokos: Nor did what Hermione did violate hers. ---------------- Rebecca: >Ah, there's an interesting quote. The word used is "mistrustful." Perhaps it's not so much that Marietta doesn't like Harry as that she doesn't trust him? She may believe he's a crazy and dangerous boy. She may believe that he's putting others (including Cho) at risk. I'm not saying that that is definitely her belief. We don't know. But, I think the term used in interesting and indicative. It didn't say she looked at him with jealousy or hate - it said mistrust.< ------------------- Theotokos: Therefore she shouldn't have joined the group, unless, of course, she was going against her better judgment and looking after Cho. If that was the case, why wouldn't she warn Cho of all people not to be in the DA on that evening? Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 04:50:58 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Alice Longbottom and the Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913045058.69000.qmail@web80308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112809 Leah: > Harry has to be in the place where 'his mother's blood dwells', so > if Alice is a Potter not an Evans, she would not have any of Lily's > blood and would not have been any use to him. totorivers: That's if you go by the spell, but the spell isn't a good reason for the ministry.... Petunia and Vernon ARE the only relatives. ----------------- theotokos: What does the ministry have to do with it? Wasn't DD who decided what to do with Harry. It was DD who sealed the deal so to speak by placing Harry with Petunia. Otherwise Lily's charm on Harry would have been for naught. So Harry had to go to Petunia but that does not rule out a "Alice Potter". I am not saying I completely buy it but I like it. But if the MOM had anything to do with Harry going to Petunia, I missed it so please correct me. Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 13 08:26:33 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 04:26:33 -0400 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: <001a01c4996b$6102f270$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112810 Ffred said: "We know that Peter went with him - firstly because he had to, to tell Voldemort where it was, secondly because we know that Sirius found him absent from home and realised what had happened, and thirdly because JKR indicated that Peter had spirited Voldemort's wand away afterwards." DuffyPoo: Wormtail didn't have to be with LV when he went to GH, he only had to tell him, verbally, where the hiding place was. (DD had only to write on paper "the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London" for HP to be able to get in. He didn't have to be there in person.) That Wormtail was absent from his own hiding place doesn't mean he was at GH, only that he was now in hiding elsewhere - somewhere that Sirius didn't know. Sirius and Hagrid were in the remains of GH moments after the incident - "before the Muggles started swarmin' around." The Potters' bodies were still on the grounds but there is no evidence of Wormtail being there. >From the media-that-cannot-be-named we see LV going into the house alone. This was, IIRC, one of the scenes that JKR was quite involved with. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From redlena_web at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 08:22:46 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:22:46 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: <20040912170830.89096.qmail@web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112811 > Griffin782002: > >> I wonder if Harry will discover another power, will it be Legilimency. In OotP, a short time before falling asleep and have that fake dream, he having a look at the head of one of his classmates, sorry I don't have the book right now, and he remembers something about an O.W.L. question.<< Certainly, in CoS, Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue seems to have happened spontaneously when he needed it, even though he didn't know he could do it. So, if he has any other hidden powers, he might not recognize them even if he uses them unknowingly. I grant you that. Now, you seem to be implying that Harry *does* unwittingly use Legilimency to get some information for the O.W.L. test from the mind of the student in front of him. I don't think this is the case. In OotP Chapter 24 "Occlumency" (pg. 531, U.S. edition), in Harry's first Occlumency lesson with Snape, Snape says "Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye contact is often essential to Legilimency." Then later, during the test in question, in Chapter 31 "O.W.L.S" (pg. 725, U.S. edition)... "[Harry] looked ahead for a question he could definitely answer and his eyes alighted upon number ten. "/Describe the circumstance that led to the Formation of the International Confederation of Wizards and explain why the warlocks of Liechtenstein refused to join./ "/I know this,/ Harry thought, though his brain felt torpid and slack. He could visualize a heading, in Hermione's handwriting: /The Formation of the International Confederation of Wizards.../ He had read these notes only this morning...." Harry doesn't really need to use Legilimency to come up with an answer to this question; he's just very tired and having trouble focusing. Looking at the student in front of him was another place to look other than his blank piece of paper while he thought, though it turns out to be a bit distracting. (Pg. 725 again)... "He was sitting right behind Parvati Patil, whose long dark hair fell below the back of her chair. Once or twice he found himself staring at the tiny golden lights that glistened in it when she moved her head very slightly and had to give his own head a little shake to clear it." But he's gradually able to remember a bit more from Hermione's notes...(pg. 725-726) "/ the first Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards was Pierre Bonaccord but his appointment was contested.../" but in his extremely tired state he's having trouble remembering all the details so he stares ahead of him "at the back of Parvati's head again" and idly wishes for a shortcut through his struggling. "If he could only perform Legilimency and open a window in the back of her head and see what it was about trolls that had caused the breach..." But he can't perform Legilimency, and even if he could, he'd most likely need to make eye contact with Parvati, not just stare at the back of her head. Besides, ... "Harry closed his eyes and buried his face in his hands, so that the glowing red of his eyelids grew dark and cool. Bonaccord had wanted to stop troll-hunting and give the trolls rights... but Liechtenstein was having problems with a tribe .... That was it...." Harry comes up with the answer on his own, once his eyes are closed. I don't think any Legilimency helped him get the information. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 13 09:18:34 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:18:34 -0400 Subject: Sirius' Innocence Message-ID: <002701c49972$a577cd70$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112812 Susana said: "Quick, yes, but that's the weight DD's word has in some circles. You're forgetting a few things though: DD sends Sirius to Lupin so the can *toguether* get in touch with the 'old crowd'. The 'old crowd' most likely knew Sirius and the affection he had for James. With Lupin stating he saw Pettigrew who confess the betrayal, and asking them to regroup on DD's command" DuffyPoo: "*You* are to alert Remus Lupin, Arabella FIgg, Mundungus Fletcher -- the old crowd. Lie low at Lupin's for a while, I will contact you there." (GoF) Doesn't say anything about Lupin and Sirius getting in touch with the 'old crowd' together. "I might add that werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind that his support will count for very little." (PoA) Just because DD and Sirius trust Lupin doesn't mean all of the 'old crowd' did as well. If a werewolf and a convicted murderer/escapee showed up at my door claiming the murderer was innocent, the 14 years-dead was alive, that LV was 'back' and that DD wanted to regroup, I'd have signed up in a second....NOT. How many times have we heard convicts - and their familes/friends - claim they are innocent? I'd have thought they were under a confundus charm. Susana said: "I don't have time to find a quote but I recall something about Arthur knowing what an idiot Fudge is and only staying at the MoM because he loves his job. I'm sure the MoM employees all know the character quite well and have no big problem believing his not handling the situation the best way." DuffyPoo "He knows what Fudge is. It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride." This came after DD accused Fudge of being "blinded by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius! You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-called purity of blood! You fail to recognize it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" Arthur believed Fudge, beyond any doubt, when he said Sirius broke out of Azkaban to kill Harry. Ron didn't talk about Sirius at home, obviously, from Molly's reaction in the Hospital wing when Sirius transformed. She still believes he is guilty, at that point. Just an aside to this, in PoA Ron said "Get away from me, werewolf!" obviously showing his prejudice against the breed. Just how much convincing did DD have to do during his meeting with Molly? I am quite sure there are more employees at the Ministry that believe Fudge than believe Dumbledore. Percy, Madam Edgecombe, Dolores Umbridge, Dawlish, Williamson, and those who went with Umbridge to give Hagrid his Order of Dismissal. Dawlish was one but there were three others. "You see the problem," said Lupin. "While the Ministry insisits there is nothing to fear from Voldemort it's hard to convince people he's back, especially as they really don't want to believe it in the first place. What's more, the Ministry's leaning heavily on the Daily Prophet not to report any of what they're calling Dumbldore's rumour-mongering, so most of the wizarding community are completely unaware anything's happened." "Tonks and Arthur [and Kingsley] would lose their jobs at the Ministry if they started shooting their mouths off," said Sirius, "and it's very important for us to have spies inside the Ministry, because you can bet Voldemort will have them." Susana said: <> DuffyPoo: You're fogetting the first half of that quote: "We believe Harry. My gran's always said You-Know-Who would come back one day." Mrs. Longbottom would have believed it no matter who said it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 09:24:47 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:24:47 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20040912115658.01786d80@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112813 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lissa Hess wrote: > M.E.: > > My daughter is reading POA for the upteenth time and asked me this > question. In chapter 19 it says, "gowled Black, his own wand > pointing at Pettigrew, too..." > From where did he get "his own wand"? > > Lissa: > > I'm pretty sure you're right about POA- Sirius is using Snape's wand in the > Shrieking Shack. I think there the "his own wand" bit is just referring to > the wand in his hand, not that it's the wand he owns. Finwitch: I'd say so, yes. For now, anyway. My theories for Sirius' wand in OOP go as follows: 1. Sirius MADE one himself (as one of the brightest students, why not? Sure, Ollivander is more experienced, but he's not the ONLY ONE able to make wands. Just look at Krum, or better yet, Fleur Delacour! Who do you think made *her* wand?) during his stay with Buckbeak in a place with exotic birds. 2. It was his mothers'. Kreacher stored it, and Sirius simply took it to use. (I would, in his place!) 3. He didn't have his wand with him when he chased Pettigrew. He had, unfortunately?, left it in the saddlepack of his motor cycle - which he lent to Hagrid, so Harry would be safe... Ministry would have assumed that PP's wand was Sirius' (So the Priori Incantatem wouldn't have set him free!) and that PP's wand had exploded along with the rest of his body... Finwitch From patientx3 at aol.com Mon Sep 13 09:59:11 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:59:11 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040913035458.64680.qmail@web80309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112814 Totorivers wrote: >>Values? Where are the values on going against a group that should not be illegal, learing lessons that a normal teacher would have taught them...<< HunterGreen previously: >The fact is that it WAS illegal. [snip] In this case, the rule is >arbitrary and stupid, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE sees it >that way. Theotokos replied: >>Isn't that also a bit like the "Black List" in Hollywood during the 50's and the Red Scare? People being asked to turn in others as Communists? How fondly do we look on those who followed the law and turned in names? I, for one, look more favorably on those who refused to cooperate with such tactics.<< HunterGreen: It depends on how you look at it. The people that turned in "communists" in out of fear and selfish self-preservation are one thing, but what about someone who honestly was afraid of the 'domino effect' that was the crux of the communist paranoia, and honestly believed (or knew) that someone was a communist and was actively seeking to recruit others? Would that person be good or bad in turning the suspected communist in? (without the benefit of hindsight). For example, in PS/SS Harry, Ron and Hermione truly believed that Snape was evil and after the stone. They looked at all the evidence they had and came to that very strong, and very incorrect conclusion. What if the stone *had* been stolen, and after the fact it wasn't obvious that Quirrel was responsible, and they told someone besides Dumbledore their theory about Snape. Well, some of the evidence (coupled with Snape's DE history) could add up and could get Snape in trouble. Fortunately they found out they were wrong without it getting to that level, but its not an everlasting character flaw that they came to a wrong conclusion once (nor is is in the case of Sirius and everyone who believed he was a traitor and a murderer). If Marietta truly believes that Harry is a liar and is trying to create instability in the Wizarding World by spreading lies and she knows about him leading other students (like he is in the DA), then she would be wrong to not tell about it, or at least confront him about it (if that's what she really believes). (btw, I don't agree with Marietta at all, but its hard to call her immoral or with weak character without knowing the *reasons* behind her actions). HunterGreen previously: >I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate *her* values.< Theotokos replied: >>Nor did what Hermione did violate hers.<< HunterGreen: And what does that say about her values? From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Sun Sep 12 23:47:10 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:47:10 -0000 Subject: "Redemptive pattern" for Snape (was Re: Harry dies sort of.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112815 > Alla: > > Sorry, I am still confused. I would be the first one to say that IMO > Snape was not a victim throughout his wars with Marauders and could > dish it out quite well, but don't you think judging by Pensieve > scene that Snape has quite a lot to blame James and Sirius for? > > Now, if you would say for example that Snape blames Marauders for > him becoming DE and back it up, then yes, I would agree with you. > > Right now I don't understand your argument, sorry. > > I can see quite a lot of Snape undeservingly blaming Harry for > James' mistakes, but that is about it, frankly. Ok, i'll better explain myself... I have the impression that Snape is trying to makes what James and Sirius Did look on par to what he himself did (and yes i see the DE as attacking children, not just the parents....DE raid after all, father coming back to see their family killed or mad...). I see Part of Snape's hate on them as a need to blame them for what he did, as if he was innocent... Toto From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 06:29:06 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:29:06 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112816 > HunterGreen: > I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate > *her* values. If Umbridge found out about the group on her own, > Marietta would have been expelled along with them, even though she > didn't necessarily follow the anti-Umbridge idealogy. And unlike > Harry or the Weasleys, she didn't have a family who would understand > why she was in a group like that. I'm sure her mother would be > horrified, and may have already asked her if she knew anything about > it (or spoke about it in front of her, assuming that she would NEVER > be in a group like that). Any mother would be horrified. As i said before, being expelled in the WW means not being *part* of the WW any longer.... and hse decidedthat on her own that it was better to make fall others than to have a risk for herself. Where are the *values* on that? You are saying that she sided with the *ministry* when she knew that the ministry changed the rules just to get to certain people... passive complicity of abuse is already bad enough, but collaboration with a rotten system for no reason but to alleviate one fear? What she did *was* like wormtail...and who said wormtail did anything wrong from his point of views? People are good to convince themselves.... Toto From patientx3 at aol.com Mon Sep 13 10:23:19 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:23:19 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112817 HunterGreen previously: > I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate > *her* values. If Umbridge found out about the group on her own, > Marietta would have been expelled along with them, even though she > didn't necessarily follow the anti-Umbridge idealogy. And unlike > Harry or the Weasleys, she didn't have a family who would understand > why she was in a group like that. I'm sure her mother would be > horrified, and may have already asked her if she knew anything about > it (or spoke about it in front of her, assuming that she would NEVER > be in a group like that). Toto replied: >>Any mother would be horrified. As i said before, being expelled in the WW means not being *part* of the WW any longer.... and hse decidedthat on her own that it was better to make fall others than to have a risk for herself.<< HunterGreen: Why should she risk herself for something she doesn't even believe in? Its not like Cho, or Luna or Ginny going to Umbridge to save themself, because all of them believed that Voldemort was back, all of them didn't think of Harry as a liar. We don't know that Marietta believed him, and chances are, she didn't. Perhaps she thought the threat of expulsion was an idle threat, Cho certainly doesn't seem to be mad at her (which you think she would have if Marietta had almost got her expelled as well). Or maybe she thought only *Harry* would get in trouble. (btw, do we know for sure that expulsion *always* means the wand gets snapped in half? I know it worked that way for Hagrid, but he had also been implicated in being responsible for a girl's death). Toto: >> Where are the *values* on that? You are saying that she sided with the *ministry* when she knew that the ministry changed the rules just to get to certain people... passive complicity of abuse is already bad enough, but collaboration with a rotten system for no reason but to alleviate one fear? << HunterGreen: She followed through (eventually), with what she believed in, if what she believed in was that Harry was a liar and was spreading rumors (very dangerous rumors, in fact). Its showing strength of character, even though it was definitely misguided and a bad decision. Those who believe in the Ministry probably don't see it as "rotten", they probably see it as reacting exteremly to extreme factions. Lets say, for sake of argument, Harry and Dumbledore had indeed been lying, that would be a very horrible thing to do, and very dangerous if it was an attempt to take over the Ministry. So for those who believe that Harry is a liar, they might understand the methods the Ministry is using. Toto: >> What she did *was* like wormtail...and who said wormtail did anything wrong from his point of views? People are good to convince themselves....<< HunterGreen: Well, Wormtail was certainly ashamed of himself, and admitted he did it out of fear, and not much else (other, than say, doing it because he believed that Voldemort had the right idea, and he WANTED the Potters killed). Wormtail freely joined a group that was aiming to get rid of Voldemort. Marietta joined a DADA study group, which later became an illegal DADA study group, who's members were all against Umbridge. Wormtail was approached by Voldemort or a DE at some point and pressured for information, which he gave because he was afraid of being killed. Marietta, for reasons unknown, willingly went to Umbridge to tell her the meetings were taking place. What the two of them did was completely different. From patientx3 at aol.com Mon Sep 13 10:37:25 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:37:25 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112818 Rob: >>Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes LV? I figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of his powers seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics often has to sacrifice something for the people's benefit.<< HunterGreen: That's something that has been discussed a lot in the past (although I can't think of any good threads on it). Personally, I would rather Harry die in the end than lose his powers. I just can't see him being able to have a happy life if he had to return to being pretty much a muggle again. However, though, in order for his powers to be from Voldemort, that would mean he was a squib before he was attacked at 18mos. Considering how rare squibs are (and that both his parents were rather powerful wizards), I'd say that's very unlikely (although an interesting theory). From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 10:52:00 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:52:00 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redlena_web" > > I have always thought that there must be other wizard tracks/platforms in between the > other Muggle ones. But I have never expected them to be brought into the Harry Potter > stories. I just envision them there as part of the complete world. Finwitch: As have I. Further, my envision is that wizards use fractions (rationals, but not the socalled natural, whole numbers) for their travels within the same world. I think it's possible (at least after Nicolas Flamel came up with the Philosopher's Stone) that wizards managed to travel into other Worlds - and simply use an irrational Platform to get there! Like Pi, or Square-root of 2... There COULD be some imaginary figures, too... And I agree that Molly asking Ginny the platform number is merely checking whether Ginny knows it right! Particularly if Fred&George had messed up the numbers as a joke! (and I think they would have, too - just because their mother repeats the same thing every year, and has, ever since Bill went to Hogwarts!) Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Sep 13 11:14:24 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:14:24 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family In-Reply-To: <002301c49968$5c43c410$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > DuffyPoo: > IMO (for what it's worth) the blood connection charm that DD used was with Lily/Petunia because she was the only living relative HP had. If Alice were James' sister, there would have been a choice for DD to place HP. There was not. Hickengruendler: I disagree. Dumbledore made it clear, that Harry is safe at the Dursleys because that's the place where his mother's blood dwells. It was Lily's sacrifice that saved them, and Dumbledore said, that because of this sacrifice Harry is safe at the Dursleys. That has nothing to do with James. However, I am sure Alice is not James' sister. You would think, that somebody would have told Harry, that Neville is his cousin (and therefore a decent relative, who is alive) by now. Or that somebody would have told Harry, that his aunt is living in St. Mungo's Hospital. On the other hand, I do think it is possible that they are distant relatives, the same way the Blacks and the Weasleys are. Sirius said, that all the pure-blood families are related, and yet he mentioned neither the Potters nor the Longbottoms as being related to the Black family (while he did mention the Weasleys, although they were not on the tapestry). Maybe the Potters and the Longbottoms were part of another "wizard family tree", which isn't closely related with the Weasley/Malfoy/Black side. The closest relationship between Alice and James I can see is, that they were cousins. In this case, Harry isn't that closely related to either Alice or Neville, that somebody should have told him by now. But it still were a close enough relatinship, that it would somehow matter to Harry. Hickengruendler From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 11:39:15 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:39:15 -0000 Subject: "Slytherin" Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112821 > > HunterGreen: > > Having Slytherin traits is not a bad thing though. Her being > > ambitious is what leads her to do so well in school, disregarding the rules helped Harry get to the stone (among other things), and using any means to achieve her ends saved Harry from being Crucio-ed by Umbridge. All very helpful. Totorivers: > Huntergreen, I see an enormous difference between *having > ambitions* and *being* ambitious... Slytherin are often the later, > meaning they want power for power (or because they are afraid of > others, like the wimp), but having an ambition, if it is incased in strict morals, is ok (Percy's case does not have the morals). Potioncat: I finally see the problem. It's the word ambition/ambitious itself. My dictionary says that the word ambition/ambitious can be used in either an approving or disapproving way. I think many of us see it only as one or the other. It remains to be seen whether Slytherins as a group use their ambition poorly. But at any rate, I think several Gryffindors have an ambitious streak! (In the positive sense.) From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Mon Sep 13 13:00:19 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:00:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Platform 9 and 3/4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <414599E3.50007@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112822 Finwitch: > And I agree that Molly asking Ginny the platform number is merely > checking whether Ginny knows it right! Particularly if Fred&George > had messed up the numbers as a joke! (and I think they would have, > too - just because their mother repeats the same thing every year, > and has, ever since Bill went to Hogwarts!) > > Finwitch > I don't have any problem with Molly asking her children which platform number. Women of a certain age, like Molly and I, frequently have memory lapses, and can't immediately recall information which we have known all our lives. Molly must have been stressed trying to get all those children and their luggage up to muggle London on time to catch the train, and her mind just went blank when she tried to recall which platform to head for. Happens to me all the time ;-) digger From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 13:50:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:50:45 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112823 > HunterGreen: > I don't see it as an act of war though. Was it up to Hermione to > attack those who didn't believe that Voldemort was back? Essentially this is what it comes down to. Marietta joined the group to learn defensive spells, thats it. The group became like an anti-Umbridge group, but that was not something that she believed in or was comfortable with. Potioncat: >From Chapter 16 of OoP (US): p339 Hermione says"-- that it might be good if people who wanted to study DADA--and I mean, really study it, you know, not the rubbish that Umbridge is doing with us--" Michael Corner suggests it is to pass OWLs and Hermione agrees, but goes on to say, "But I wnat more than that, I want to be properly trained in Defense because...because" she took a great breath and finished, "Because Lord Voldemort's back." OK, she's made it clear this group does not approve of Umbridge. This group is preparing for LV by training in DADA. There is several times that the anti Umbridge views are spoken and defended. And again on page 344 Hermione says, "...we're talking about learning to defend ourselves against V- Voldemort's Death Eaters--" So the real reason for the group is made clear. The danger of getting caught is made clear. Promising not to tell is clear. And although they weren't warned, Marietta wasn't targeted. Anyone who told would have discovered SNEAK on his or her face. So yes, this was cunning, but it was justified. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Sep 13 14:35:56 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:35:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: >snip > especially when Voldemort attempted to possess him in the Ministry, > where the pain became so intense that Harry wished he were dead. It > sounds like something was being ripped out from inside of Harry to > the point were he wished he were dead because there could be no > greater pain. Voldemort himself describes this same type of > feeling "pain beyond pain" and also being ripped from his body when > his own being was split. Kneasy: Nicely observed - should have seen it myself, but didn't. There do seem to be parallels between what Voldy says he suffered at Godric's Hollow and what Harry felt in the Ministry. And since the Ministry was an attempted/partially successful possession it does add a little credence to the theory that at GH there was an attempted possession that back-fired. If this theory is correct then JKR will somehow have to explain why Voldy didn't get his missing bits back during the Ministry possession. Or maybe he did. There's been no chance to test Harry for Voldy sensitivity/allergy since then. As a bonus (for Harry) Voldy would probably find it more difficult to access Harry's mind from a distance if he has retrieved them, thus obviating the need for further Occlumancy lessons (anyone wondered why there's been no mention of resuming them?) Hmm. A less vulnerable Harry. Not sure I totally approve of that. It cuts out an awful lot of very interesting plot possibilities. Bad news for an habitual theoriser. > Snow: > Is it all that amazing that both Harry and Voldemort describe this > same pain so similarly and yet reacts so very differently? Harry not > fearing death says, "Just let us die" whereas Voldemort does not beg > for such an end to his suffering. Voldemort fears death, Harry > doesn't. It is the one who has no fear, of even a name, that will > live. > Kneasy: A couple of us (Lyn again) have brooded about this off-site. Voldy fears death, seeks immortality. Harry accepts, almost embraces the thought of death, in this particular instance, anyway. Can this be the something that Harry has so much of that DD keeps mumbling on about? Superficially it looks like a good idea - acceptance of mortality, not fearing death, submission to an irresistible force of nature. Then DD goes and cocks it up for us, he whitters on about the room in the Ministry that contains a "force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." They've probably got a mobile phone in there, that'd match the description - certainly the "more terrible than death" bit. I did suggest at one time that it might be Life or Life-force in that room. Harry can be considered a life-affirming character and Voldy, despite his quest for immortality, just the opposite. Of course many insist that it's Love, even though love can have some pretty nasty and destructive aspects. T'ain't always hearts and flowers; it can be possessive, stifling, damaging and of course it is possible to love inappropriately - evil or power for instance. Or maybe it's just my jaundiced view of the world. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 14:37:29 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913143729.4052.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112825 >> Magda: >> It ignores Snape's iron morality with his exquisitely honed >> sense of fairness. > > > Alla: > > Not that I really disagree that Snape did not know about Sirius' > innocence in the Shack (I would not give it 100%, but 90% probably > yes), but I am interested what do we know about Snape's iron > morality with "sense of FAIRNESS". > > So far I can give you many examples of Snape being UNFAIR to > children and adults around him and cannot think of one example of > him being fair. This is going to be fast because I'm at the office and people here have this unreasonable idea that I'm supposed to work while I'm here. There are many examples of Snape being unfair to the Trio and Neville: let's look at PS/SS because that's where we first encounter Snape and the kids. He takes points off for no reasonable reason and he rides Harry quite hard. And in the immediate present, it's unfair. But when we get to the end of POA, Snape is talking to Fudge and tells him that he always tries to treat Harry like a regular student because what Fudge called everyone having a "soft spot" for Harry wasn't good for him. So while the kids perceive unfairness at the immediate day-to-day level, Snape feels that he's being fair at a more removed over-the-course-of-year level because he's got to compensate for all the breaks the other teachers and Dumbledore give Harry that makes him think he's special and different from the other kids. (And we can take it for granted that Snape derives a great deal of personal pleasure out of this self-imposed task.) I don't think there's any reason to believe that Snape is lying when he's talking to Fudge. Re-reading the earlier books with his explanation in mind, Snape's actions do make sense, even if he's wrong about Harry's character and his pre-Hogwarts childhood. Snape views himself as a man who's taking on an important job because no one else is doing it - and the fact that he enjoys it is just extra froth on the potion. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 13 14:47:46 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:47:46 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112826 There are several ethical issues raised by Hermione's actions and they need to be considered separately. To justify them all by saying that Marietta was a snitch and deserved to be punished is to make the ends justify the means. In that case, the question is not whether Hermione is a Slytherin but whether we are ;-) ... which is better discussed on OT-Chatter. Tonks_op > Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347)< Pippin: It isn't a contract unless the parties involved agree to *all* the provisions. The students did not agree to be hexed if they violated the agreement, any more than Harry agreed to be hexed if he failed to teach defensive skills. The students did agree that Harry should teach them, and you could argue that they were giving *Harry* the authority to punish them, since those with authority over students in the WW have the right to discipline them, and even to disfigure them. (Umbridge aside, we are told that Arthur still has the marks of a beating he received for violating curfew.) If so, then Hermione usurped Harry's power and only got his consent after the fact. That is an abuse of power similar to that of one Dolores Umbridge, and I think the use of a mutilating punishment deliberately emphasizes the similarity. Hermione is on a rather slippery slope. I don't believe Hermione is a Slytherin--if you asked her whether you should use any means to achieve your ends she'd say no. But she has a tendency to assume that because she is a good person, any means which does not cause her conscience to revolt is okay-- and some fans may make that mistake along with her. But Dumbledore's analysis of his failure with Harry shows us the limits of relying on your internalized sense of values. Tonks_op > > But lets look at the lesson here: > What might be a motive for the author to not punish Hermione? The motive might be that JKR doesn't want to punish Hermione *yet*. For example, Harry tells lies beginning in Book One, but only in GoF do we begin to see the negative consequences -- Ron won't believe that Harry is telling the truth about the Goblet, and Harry realizes that he is letting Hagrid down by letting him think he is working hard to solve the egg clue. Dumbledore withholds information from Harry for five books before we find out that it was a mistake for him to do so. Hermione's attempt to trick the House Elves into freedom and her assumption that the Centaurs would fall in with her plan to deal with Umbridge are other examples that show how her internal sense of values sometimes leads her astray. This struggle is part of Hermione's continuing development, and we shouldn't expect it to be resolved instantly. Rowling's magic formula for deciding between your internal sense of values and others' would seem to be, go with the choice that is more difficult. But first you have to be aware that there is a choice--Hermione simply assumes that where her values conflict with others', it's the others who are wrong, not her. Pippin From ms_melanie1999 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 15:23:41 2004 From: ms_melanie1999 at yahoo.com (Miss Melanie) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: <002701c49972$a577cd70$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20040913152341.6395.qmail@web53404.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112827 DuffyPoo wrote: "*You* are to alert Remus Lupin, Arabella FIgg, Mundungus Fletcher -- the old crowd. Lie low at Lupin's for a while, I will contact you there." (GoF) Doesn't say anything about Lupin and Sirius getting in touch with the 'old crowd' together. "I might add that werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind that his support will count for very little." (PoA) Just because DD and Sirius trust Lupin doesn't mean all of the 'old crowd' did as well. If a werewolf and a convicted murderer/escapee showed up at my door claiming the murderer was innocent, the 14 years-dead was alive, that LV was 'back' and that DD wanted to regroup, I'd have signed up in a second....NOT. How many times have we heard convicts - and their familes/friends - claim they are innocent? I'd have thought they were under a confundus charm. My reply: That's very true. I think a part of these people always wanted to believe that Sirius was innocent. Actually, I always thought that the wizarding world was all too easy to convict Sirius of this, I mean it just seems odd that more people didn't stand up and try to get him to trial. Maybe it was just the horror that somebody in the inner-circle, even if it wasn't Sirius, betrayed them. That is a very scary thought. I will say this though I see no real reason why three 14 year olds would lie about it. You can say all you want, but to accuse Harry whose best friends are a muggle born and a Weasley of aiding in an effort to bring Voldemort back to power seems a bit sketchy. ~Melanie --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 15:25:01 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913152501.16815.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112828 --- pippin_999 wrote: > But first you have to be aware that > there is a choice--Hermione simply assumes that where her > values conflict with others', it's the others who are wrong, not > her. > > Pippin Well, I don't think she's that thoughtless. In a way, she's in the same boat as Harry. Harry charges into dangerous places to do that saving-people-thing because he's used to doing it and his experience gives him little reason to trust adults (and in OOTP all the sympathetic adults were off-site at the climax). Hermione takes charge on the values front because she's spent five books coming up with sound, practical ideas and being the values-guru of the Trio. She's conditioned to follow her own ethical instincts by this time. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From steve at hp-lexicon.org Mon Sep 13 16:05:00 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:05:00 -0000 Subject: The Age of Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Despite all Lexicon timelines, I insist on continuing to believe that > Sirius and his year-mates were born in the 1957-1958 year (because I > was, November '57) and therefore were Hogwarts class of '76. I > absolutely totally see Sirius devoted to Led Zeppelin, bouncing around > playing air guitar to their recordings. Lupin maybe liked Steeleye > Span or Fairport Convention... Rita, I'm with you. And I wrote the timelines. You're a mere one month older than I am, and I can definitely see Sirius et al out at the wizarding equivelent of a kegger in a sand pit or getting a bit weird on second hand smoke at a Boston concert. I was there. I think I saw him. Alternatively, I wonder if Rowling isn't subconciously making Sirius, James, Lily, etc. her own age. It would pretty much work out exactly from what she said. She said that Snape was 35 or 36 in the summer of 2000, if I'm not mistaken. That would make him about 40 now, which is what she is. Must have been Regulus I saw at that Boston concert. Steve From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 16:09:43 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:09:43 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?"Redemptive_pattern"_for_Snape_(was_Re:_Harry_dies_=E2=80=93_sort_of.)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112830 > K wrote, quoting a JKR interview: > > > > INTERVIEWER: 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. > Toto wrote > It is kind of fun to see it could mean everything from *Snape does > everything for redemption* (would be a bit weird from canon) to > *Snape is too selfish and drowing into his own misery to even want > redemption, and he does everything for power :/ .... But we'll see > (just hopes it hasn't anything to do with lollilop, though it's > fairly safe :) ).... > Potioncat: I'd like to point out that many on this group read this differently (surprised?) It appears that the Interviewer interrupted with a comment that JKR may or may not have responded to, but she clearly goes back to the original question about love (snipped in this post, but available up-thread.) Potioncat...who now has the song from Love Actually running around in her head. From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 16:12:56 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:12:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: <002701c49972$a577cd70$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112831 DuffyPoo: > "*You* are to alert Remus Lupin, Arabella FIgg, Mundungus Fletcher -- the old crowd. Lie low at Lupin's for a while, I will contact you there." (GoF) Doesn't say anything about Lupin and Sirius getting in touch with the 'old crowd' together. "I might add that werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind that his support will count for very little." (PoA) Just because DD and Sirius trust Lupin doesn't mean all of the 'old crowd' did as well.< KathyK: Dumbledore doesn't specifically state that Sirius must do this alerting on his own. And I think it would abysmally stupid of Sirius to try and do it alone. You're right that it would be nearly impossible to convince people he's not a murderer and traitor. I have no doubt Lupin helped him out. As far as the statements about the untrustworthiness of Werewolves go, most of the people in the old crowd would have known Lupin back then. Even if they didn't particularly like werewolves (though I have seen no evidence that any of the Order holds something against him for his lycanthropy) they know Dumbledore trusted him. On the subject of alerting the old crowd. Do we think the first Order simply dissolved overnight when Voldemort disappeared? Don't you think they would have entertained the possibility that he would be back? That they might one day get news from Dumbledore they needed to reform? Add this to the strange goings ons in the WW in Harry's fourth year-the Dark Mark at the QWC, the disappearance of both Bertha Jorkins and Crouch Sr.-and I don't think they'd be so quick to dismiss Lupin's word (because he'd *have* to be the one doing the initial explaning, I think...unless Dumbledore has spent the time in GoF contacting his trusted friends and giving them the real scoop on Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew). As far as convincing the newbies like Tonks and Kingsley, look at what Dumbledore says when he sends Bill to Arthur at the end of GoF: "All those that we can persuade of the truth must be notified immediately, and he is well placed to contatct those at the Ministry who are not as shortsighted as Cornelius." (GoF Ch 36, US ed. pg 711) So convincing them wasn't all up to a werewolf and a murderer. And I agree with Susana: Dumbledore's word counts for a lot. DuffyPoo: > I am quite sure there are more employees at the Ministry that believe Fudge than believe Dumbledore. Percy, Madam Edgecombe, Dolores Umbridge, Dawlish, Williamson, and those who went with Umbridge to give Hagrid his Order of Dismissal. Dawlish was one but there were three others.< KathyK: Agreed. But see the above quote from Goblet of Fire. Not all Ministry officials blindly follow Fudge and Dumbledore seems to know Mr. Weasley will be able to convince a few. If you even look at Harry's hearing before the Wizengamot you'll see that while there were quite a few witches and wizards who clearly didin't want Dumbledore meddling in the hearing (their expressions are described as 'annoyed') there are some in that body he was expelled from that still are friendly with him- "two elderly witches in the back row, however, raised their hands and waved in welcome." (OoP Ch 8, US ed. pg 139) I'm guessing but cannot say for certain that one of these witches was Griselda Marchbanks, as she said when she resigned from the Wizengamot over Umbridge's appointment to High Inquisitor, "This is a further disgusting attempt to discredit Albus Dumbledore." (OoP Ch 15, US ed. pg 308) Clearly not everyone in the Ministry thinks and does what Cornelius Fudge wants them to. Susana said: >>Last but not least, Neville said (not an exact quote): "My grandmother said that if DD says his back, then his back."<< DuffyPoo: > You're fogetting the first half of that quote: "We believe Harry. My gran's always said You-Know-Who would come back one day." Mrs. Longbottom would have believed it no matter who said it. KathyK: And Neville's not the only one who said such things. Ernie Macmillan: "I want you to know, Potter," he said in a loud, carrying voice, "that it's not only weirdos who support you. I personally believe you one hundred percent. My family has always stood firm behind Dumbledore, and so do I." (OoP Ch 13, US ed. pg 262) I really don't think it's that unbelieveable that the Order would so quickly accept that Voldemort is back and that there are people in the Ministry who would take Dumbledore's or Harry's or Arthur's or Lupin's word for it. KathyK From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 16:16:11 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:16:11 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112832 > > > totorivers > > Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*,and have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. > > > Hannah: He has no problem *threatening* to hand a man to the > dementor's kiss. When he has the chance to do so, he doesn't. And > the man (Sirius) had been condemned to that punishment by the law, > for crimes he had (allegedly) committed. Snape may not have known > he was innocent of those crimes at this point. > Potioncat: You know all those parallel situations that we respond to differently depending on who does what? One just jumped out at me: James threatens to pull off Severus' pants...we don't know if he did or not. Snape knows, as do Black and Lupin. Snape threatend to hand Black over to the dementors. We don't know if he really intended to, but we do know he doesn't. Where did I put that Pensieve? Potioncat From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 16:20:50 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:20:50 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112833 totorivers: > Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown > himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*, and > have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. > Rowling also declared that Snape was a true DE for a time, meaning > that he tortured/raped children, and he probably enjoyed it SSSusan: WHAT? How do you know this is what DEs do? How do you know which DE activities Snape participated in and which he did not? It's *canon* that many of the DEs were kept in the dark about who other DEs were and/or what they were doing. I *suspect* [can't yet know] that Snape did participate fully in some kind of DE ugliness, but there's no way you can state that he *did* do these things quite so assuredly. totorivers: > I have trouble as envisioning such a man as *moral*. SSSusan: Again, there is much we do not know about Professor Snape. Yet, what about Snape's decision to save Harry during the Quidditch match in SS/PS? He could have played dumb about what was going on, he could have sneered and said "Que sera, sera." But he didn't. He intervened, in order to save Harry's life. Was that not a "moral" decision? What about accepting the burden of turning to & sticking with DD & The Order at "great personal risk"? Is that not "moral"? I know that many posters here fully expect to find out that Snape never did anything except as it fit into his own agenda. I don't believe that fully, though we can't be sure. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 16:39:28 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:39:28 -0000 Subject: Morality-Ethics-Values In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112834 Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > SSSusan wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112389 : > > << Is JKR's model so recognizably a '50s system that we should all > just be *assuming* that the moral/ethical considerations are being > handled at home? >> > > It seems quite clear that different homes are teaching different > moralities/ethics. Homes which teach equal rights for all magic- > using humans versus those which teach the greater rights of > purebloods. Homes which stress the importance of good sportsmanship > (like Cedric wanting to replay the match he won because Harry was > affected by the Dementors) versus those which stress the importance > of winning, and perhaps instruct their children in different means > of cheating. And one presumes that there are some who emphasize > obedience to the official authorities versus those who emphasize > following one's conscience. > > So if Hogwarts did have some kind of class in Ethics, called > Religious Instruction or Civic Hygiene or Reading the Socratic > Dialogues, there would be endless complaints from parents that DD > was trying to brainwash their children against their parents' > values. SSSusan: I guess my question to this would be, "So?" :-) I mean, as was pointed out during the discussion of this topic, more of the burden for this type of instruction IS being passed onto the schools, both in the US and the UK. Whenever morality, ethics, "Character Education" or [gotta love this] "Civic Hygiene"(!) are included in a school's curriculum, lessons are likely to go against SOME parents' teaching. But if schools are expected to do it, that's part of what will happen. And would that be more true for Hogwarts than for any other school? Actually my question concerning this was, "Is Hogwarts based *enough* upon the '50s system--when this instruction apparently WASN'T typically part of a school's function--that we readers are to assume no such instruction in morality & ethics would be expected at Hogwarts? In other words, my question isn't, "Would the parents stand for it, given that their views of what's moral would vary?" Rather, it's "Would the entire culture of Hogwarts--students, staff, parents--feel that it's unnecessary because this aspect of a child's development is always 'handled at home'?" Hoping I'm making sense, but suspecting that I'm not. 'Tis Monday, you know. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 16:46:57 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:57 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112835 Rob: >>Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes LV? I figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of his powers seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics often has to sacrifice something for the people's benefit.<< HunterGreen: > That's something that has been discussed a lot in the past > (although I can't think of any good threads on it). Personally, I > would rather Harry die in the end than lose his powers. I just > can't see him being able to have a happy life if he had to return > to being pretty much a muggle again. SSSusan: Actually, for what it's worth, I have posted on this topic that I could see both Harry losing his powers **and** his being content (though perhaps not right away). The reason I say this is twofold: 1) There would be no reason to assume he couldn't still RESIDE in the WW. With friends and "family" like the Weasleys around, he could still live amongst them, even if there were things he could no longer do the same way they do. 2) The burden of being the WW's savior would be completely REMOVED from him. After all, even The Boy Who Lived couldn't be expected to take on the next Evil Overlord who arises, if he no longer possesses any magical power! This, imho, would make Harry more content because a lot of the heartache he's had to face has been related to the burden he's felt he HAD to bear as "the one" who could do it all. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 16:57:31 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:57:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112836 Snow: > > Is it all that amazing that both Harry and Voldemort describe > > this same pain so similarly and yet reacts so very differently? > > Harry not fearing death says, "Just let us die" whereas Voldemort > > does not beg for such an end to his suffering. Voldemort fears > > death, Harry doesn't. It is the one who has no fear, of even a > > name, that will live. Kneasy: > Voldy fears death, seeks immortality. > Harry accepts, almost embraces the thought of death, in this > particular instance, anyway. > Can this be the something that Harry has so much of that DD keeps > mumbling on about? > Superficially it looks like a good idea - acceptance of mortality, > not fearing death, submission to an irresistible force of nature. > Then DD goes and cocks it up for us, he whitters on about the room > in the Ministry that contains a "force that is at once more > wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, > than the forces of nature." They've probably got a mobile phone in > there, that'd match the description - certainly the "more terrible > than death" bit. > > I did suggest at one time that it might be Life or Life-force in > that room. Harry can be considered a life-affirming character and > Voldy, despite his quest for immortality, just the opposite. Of > course many insist that it's Love, even though love can have some > pretty nasty and destructive aspects. T'ain't always hearts and > flowers; it can be possessive, stifling, damaging and of course it > is possible to love inappropriately - evil or power for instance. > Or maybe it's just my jaundiced view of the world. SSSusan: And with that segue, SSSusan begins yet again, with her spiel on Sacrificial Love. [Some are sure to be running for cover just now.] Plain Old Love, as it were, can definitely include or involve those kinds of damaging, stiffling side-effects Kneasy has cited. Yet it seems to me that Sacrificial Love - or a willingness to die out of love for others - doesn't include the more negative side-trappings of Plain Old Love *and* has the bonus that it deals with this willingness to die that Harry seems to have. Voldy doesn't have it - he wants to live forever - and so he would NEVER consider sacrificing himself, for love or any other motive. So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries. Siriusly Snapey Susan From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 13 17:16:14 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:16:14 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP's powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112837 SSSusan said: >1) There would be no reason to assume he couldn't still RESIDE in the >WW. With friends and "family" like the Weasleys around, he could >still live amongst them, even if there were things he could no longer >do the same way they do. I've got just one word for you: Quidditch. Harry might be able to live in the WW as the equivalent of a Squib (although it would be inconvenient; he couldn't, for example, travel very easily since he couldn't use the Floo Network -- do Portkeys work on Squbs? What about Muggles?). He could visit places like Diagon Alley in the company of wizards (Hermione's parents did). I'm not sure about Hogwarts -- clearly Filch can, and Mrs. Figg goes to the Ministry, so probably. But if he lost his powers, he couldn't fly on a broomstick, and he couldn't play Quidditch. Every time he's been unable to play Quidditch, for any reason, he's been miserable. From his first experience on a broom, flying was the thing that meant most to him, and Quidditch was the thing he was best at. There are heart-wrenching real-life instances of musicians who do deaf, painters who go blind, and pianists who lose one or both hands. That's what Harry would be, if he lost his powers and stayed in the WW. In my opinion, death would be more merciful. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 17:33:03 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:33:03 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112838 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > You know all those parallel situations that we respond to > differently depending on who does what? One just jumped out at me: > > James threatens to pull off Severus' pants...we don't know if he > did or not. Snape knows, as do Black and Lupin. > > Snape threatend to hand Black over to the dementors. We don't know > if he really intended to, but we do know he doesn't. You know, I hate to post and harp on this *again*, but it's a little more complicated to than 'he threatened to and then he didn't', because of that nasty little conversation that he has with Fudge. You all know the one, where he's talking about DD not making difficulties, and how the Kiss would be administered immediately. This does have bearing on intention--I think he calmed down enough to wake up and take everyone in, but when DD does not oblige, he starts getting all cozy with Fudge--unless you think that Snape is faking that to play with Fudge's mind/Snape is actually DD's agent in all this/the details of MAGIC DISHWASHER. If he is...then why get so furiously upset at the end? I agree that he doesn't do it, and does the right thing, when he wakes up first--but I think there's definitely some malice on the mind *after* the kids wake up in the hospital and he sees that DD is having his doubts. It's, ummm, a slightly flexible attitude towards morality, at times, that our dear Potions Master shows. -Nora, not a believer in ESE!Snape by any means, but just trying to account for *all* the troubling aspects of behavior. From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 17:52:12 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:52:12 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > SSSusan said: > There are heart-wrenching real-life instances of musicians who do deaf, > painters who go blind, and pianists who lose one or both hands. That's > what Harry would be, if he lost his powers and stayed in the WW. In my > opinion, death would be more merciful. Personally I don't believe that Harry would lose his magical powers (if he survives, that is), but I disagree with the above. There are examples in real life such as you describe - Beethoven was completely deaf when he wrote his latest (and best!) pieces (9th symphony, Missa Solemnis, the latest string quartets and piano sonatas). There is this heart wrenching description of him conducting the 9th symphony in its first ever performance, when he was off beat from the orchestra and while the music finished and audience clapping, he was still conducting the last few notes... There was also a pianist who lost his hand in the early 20th century (can't remember his name). The composer Ravel wrote a special piano concerto for the left hand for him, which is still being played today (mostly by 2-handed pianists)... There are examples of athletes and actors who are injured horrendously or get sick and go on to give the world something because of their experience (I am not for a minute suggesting that it's good that they suffer so, only that they manage to make something of their life despite that): Roger Moore who became a paraplegic and is putting a lot of effort into advancing research in overcoming that, or Ronald Reagan whose family (and himself when still capable) advanced research in Alzheimer when he was afflicted). Salit From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 17:53:18 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:53:18 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112840 SSSusan said: > > 1) There would be no reason to assume he couldn't still RESIDE in > > the WW. With friends and "family" like the Weasleys around, he > > could still live amongst them, even if there were things he could > > no longer do the same way they do. Janet: > I've got just one word for you: Quidditch. SSSusan: Ugh. Good point, Janet. I should've thought of that, as those scenes where Harry FLIES are so very joy-filled. It seems an extremely sad thing that one would decide to NOT go on because of this, but you are right that Quidditch & flying have been central in Harry's life since his arrival at Hogwarts. And your comments reminded me of a woman at my church who had hoped to become an opera singer but whose vocal chords sustained some kind of damage along the way and who now finds it difficult just to sing hymns because she can't do so at the "level" which gives her satisfaction. Still. At the risk of raising the ire of folks who'll claim I don't understand depression, I will confess that the church lady's story has always struck me as a trifle self-centered and "uber-tragic." Yes, it's a pity to have to give up a huge dream, but to let its loss ruin your will to go on? Don't most people who've had to abandon a dream find something else which gives them joy or satisfaction? "It does not do to dwell on dreams, Harry, and forget to live." Hmmmm. I wonder if there's anything which could replace flying for a Powerless!Harry? Ooooh--could he still FLY the magical Ford Anglia? I know, I know. Not the same at all. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 13 17:56:20 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:56:20 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112841 Nora: > You know, I hate to post and harp on this *again*, but it's a little > more complicated to than 'he threatened to and then he didn't', > because of that nasty little conversation that he has with Fudge. > You all know the one, where he's talking about DD not making > difficulties, and how the Kiss would be administered immediately. > This does have bearing on intention--I think he calmed down enough to wake up and take everyone in, but when DD does not oblige, he starts getting all cozy with Fudge--unless you think that Snape is faking that to play with Fudge's mind/Snape is actually DD's agent in all this/the details of MAGIC DISHWASHER. If he is...then why get so furiously upset at the end? > > I agree that he doesn't do it, and does the right thing, when he > wakes up first--but I think there's definitely some malice on the > mind *after* the kids wake up in the hospital and he sees that DD is having his doubts. It's, ummm, a slightly flexible attitude towards morality, at times, that our dear Potions Master shows. > > -Nora, not a believer in ESE!Snape by any means, but just trying to > account for *all* the troubling aspects of behavior. Potioncat: I couldn't decide where to snip, so I didn't... Erm, it would be so much easier to stand up for Snape if he wouldn't go off on one of his fits every now and then. Yeah, I can't explain the Hospital scene either. I don't think he was acting, unless he was just keeping an eye on Fudge. But if that was the case, why did he have the fit? I wish we knew what he would have done if he hadn't been expelliarmused into a coma. Would he have taken Lupin and Black back to the castle taunting them the entire way? But that is particularly evil if he expects all along that the two will be given to the Dementors for the kiss. Of course, IMHO, he does really think they were guilty. Just for fun, I'll go out on a limb here and recommend a fanfic by one of our own, Severely Sigune. Take a look at her slant in "The Tunnel". http://www.thedarkarts.org/authors/sigune/T.html In the meantime, I'll look over GoF again...It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 13 18:15:06 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:15:06 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > You know, I hate to post and harp on this *again*, but it's a little > more complicated to than 'he threatened to and then he didn't', > because of that nasty little conversation that he has with Fudge. > You all know the one, where he's talking about DD not making > difficulties, and how the Kiss would be administered immediately. This does have bearing on intention--I think he calmed down enough to wake up and take everyone in, but when DD does not oblige, he starts getting all cozy with Fudge--unless you think that Snape is faking that to play with Fudge's mind/Snape is actually DD's agent in all this/the details of MAGIC DISHWASHER. If he is...then why get so furiously upset at the end? > The conversation between Fudge and Snape that you refer to takes place 10 minutes *before* Harry and Hermione leave the hospital wing. It comes before Snape has had a chance to hear that Dumbledore believes Black's story. The timeline is confusing but look at it this way: Dumbledore has his conversation with Sirius Sirius is freed by TT!Harry and TT!Hermione 11:45 Snape and Fudge are on their way to the hospital wing and are overheard by TT!Harry and TT!Hermione Snape and Fudge arrive at the hospital wing. Dumbledore arrives at the hospital wing and tells Snape Sirius's story matches with what the kids are saying. Fudge says the Dementors should have arrived and he goes to meet them, followed by Snape. 11:55Dumbledore leaves the hospital wing and locks the door. Harry and Hermione use the time-turner TT!Harry and TT!Hermione arrive outside the door. Dumbledore unlocks the door and lets Harry and Hermione back in to the room Dumbledore locks the door again Snape and Fudge arrive to announce Black's escape. Snape is furious afterwards because he believes that Potter has acted on his own. As soon as Dumbledore delivers his coded message that he knows and approves of what Harry has done, Snape calms down, though he's still not happy about it. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 18:43:18 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:43:18 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112843 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > The conversation between Fudge and Snape that you refer to > takes place 10 minutes *before* Harry and Hermione leave the > hospital wing. It comes before Snape has had a chance to hear > that Dumbledore believes Black's story. > > The timeline is confusing but look at it this way: > > Dumbledore has his conversation with Sirius > Sirius is freed by TT!Harry and TT!Hermione > 11:45 Snape and Fudge are on their way to the hospital wing > and are overheard by TT!Harry and TT!Hermione > Snape and Fudge arrive at the hospital wing. > Dumbledore arrives at the hospital wing and tells Snape Sirius's > story matches with what the kids are saying. > Fudge says the Dementors should have arrived and he goes to > meet them, followed by Snape. > 11:55Dumbledore leaves the hospital wing and locks the door. > Harry and Hermione use the time-turner > TT!Harry and TT!Hermione arrive outside the door. > Dumbledore unlocks the door and lets Harry and Hermione back > in to the room > Dumbledore locks the door again > Snape and Fudge arrive to announce Black's escape. > > > Snape is furious afterwards because he believes that Potter has > acted on his own. As soon as Dumbledore delivers his coded > message that he knows and approves of what Harry has done, > Snape calms down, though he's still not happy about it. Well, pooh. That means I would like to go back and rip my chronology out of the archives, because it needs to be corrected--but I see the point, and bow to your nitpickiness. I should go and look over it again, but I am a dedicated avoider of thinking about time-turning. Still doesn't invalidate the veddy interesting question of Snape sucking up to Fudge--it just does make the important shift of putting it *before* Dumbledore's expressions of doubt in the Hospital Wing. I am *not* going to try to think about this right now, though; what's the part I'm not sure about is this: H&H are hiding in the closet when they hear Snape and Fudge going by--is it clear whether this is the two of them coming or going? Because the point of time-turning, the point of origin if you will, is after Dumbledore has cleared out the wing to talk to H&H alone. But I am flying without a net here, on pure recollection, and will check myself later to make sure. Still have to say that Snape expressing to Fudge, at any time in place, a wish that DD isn't going to cause trouble...that still makes me cringe. Whether Snape thought Black was guilty or not. -Nora whacks herself for not having noticed the potential problems all along, and slinks off in shame From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 18:56:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112844 I (Carol) asked: > > Anyone else have thoughts on the meaning of > > "defied three times"? > > Arugala replied: >Quoted Prophecy snipped> > Well, first, do you think the "those" we're talking refurs to: A) > each individual (Lily, James, Frank and Alice) each defing him 3 > times, B) each COUPLE defing him 3 times, C) culmulatively, between > all four of them, they defied him 3 times, D) the entire family (and > maybe including those who they'd just consider family), or E) the > Order of the Phoenix. Carol: I think it means either three times apiece or three times per couple (for example, two for James and one for Lily would count as the Potters defying him three times). Joining the Order would count as two defiances per couple (one per person). Frank's being an auror, possibly meeting one of Voldemort's most important DEs in battle, could easily constitute a third defiance for the Longbottoms. Maybe James, though not an auror, also battled someone or simply refused an invitation to join the DEs. So I'm going with choice B, though JKR may have intended choice A. I don't think it's any of the others. > Then there's Great Uncle Algie, AKA the gloved balcony dangler of > the WW. Nearly drowning Neville, "accidently" dropping him out of > windows--I smell Death Eater. I mean, twice nearly knocking off the > kid who might be the one with the power to destroy Voldemort, who > also appeared to be a squib? Would a DE want a squib in the family? > And he gave Neville that damn toad... > --Arugala, who really does believe Algie is evil, and Trever proves > it. Carol: I don't remember any gloves in the anecdote about Neville being dropped, and I don't see anything sinister in Trevor. (After all, a toad is a standard pet at Hogwarts, on the list of supplies along with cats and owls--just viewed by the kids as out of fashion (not "cool")--a state of affairs that old Algie wouldn't be aware of. He could simply have given Neville the toad as a present to make up for dropping him out the window (which in any case didn't injure him as it would have done to a Muggle child--I don't know about a squib) and doubting his magical abilities. And Uncle Algie also gave Neville a Mimbulus Mimbletonia, which seems to indicate that Algie recognizes Neville's talent for herbology. I see it as a vote of confidence. Clearly, you see things differently. Can you explain why you think that Trevor "proves" (indicates?) that Algie is evil? Carol From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 19:24:51 2004 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mad-Eye Moody's scars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913192451.63060.qmail@web42104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112845 karen_lvssr wrote: Hi everyone, I am fairly new to this group and do not know if this has been discussed. Has anyone an opinion as to why Mad-Eye's wounds/scars are still visible? [serious snippage] akh: Others have weighed in with cogent comments, but I'm going to leap into the fray now. In addition to the suggestions that not all scars can be erased and that his wounds can be a badge of honor, I think we should not underestimate the skills of Madame Pomfrey. Unlike the "school nurses" I had in public school in the Midwest, she appears to be a trained Healer, and we have learned as of OOTP that the profession is selective and requires a high skill level. In the Order, which functions as a rebel Underground, Moody may not have had access to the kind of expertise required to cure him completely. We also see that not all cures are instantaneous. Both Ron and Hermione have spent some time in the Infirmary when we revisit them at the end of OOTP, and Hermione has to take ten potions to complete her cure (p. 747, UK edition). I'm not imagining our buddy Mad-Eye as a "take your meds and rest" kind of guy. I rather see him as a "patch me up as best you can; there's important work to do!" akh, who apologizes for any unintended aspersions cast on registered nurses who work in US public schools --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 19:38:34 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:38:34 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > SSSusan said: > > >1) There would be no reason to assume he couldn't still RESIDE in the > >WW. With friends and "family" like the Weasleys around, he could > >still live amongst them, even if there were things he could no longer > >do the same way they do. > > I've got just one word for you: Quidditch. > > Harry might be able to live in the WW as the equivalent of a Squib (although > it would be inconvenient; he couldn't, for example, travel very easily since > he couldn't use the Floo Network Meri: Why not? If he lost his powers he'd still technically be a wizard, wouldn't he? So why couldn't he use the Floo? I think that would still work as long as his fireplace was properly hooked up. -- do Portkeys work on Squbs? What about > Muggles?). Meri: I think they do. The reason most Portkeys are made to be so disgusting looking is to keep Muggles from picking them up at the wrong times (see Mr. Weasley's explanation of the portkey in GoF). He could visit places like Diagon Alley in the company of > wizards (Hermione's parents did). I'm not sure about Hogwarts -- clearly > Filch can, and Mrs. Figg goes to the Ministry, so probably. Meri: Harry allready knows of the existence of all these places, and technically, IMHO, even if he lost his powers he wouldn't be a squib, so he'd probably still be able to go there alone. > But if he lost his powers, he couldn't fly on a broomstick, and he couldn't > play Quidditch. Meri: Why couldn't he fly on a broomstick? Do we have cannon to confirm that *only* a full powered wizard or witch can fly on a broom? Because if Harry did loose his powers then the one thing I can see him still being able to do is play Quidditch. I don't think you need too much magical skill to play. Just a couple of thoughts. Meri - amusing herself for a moment imagining the reaction of a Muggle who accidentally picks up a portkey and ends up at the Quidditch world cup...Obliviators needed! From garybec101 at comcast.net Mon Sep 13 20:18:03 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:18:03 -0000 Subject: Wormtail (was The Sneak Mark) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112847 HunterGreen: Well, Wormtail was certainly ashamed of himself, and admitted he did it out of fear, and not much else (other, than say, doing it because he believed that Voldemort had the right idea, and he WANTED the Potters killed). Becki responds; POA, Chapter 19, begining with pg366, AM ED, Wormtail denies that he was the one responcible for James and Lily's deaths for almost 9 pages of text before he finally fesses up at the very end of 374, and says "WH__what was there to be gained by refusing him?" (LV). I could never believe that Wormtail was ashamed or had any remorse about turning DE. IMO, he was saying those things to save his own (insert bodypart here), in a tense situation. I would think he would say anything to convince Moony and Padfoot not to kill him. Another thing, if he was so ashamed of himself, why in the world would he go out and purposely hunt down LV and bring him back? He was fairly safe at that time. All he had to do was to find another wizzarding family to adopt him. He had to be use to that kind of life, living like that for the past 12 years. It goes back to DD's talk about making *choices*. Becki From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 20:21:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:21:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors WAS: Lupin visiting Sirius in Azkaban In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112848 Bookworm wrote: > Way back in February (msg 91517) I said: > << Personally, I think Dumbledore knew about the change in Secret- > Keepers. He never said Sirius Black was or wasn't. His comment was > that he had given evidence to that effect. What evidence? To whom? > When? Dumbledore may not lie, but he doesn't always tell the whole > truth.>> > > I will add to that: he knows *much* more than he lets on. How did he > know Harry was visiting the Mirror of Erised? Or what Ron saw in > it? Somehow, Dumbledore just knows things. It won't surprise me > at all that the switch in Secret-Keepers is one of those things. > > If Dumbledore knew that Sirius was not the S-K and knows the details > of what happened the Halloween night, visiting Sirius in prison > might have revealed information to the DEs. It would definitely > have caused speculation about why Dumbledore would visit a known > murderer. (No, I don't know *what* information. I'm > speculating and am sure JKR will be keeping the details of that > night to herself until book 7.) Carol: *If* Dumbledore knew that Sirius was not the Secret Keeper, then his testimony to the contrary, which led directly to Sirius's twelve-year-imprisonment, is morally reprehensible--unless, possibly, Dumbledore thought Sirius guilty of Peter's murder and that of twelve Muggles. And even then, Peter would not have been an innocent victim. But if DD knew as much as you suggest, he would not have thought any such thing; he would have known that Scabbers was Peter and that he had escaped to live for twelve years with the Weasleys as a child's pet. But DD says that he did *not* know that Peter, Sirius, and James were animagi. His words and actions throughout PoA suggest that he's telling the truth. Why allow the student body, and particularly Harry, to be endangered by Dementors when all he needed to do was force Peter/Scabbers to transform into his human self, proving Sirius innocent of that murder, and then bring in Fudge (as he did with Crouch!Moody) to see the transformation and hear the testimony, using veritaserum if necessary? I can't reconcile the idea of Dumbledore knowing Sirius's innocence on either count with Dumbledore's behavior in PoA, and arguments based on speculation about what he *seems* to know simply are not convincing. It makes no sense to me that Dumbledore as Chief Warlock and Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards (SS/Ps Am. ed., p. 51) could not have found a way to question Sirius before he was sentenced to Azkaban if he had any doubts whatever regarding his inocence or overrule the decision to use the abhorred Dementor guards at Hogwarts if he had not seen them as necessary protection against Harry's would-be murderer. And a conniving Dumbledore who allows an innocent man to spend twelve years in prison does not fit JKR's expressed view of Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness." I do agree that he doesn't always tell the full truth and that he knows a great deal, but he doesn't know *everything* and he is capable of error, as he himself admits in OoP. I think his *apparent* omniscience is the wisdom of age and experience, natural astuteness (both logical and intuitive), and power as a wizard, combined with a network of spies that includes both portraits and people. (As an example of such non-omniscient wisdom, I think he feared that the Fidelius charm would fail and took additional precautions by instructing Lily in "ancient magic" as a fallback measure.) But he's not omniscient or omnipotent. He's human and capable of error, and in this case, IMO, he was wrong about Sirius. That is much easier for me to accept and much more in keeping with what JKR has revealed about Dumbledore than the unprovable assumption that he "must" have known about the change in Secret Keepers and allowed Sirius to suffer because it served his own ends. A major theme of the book is that the end does *not* justify the means, and Dumbledore is the chief exemplar of that philosophy. Carol From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 13 20:58:06 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:58:06 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP's powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112849 SSSusan observed: >It seems an extremely sad thing that one would decide to NOT go on >because of this, but you are right that Quidditch & flying have been >central in Harry's life since his arrival at Hogwarts. And your >comments reminded me of a woman at my church who had hoped to become >an opera singer but whose vocal chords sustained some kind of damage >along the way and who now finds it difficult just to sing hymns >because she can't do so at the "level" which gives her satisfaction. > >Still. At the risk of raising the ire of folks who'll claim I don't >understand depression, I will confess that the church lady's story >has always struck me as a trifle self-centered and "uber-tragic." I agree, because even if she can't be an opera singer she can still sing. But if Harry lost his powers, he wouldn't be able to fly *at all*, let alone play Quidditch. (I don't believe this will happen either, but if it does, I won't consider it a happy ending -- I'll consider it right up there, or rather down there, with the "it was all a dream" ending which someone else suggested with scorn. Whereas if he died heroically I would cry buckets but still have a feeling of closure and satisfaction -- sort of like watching *Glory.*) Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 22:02:10 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:02:10 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112850 SSSusan observed: >>It seems an extremely sad thing that one would decide to NOT go on because of this, but you are right that Quidditch & flying have been central in Harry's life since his arrival at Hogwarts. And your comments reminded me of a woman at my church who had hoped to become an opera singer but whose vocal chords sustained some kind of damage along the way and who now finds it difficult just to sing hymns because she can't do so at the "level" which gives her satisfaction. Still. At the risk of raising the ire of folks who'll claim I don't understand depression, I will confess that the church lady's story has always struck me as a trifle self-centered and "uber-tragic."<< Janet: > I agree, because even if she can't be an opera singer she can > still sing. > > But if Harry lost his powers, he wouldn't be able to fly *at all*, > let alone play Quidditch. > > (I don't believe this will happen either, but if it does, I won't > consider it a happy ending -- I'll consider it right up there, or > rather down there, with the "it was all a dream" ending which > someone else suggested with scorn. Whereas if he died heroically > I would cry buckets but still have a feeling of closure and > satisfaction -- sort of like watching *Glory.*) SSSusan: Well, that's where we just disagree, then. :-) While I'm SURE that JKR could write an ending including Harry's death that I'd be okay with, it's still not my preference. If I got to choose between his death or his living w/o his powers, I'd **definitely** choose his living w/o his powers. I just think, you know, this kid lived the first 11 years of his life knowing nothing about being a wizard. He knew how to be...well...Just Harry. I think he'd be alright if forced to go back to being Just Harry, especially if he still managed to hang with his WW friends & loved ones. Siriusly Snapey Susan From karen at dacafe.com Mon Sep 13 22:29:23 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:29:23 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: <001001c498f0$7f9b1760$5d62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > IIRC, at the end of PoA, the following people knew Sirius was innocent: > Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin, Pettigrew (always knew) > Snape knew but didn't believe it > Fudge may have known but didn't believe it > > Also, the following knew Sirius was an animagus: > Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin (always knew), Pettigrew (always knew) > > By the end of GoF, Snape and Molly also knew Sirius was an animagus (Bill had already left the hospital wing). Snape still believes Sirius is guilty. It is also believed that Pettigrew has, by this time, informed LV who has informed his DE's. I would have thought Pettigrew would have told during the first Voldy War. > > But, Dumbledore sends Sirius - in animagus form - to Lupin (who already knew both innocence and animagus), Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher and 'the old crowd' who, I think we can assume meant Dedalus Diggle, Emmaline Vance, Sturgis Podmore, Elphias Dodge, and possibly Aberforth. Mad-Eye Moody, of the old crowd, was at the school so I presume DD told him. > > Wouldn't any of these people be a little more than alarmed if a mass murderer, Azkaban escapee showed up on their doorstep? The person they believe betrayed the Potters? In the form of a dog? And transformed in front of their eyes? Most of these people are magical, would none of them think to stun (at the very least) Sirius until the Magical Law Enforcement Squad could come and get him? > kmcbears writes: It doesn't say he needs to alert them in person. He could send owls or maybe even use the method that DD told Harry about in the OotP for members of the Order. No books here at work (except for a German translation one of the guys is reading and I don't read German) so forgive me for parapharsing... Members of the Order have more reliable means of communication than the fire in Dolores Umbridge's office. He may have used an Order means of communication starting with "DD wants me to alert you to the following facts ..... ending with a "Feel free to check with DD if you doubt what I'm telling you." DD follows this message up very quickly with a meeting notice. Yeah - I'd believe Sirius was telling the truth. - kmc (formerly signed as Karen but as there are a few other Karen's is changing her signature. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 14 00:03:51 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:03:51 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112852 > SSSusan: > Well, that's where we just disagree, then. :-) While I'm SURE that > JKR could write an ending including Harry's death that I'd be okay > with, it's still not my preference. If I got to choose between his > death or his living w/o his powers, I'd **definitely** choose his > living w/o his powers. I just think, you know, this kid lived the > first 11 years of his life knowing nothing about being a wizard. He > knew how to be...well...Just Harry. I think he'd be alright if > forced to go back to being Just Harry, especially if he still > managed to hang with his WW friends & loved ones. > Potioncat: Let's have Trelawney be right one more time. He lives to a ripe old age and has 12 kids. Even better, the boys have hair like James, the girls have frizzy hair and they all have Lily's eyes. And Professor Snape teaches them (Potions of course)...one after the other for over a decade! Happiness for Harry and angst for Snape! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 00:14:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:14:28 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112853 > The Other Cheryl wrote: > >And, remember, Snape is a superb occulamens, who can tell > when he's > being lied to. He has to be trying to use it there, if for no other reason than to come up with evidence to support his side. > > Hannah: That's interesting. I'd always taken occlumency as being > separate from legilimency, so although Snape is brilliant at > blocking his thoughts, he isn't necessarily as good at reading those > of others. Harry has lied to him a few times and Snape's never > *seemed* to use legilimency. But maybe the two go together - has > anyone worked out if they do or not? > Carol: According to Snape himself, only a Legilimens (like Voldemort) can tell whether he's being lied to (by reading the emotions and memories of a person, usually someone with whom he has eye contact). An Occlumens, especially a superb one like Snape, can block his own memories so that he can lie to a Legilimens without being detected. (This skill probably saved Snape's life in the days before Godric's Hollow when he was spying on Voldemort for Dumbledore. If he's in direct contact with Voldemort now, as I don't think he is, he would again need to use it.) In any case, Snape is not a Legilimens and consequently can't use that skill in the Shrieking Shack--or detemining whether Harry was in Hogsmeade or stole potion ingredients from his office. (He is able to access Harry's memories in the Occlumency lessons through a Legilimency *spell*, which is a different matter altogether from being able to enter someone's else's mind at will. And, as Snape tells us, even a Legilimens can't read another's mind as if it were a book. IOW, he isn't reading the *words* that the person is thinking or has thought. He only sees the visual record of *memories,* presumably those related in some way to the present situation (and perhaps senses fear or other emotions associated with those memories). In the case of a liar, the Legilimens would see what really happened as opposed to what the liar is saying. Presumably Snape can block any memories that belie his words. Possibly, given his special skill in the art of Occlumency, he can even manufacture memories to replace those he has blocked. But IIRC the only indication that he might be able to perform *Legilimency*--as opposed to Occlumency--without a Legilimency spell is Harry's feeling in CoS (after the flying car incident) that Snape can read minds. And we know that Harry's perception of Snape is seldom a reliable indicator of what Snape can do or intends to do. Carol From tinainfay at msn.com Mon Sep 13 23:32:52 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:32:52 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112854 > HunterGreen: > I don't see it as an act of war though. Was it up to Hermione to > attack those who didn't believe that Voldemort was back? > Essentially this is what it comes down to. Marietta joined the > group to learn defensive spells, thats it. The group became like > an anti-Umbridge group, but that was not something that she believed > in or was comfortable with. I'm not sure I would agree that it 'became' an anti-Umbridge group (indicating over the course of time). As the group thought of names the 'Anti Umbridge League' came up straight away. Marietta knew what she was involved with right away. It may not have worried her as much as it did later but I do not think the DA morphed into something else. She may have heard cautions from her mother, she may have started disliking Harry more, she may have had time to think about what it would mean to be expelled, she may have thought that Umbridge was here to stay... whatever the reason, she wanted to back out. I think SHE grew uncomfortable being involved, not that the group changed. ~tina From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Mon Sep 13 20:27:12 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:27:12 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112855 Frugalarugala (then): > > Then there's Great Uncle Algie, AKA the gloved balcony dangler > > of the WW. > > Carol: > I don't remember any gloves in the anecdote about Neville being > dropped, and I don't see anything sinister in Trevor. Frugalarugala: Carol, it was a Michael Jackson reference... Though actually IIRC Neville was like eight at the time, rather than a baby. Carol: > Clearly, you see things differently. Can you explain why you think > that Trevor "proves" (indicates?) that Algie is evil? Frugalarugala: Although I really think that Uncle Algie might have been trying to prune the family tree, if Neville didn't have magic, "Trevor proving it" was a joke. There was a thread going at the time I posted this, speculating that Trevor might be yet another animagi, because he keeps disappearing on Neville. Actually, I've just always been bugged by the bits with Trevor. I hope he has some importance in the whole storyline other than giving Neville something to panic over, 'cause I like Neville when he's not worrying over that toad, but I suspect his sole purpose is to show Neville's worrywart, panicky side. But even though I was being facetious, but I do think Uncle Algie might have been pruning. I mean, what if Neville HAD been a squib? He said he nearly drowned, and he's a wizard, if he had been a squib would he have been a goner? Squibs presumably aren't more tough than wizards. Oh, and as far as the Mimbulus Mimbletonia goes, yeah Neville likes it--but who the hell gives plants that sprays stinkiness as birthday presents?! (Actually, I can't even type that without laughing! FTD has nothing on Uncle Algie!) Neville likes it, I know. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 13 11:36:49 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:36:49 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040912234141.35406.qmail@web20024.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112856 > > >HunterGreen: > > > > I don't think Marietta thought it was wrong to > > betray the DA; I think she thought telling Umbridge > > was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of > > kids who were breaking school and Ministry policies, > > and thought it was wrong to keep that a secret. > > [snip] I think she did what *she* thought was right, > > which took quite a bit of moral strength (although > > she was severely misguided, [snip]< > > ---------------------------- > Theotokos: > > I don't think Marietta cared a flip for right or > wrong. I think she never liked Harry, and never > wanted Cho to like Harry. Cho had been upset with > Harry's insensitivity towards her emotional needs > but forgave him after the interview came out in the > Quibbler. I think Marietta wanted to split them up. > > "Cho had just smiled at him and sat down on Ron's > right. Her friend, who had curly reddish-blonde > hair, did not smile, but gave Harry a thoroughly > mistrustful look that told Harry plainly that, given > her way, she would not be here at all." (p.339) > > There are several other instances when Marietta > glares at Harry while in the presence of Cho. She > doesn't like him and doesn't want Cho to like him. > ------------------------- I guess she could have been jealous? That's a good point. She clearly does not think much of Cho's choice in boyfriend, I can't remember were they on at the time she turned them in or fighting? What happened around the time she went to Umbridge? I have trouble viewing Marietta as anything but weak. You can argue she was doing the right thing by herself but she didn't. She was also breaking those rules. If she was so desperate to do the right thing and follow her own values then why didn't she go straight away to Umbridge and tell her the day she signed? She probably would have eliminated the possibility of her getting into trouble because she gave Umbridge what she wanted- a clear shot at Harry. OK granted it wasn't illegal then but she could have gone when the decree showed up. She turned up to these meetings willingly, she took part in all of them, she broke the rules, as well she's just as guilty as the rest of them. They all knew they could get into trouble if anyone found out after it was made illegal, neither Harry nor Hermione forced anybody to continue they took that risk themselves. If Marietta had turned them in straight away I would agree that, however misguided, she did what she thought was right and stood up for what she believed in, but it took her months to do so and in those months she still turned up to their meetings (and there were a lot of them). I also disagree with the war thing. The rest of them would view it as anti-Umbridge and anti-ministry and learning but Harry, Ron and Hermione (and even Fred. George and Ginny) know what's coming. Everything they have done in school has been tainted by Voldemort; they've risked their lives on a number of occasions. To Hermione this would have been about learning how to fight Voldemort as well (she did say to Harry he was the only one who could tell them what it was like) so she may have thought it more important than the other members of the DA. She makes it a point to tell them at their first meeting in the Hog's Head that he is back. She knows these spells have saved Harry's life, she's knows they're important. Those three may not say it to the others but they go in there with the knowledge that it's more than likely (inevitable for Harry) that they will need to defend themselves against Death Eaters and Voldemort, not just the Ministry's ignorance and OWL exams. Putting a jinx on a piece of paper and allowing Marietta to deal with the consequences of her actions probably feels right to her. If you argue that Marietta did what was right then you can argue that so did Hermione! Nobody's saying it wasn't cruel or even necessary. Jennifer From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 19:01:46 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:01:46 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112857 > SSSusan: > Yet, what about Snape's decision to save Harry during the Quidditch > match in SS/PS? He intervened, in order to save Harry's life. > Was that not a "moral" decision? Chuckle... Snape *helping* Harry out in the Quidditch match is, in my opinion, some sort of vengeance to James, saying that *he*, an enemy, saved him. That he is better than his old enemies, and so on. It is, in my opinion, an occasion where Snape fulfill one of his fantaisies.... Toto From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 00:34:05 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How did Umbridge know? Message-ID: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112858 In Ch. 22 "St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries" Harry has just had the experience of being Nagini and seeing Mr. Weasley bitten. The kids are now is DD office, Fawkes is keeping a "look out", and Phineas has gone to alert Sirius of the imminent arrival of the Weasley children and Harry. In the American HB page 474: There was a flash of flame in the very middle of the office, leaving behind a single golden feather that floated gently to the floor. "It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds....Minerva, go and head her off--tell her any story--" I think it is agreed who the "she" is but how did she know? It is the middle of the night for goodness sakes! Does she somehow have the portraits watched or watching? AND on page 470: Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with the tip of his wand. The instrument tinkled into life at once with rhythmic clinking noises. Tiny puffs of pale green smoke issued from the minuscule silver tube at the top. DD watched the smoke closely, his brow furrowed, and after a few seconds, the tiny puffs became a steady stream of smoke that thickened and coiled in the air....A serpent's head grew out of the end of it, opening its mouth wide. Harry wondered whether the instrument was confirming his story: He looked eagerly at DD for a sign that he was right, but DD did not look up. "Naturally, naturally," murmured DD apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke with the slightest sign of surprise. "But in essence divided?" Harry could make neither head nor tail of this question. The smoke serpent, however, split itself instantly into two snakes, both coiling and undulating in the dark air. With a look of grim satisfaction DD gave the instrument another gentle tap with his wand: The clinking noise slowed and died, and the smoke serpents grew faint, became a formless haze, and vanished. What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it have something to do with LV possession of Harry? I am lost. Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 13 16:35:09 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:35:09 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112859 I apologise if this has been posted on before (couldn't find any), but I really wanted to get people's opinions on a pet theory of mine. It concerns Colin Creevy (and his brother) and the possible role of this character in later books. I think there is a lot more to Colin than meets the eye. He is mentioned in all of the books from CoS onwards, even when he doesn't have much part to play in the story. It's like JKR wants us to remember that he's there. She even gives him a little brother (a sort of Colin#2) in GoF. Whatever narrative functions Colin's character might perform, it doesn't seem necessary to have two similar characters just to tell Harry he's great and stare at things open-mouthed with wonder. There's also precedent set in the stories so far for seemingly pathetic characters to surprise us and play important parts. Look at Ginny - at first she seems to be Ron's dear, shy little sister, then she turns out to have been opening the chamber of secrets all along (and has become quite feisty in books 4 and 5). Neville's another example - his character has become a lot deeper than an anxious bumbler who keeps losing his toad. >From the few descriptions we've had of Peter Pettigrew, he reminds me of Colin. He has same tendency towards near-obsessive hero worship, and everyone dismisses him as harmless and a bit stupid. I don't know if Colin will end up acting as Peter did (a traitor), but it does suggest that Colin-ish characters can do surprising things. I also believe that Colin Creevy may be a half-blood. Although he is attacked by the Slytherin monster, I think one muggle parent would be enough to justify a basilisk attack in the eyes of the pure- blood fanatics. Colin seems to come from a close family, yet he only mentions his Dad, not his Mum. He says he is sending pictures to his Dad, and even volunteers that he is muggle milkman. Why isn't he including his Mum in this? Even the first time I read this, I took it that his Mum was dead/ had left them. And missing parents in Potterverse always flag up warning signs. She could well have been a witch. My supporting evidence for this is the existence of wizard!Dennis. A wizard child born to two muggle parents is fairly unusual. Lily's sister (Petunia) is not magical, neither is Hermione's younger sister (from JKR website/ chats), so it doesn't seem that siblings of muggle born wizards are usually magical too. But here are the Creevys with two wizard sons. This would be (be my reasoning), extremely unusual for two muggles, but normal for a witch and a muggle. So... could Colin Creevy be the half blood prince? I know it sounds far fetched, but then, so does Ron's pet rat turning out to be disguised dark wizard, and *that* happened. I can just imagine JKR going 'ha! and you thought he was just a mousy sycophant with a passion for photography.' Even if he's not, I still think he's going to be important somehow. I would love to hear what people think about this, and apologise again if I've just unwittingly paraphrased someone else's theory. Hannah From yonnab at cox.net Mon Sep 13 16:28:09 2004 From: yonnab at cox.net (Yonna) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:28:09 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: <001d01c49967$e252b990$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112860 > Rob said: > "Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes > LV? I figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of > his powers seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics > often has to sacrifice something for the people's benefit." > > > DuffyPoo: > Not I. He was a wizard baby boy before LV he'll be a wizard > after - if he lives. I personally can't see any proof, yet, > that any of his powers came from LV. JMO Yonna: Well there is the parselmouth thing. That power probably came from LV. Then there's all the bits where he has been feeling and even seeing what LV is doing and feeling. Granted some of that was planted in his mind from LV himself in OotP. IMHO I think HP will gain the rest of LV's powers if and ***when*** he vanquishes him. From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 15:41:25 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913154125.7171.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112861 Let me just say, Pippin, you have just made a very strong case in my view. You may just have swung me a bit. Tonks_op >> Also, after the kids signed the paper "there was an odd feeling in the group now. It was as thought they had just signed some kind of contract." (p.347)<< Pippin: >It isn't a contract unless the parties involved agree to *all* the provisions.< theotokos: I don't much care about it being a contract, as I have stated before. That is legal and not in the mind of these kids. The point is what was going to happen with the DA was explained. Everybody was given the same information and conditions. The manner in which punishment is carried out is not the point. When I got in trouble in school I couldn't say, "Oh, but you didn't say I would get swats. Since you didn't explicitly tell me, you can't punish me." The point was I broke a rule and it was not for me to decide an acceptable punishment. The appropriateness of the punishment is a different issue, as Pippin is wise to point out. The point here is that Hermione was under no obligation to spell out the consequences, IMO. Pippin: >If so, then Hermione usurped Harry's power and only got his consent after the fact. That is an abuse of power similar to that of one Dolores Umbridge, and I think the use of a mutilating punishment deliberately emphasizes the similarity. Hermione is on a rather slippery slope.< Theotokos: This is where you got me, Pippin. I find it hard, if I am being honest with myself, to disagree here. (HELP somebody come up with a good argument so I don't have to feel like I am equating Hermione with Umbridge!) Hermione has always been a bit bold. She butts into the train cabin in PS/SS to tell R and H their business, i.e. put on your robes. She continues this behavior through half the book until R and H save her and they become friends, at which time nothing changes but H and R forgive her more often. It is true she did not consult with Harry or Ron on the jinx she put on the parchment, just as Delores did not consult Fudge when she sent those Dementors to that alley. She, Umbridge, believed she was taking care of a problem in an effective manner with little to no fuss. She is, however, twisted. I can't say Hermione is twisted. I find the zit jinx humorous like so many of the WW jinxes. What about Ginny's bat-boogie hex (sp?)? And Crabbe and Goyels boils and Ron's slugs. The WW is not for the faint of heart. Umbridge tried to murder Harry for purporting an idea she disagrees with and fears. Hermione would never permanently disfigure or kill someone--except in self-defense. Hermione, does however, need to reassess her motives and value system. She really must stop with SPEW. She needs a wake-up call. I love her but, you are correct Pippin, she is not always right and she is heading down a slippery slope. Pippin: >I don't believe Hermione is a Slytherin--if you asked her whether you should use any means to achieve your ends she'd say no. But she has a tendency to assume that because she is a good person, any means which does not cause her conscience to revolt is okay-- and some fans may make that mistake along with her. But Dumbledore's analysis of his failure with Harry shows us the limits of relying on your internalized sense of values.< Theotokos: What else can one do? Are we to allow other people to tell us what our values should be and hope those people are altruistic? DD's failure was not from relying on his internalized sense of values. His failure came from not following what he knew to be the correct path in favor of easing Harry's strain. His mistake was underestimating Harry and second guessing his own aims--not doing what he, DD, knew to be the correct thing. He had two conflicting sets of values at work. That is a difficult situation. Theotokos From humantupperware1 at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 13 13:15:18 2004 From: humantupperware1 at yahoo.com.au (humantupperware1) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:15:18 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! SHIP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112862 "redlena_web" wrote: > (Pg. 725 again)... "He was sitting right behind Parvati Patil, whose long > dark hair fell below the back of her chair. Once or twice he found himself > staring at the tiny golden lights that glistened in it when she moved her > head very slightly and had to give his own head a little shake to clear it." HumanTupperware; This is a bit off the topic of this thread, but this passage really struck me when I read it.....but I thought that perhaps when Harry is staring at Pavarti's hair, perhaps we are getting a little hint about a future romance? Is there a Pavarti/Harry ship anywhere? I'm curious! HumanTupperware (who is slightly horrified that she has suddenly gone from lurker to shipper in one post!) From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 15:23:24 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:23:24 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112863 Pippin: > Rowling's magic formula for deciding between your internal > sense of values and others' would seem to be, go with the > choice that is more difficult. But first you have to be aware that > there is a choice--Hermione simply assumes that where her > values conflict with others', it's the others who are wrong, not > her. Wow... I didn't copy the whole post because it would be a bit much, but that is a post I *totally* disagree with.... For example, you said Harry was the teacher, but Hermione was the instigator, and as such should have right over who comes and punishments too. Plus, you just don't see how she was forcing herself to do that. Hermione, along with the others in the D.A (including Marietta) knew that Umbridge would make this group illegal as soon as possible, as she is out for Harry's blood. She also knew that if they were discovered, the punishments would be severe. I don't see the *sneak* mark as a punishment on Hermione's part, but as a warning for the members to know the D.A as been betrayed, and by whom. What motivated Hermione is that there was no choice: either not to make the D.A, or else she had to make measures, and such measures could be countered if the person was aware of them. You also talk about Hermione manipulating people into making choices, but *she* is the one who is outspoken against this. She was the first character to ever disagree with Dumbledore, in Philosopher's Stone, when she realised that there was a possibility that Dumbledore knew all along. But she is also the one who takes measure when there isn't any choices. She didn't think the centaurs would agree with her, though she hoped so. She just was *sure* they wouldn't agree with Umbridge. Toto From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 13 14:22:38 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040913142238.44603.qmail@web80305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112864 Theotokos replied: >>Isn't that also a bit like the "Black List" in Hollywood during the 50's and the Red Scare? People being asked to turn in others as Communists?<< HunterGreen: >It depends on how you look at it. The people that turned in "communists" in out of fear and selfish self-preservation are one thing, but what about someone who honestly was afraid of the 'domino effect' that was the crux of the communist paranoia, and honestly believed (or knew) that someone was a communist and was actively seeking to recruit others? Would that person be good or bad in turning the suspected communist in? (without the benefit of hindsight).< theotokos: Yes, I think they would be bad. They are assuming Communism is bad and although I don't agree with its edicts, belonging to a group which discusses its values and tries to use those values in their daily lives is not necessarily bad. Just like I don't agree with turning in a Japanese citizen who has ties to family back home during WWII, or a Middle-Easterner who goes to a Muslim place of worship. The 'government' might say these are potentially bad people so turn them in and we will deal with it, but I wouldn't dare. It is wrong to do so based on raw speculation. I suppose Marietta has 'proof' the group is against the ministry? This proof is what? All they do is work on spells, jinxes, etc. The only mention of Umbridge, LV, or the MOM was in the initial meeting at the Hogs Head so if she didn't agree she should have left then. After being in the DA for as long as she was, what occurred that would have justified her going to Umbridge. What subversive dangerous act did she witness or overhear to make her think anything was wrong with the DA practicing defense? ----------------- Huntergreen: >If Marietta truly believes that Harry is a liar and is trying to create instability in the Wizarding World by spreading lies and she knows about him leading other students (like he is in the DA), then she would be wrong to not tell about it, or at least confront him about it (if that's what she really believes).< theotokos: I am not sure I understand your meaning "leading other students"--do you mean teaching them defensive spells? He for sure has not been "spreading lies" during DA meetings. He refuses to talk about that stuff as he stated at the Hogs Head meeting. So if Marietta truly believes that, then she is searching and already against Harry so went to U out of spite not out of any highly held beliefs. ------------------------------------ HunterGreen previously: >I'm not saying what she did was right, just that it didn't violate *her* values.< Theotokos replied: >>Nor did what Hermione did violate hers.<< HunterGreen: >And what does that say about her values? < theotokos: It doesn't say much more than saying Marietta didn't violate *her own* values. It is a fairly empty statement IMO. I happen to agree with Hermione more but then again we have *some* canon to draw upon there. We are really in the dark on Marietta as you have said, but her actions, IMO, do not speak well for her. Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 14:05:38 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:05:38 -0000 Subject: Alice Longbottom and the Potters In-Reply-To: <20040913045058.69000.qmail@web80308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112865 > theotokos: > What does the ministry have to do with it? Wasn't DD who decided > what to do with Harry. It was DD who sealed the deal so to speak by > placing Harry with Petunia. Otherwise Lily's charm on Harry would > have been for naught. So Harry had to go to Petunia but that does > not rule out an "Alice Potter". I am not saying I completely buy it > but I like it. But if the MOM had anything to do with Harry going > to Petunia, I missed it so please correct me. No it was purely a logical assumption. As the ministry knows where Harry lives, they must have somehow approved this. However, I really do not think the ministry would have left their "hero" to the care of muggles if there was an alternative (and a "grand-step mother" is one)... Toto From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 14:12:51 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:12:51 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112866 Redlena says: > Harry comes up with the answer on his own, once his eyes are > closed. I don't think any Legilimency helped him get the information. What you describe could also easily be taken as confirmation that he did perform Legilimency... After all, Rowling likes to place hints like "as if it was a contract" or others.... And Snape says "almost always". Now I may be mean, but Snape isn't that great of a wizard, as far as we know. Even though he is supposed to be a good Occlumens, Harry does go into his head once. Plus, Harry is known to be able to do in practice what he shouldn't be able to.... It wouldn't surprise me that we have a Legilimens Harry for next year, who of course doesn't use any spell.... Toto From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Sep 13 15:10:22 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:10:22 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <20040913143729.4052.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112867 Magda: > I don't think there's any reason to believe that Snape is lying > when he's talking to Fudge. Re-reading the earlier books with his > explanation in mind, Snape's actions do make sense, even if he's > wrong about Harry's character and his pre-Hogwarts childhood. > Snape views himself as a man who's taking on an important job > because no one else is doing it - and the fact that he enjoys it > is just extra froth on the potion. I do think there are some reasons.... Snape tries to get Harry *expelled* on many occasions, and at his level it would mean out of the wizarding world. And he does *not* fake that. Plus, as you said yourself, he doesn't only target Harry but all Gryffindors, and favours Slytherin. This has nothing to do with being *fair* or *moral*. Maybe Snape is lying to himself though, but I think he just continues his grudge against the Gryffindors and his belief that anything Slytherin do it's because they are martyrised (yeah right) and nothing based on proof. Toto From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 14 01:05:09 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:05:09 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040913154125.7171.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112868 (lots of snipping) > Pippin: > >If so, then Hermione usurped Harry's power and only got his > consent after the fact. That is an abuse of power similar to that of one Dolores Umbridge, and I think the use of a mutilating punishment deliberately emphasizes the similarity. Hermione is on a rather slippery slope.< Tina now: I am, like so many others, a little worried about where Hermione is going but as far as the DA is concerned I think she has a leg to stand on. She is the one with idea for the DA. She does most of the speaking at the first meeting. She decides to have a name, officially elect Harry as leader, and have everyone sign up. She also came up with the galleons (for meeting times). She knows Harry well. He liked the idea of the galleons and mentions to Cho (a bit too heartily perhaps) that he thought the Sneak jinx was brilliant. Possibly Hermione didn't think she was over-stepping boundaries because she knew she would have Harry's support. ~tina From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Sep 14 01:15:21 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:15:21 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112869 HunterGreen: > > > I don't think Marietta thought it was wrong to > > > betray the DA; I think she thought telling Umbridge > > > was the right thing to do. She knew of a group of > > > kids who were breaking school and Ministry policies, > > > and thought it was wrong to keep that a secret. > > > [snip] I think she did what *she* thought was right, > > > which took quite a bit of moral strength (although > > > she was severely misguided, [snip]< > > > ---------------------------- > > Theotokos: > > > > I don't think Marietta cared a flip for right or > > wrong. I think she never liked Harry, and never > > wanted Cho to like Harry. Cho had been upset with > > Harry's insensitivity towards her emotional needs > > but forgave him after the interview came out in the > > Quibbler. I think Marietta wanted to split them up. Becki here; I wholeheartedly agree with Theotokos. Marietta did not care about anyone else but herself in this situation. She benefited for months, all the way to April, from the DA meetings. She learned all kinds of defensive spells to help her in school. I know it wasn't OWL year for her and Cho, but you can't deny that they are not better prepared entering their NEWT year. I think Hermoine was protecting everyone in that group, including Marietta, by having the contract. Everyone was in danger of being expelled. It did not benefit Umbridge by knowing about the DA. The DA was not planning a Coup against her, Hogwarts or the Ministry. They were trying to prepare themselves for OWLS, LV, DE's, and their future. Each of them may have had some or all of these goals in mind as they joined and continued with the DA, and some even reinforced their goals with the escape of the 10 DE's from Azkaban. Becki From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Sep 14 01:22:50 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:22:50 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040913154125.7171.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112870 Theotokos (interesting claim, that name) wrote: > This is where you got me, Pippin. I find it hard, if I am being honest with myself, to disagree here. (HELP somebody come up with a good argument so I don't have to feel like I am equating Hermione with Umbridge!) Certainly not. I think it is part of JKR's art that we see echoes of the bad characters in the good ones, and vice versa. On the other hand, just because some of Hermione's behaviour is reminiscent of some of Umbridge's, doesn't mean we have to equate them. That's why Riddle is presented sympathetically in COS (remember Harry's feelings about the threat of closing Hogwarts), and why Harry engages in some very Dudley-like behaviour towards Dudley himself at the beginning of OOP and, of course, why we get the portrayal of James and Sirius in the Pensieve. On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I feel that whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the right to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point. To me, the issue is her character. If I had been a minor member of the DA I think I would have felt intimidated by the ruthlessness of Hermione's action, especially as I would now know that I, too, would be carrying a latent hex that I had not agreed to receive or even known about (as a practical point the hex would have been a more effective deterrent if people had known it existed - keeping it quiet makes one wonder if Hermione was *banking* on someone talking, for the shock value). I doubt that in its wider implications the 'sneak' hex was good for DA morale. It seems plain that Marietta was conflicted - she wasn't choosing 'what was easy instead of what was right' (and I don't believe difficulty is seriously JKR's criterion for rightness) but choosing between conflicting loyalties as to what was right. Sure, she, too, may have had better ways of resolving that conflict than the one she took, but Hermione's one-size-fits-all sanction probably isn't helping the next person with conflicting loyalties to make better choices. Yes, it was important to try to maintain the covertness of the DA, but the methods and approach adopted by Hermione IMO do tell us something about her character, which is corroborated, as Pippin has already pointed out, by other events in OOP. David From navarro198 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 01:28:06 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:28:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112871 Carol: *If* Dumbledore knew that Sirius was not the Secret Keeper, then his testimony to the contrary, which led directly to Sirius's twelve- year-imprisonment, is morally reprehensible Bookworm: Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a trial. There was no testimony that led directly or indirectly to his imprisonment. Dumbledore was entirely unconcerned at the mention of Sirius' name when Hagrid brought Harry to Privet Drive. Now, this may have been a deliberate hiding of revealing details, but IMO a Dumbledore who thought Sirius was the Secret-Keeper would have been more concerned about how the Potters were found and how Sirius was (had he been imperioed? tortured?) Carol: But if DD knew as much as you suggest, he would not have thought any such thing; he would have known that Scabbers was Peter and that he had escaped to live for twelve years with the Weasleys as a child's pet. But DD says that he did *not* know that Peter, Sirius, and James were animagi. His words and actions throughout PoA suggest that he's telling the truth. Bookworm: Actually, I do think it was a surprise to him. I never said Dumbledore knows *everything*, but he does know much more that he lets on. Carol: It makes no sense to me that Dumbledore as Chief Warlock and Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards (SS/Ps Am. ed., p. 51) could not have found a way to question Sirius before he was sentenced to Azkaban if he had any doubts whatever regarding his inocence or overrule the decision to use the abhorred Dementor guards at Hogwarts if he had not seen them as necessary protection against Harry's would-be murderer. Bookworm: There was no trial, so his position as Chief Warlock (if he held that position at the time) wouldn't necessarily have helped. I suspect that he "gave evidence" after the fact in some kind of hearing but his statement was overlooked or ignored. Think of various trials when evidence was overlooked in favor of emotion. The wizarding world wanted a scapegoat and had one in Sirius. I also suspect Sirius was hustled off to prison very quickly so that no one *could* talk to him. As I stated up-thread, "If Dumbledore had tried to refuse having the dementors at Hogwarts, he would have been accused of risking Harry's life. He might have battled Fudge over the dementor issue, but at what cost?" I don't think Dumbledore was willing to take on the Ministry directly at that time. Carol: And a conniving Dumbledore who allows an innocent man to spend twelve years in prison does not fit JKR's expressed view of Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness." I think his *apparent* omniscience is the wisdom of age and experience, natural astuteness (both logical and intuitive), and power as a wizard, combined with a network of spies that includes both portraits and people. But he's not omniscient or omnipotent. He's human and capable of error, and in this case, IMO, he was wrong about Sirius. Bookworm: I do not think Dumbledore sent Sirius to prison. But I also do not think Dumbledore, or anyone else for that matter, was in a position to rescue Sirius from prison. Except for Peter Pettigrew, that is. Carol: That is much easier for me to accept and much more in keeping with what JKR has revealed about Dumbledore than the unprovable assumption that he "must" have known about the change in Secret Keepers and allowed Sirius to suffer because it served his own ends. Bookworm: I don't believe I ever said Dumbledore "must" have known, just that I believe he did. A subtle distinction. What I did say was: "Somehow, Dumbledore just knows things. It won't surprise me at all that the switch in Secret-Keepers is one of those things." Nor do I believe that he "allowed Sirius to suffer because it served his own ends." I think he either suspected or knew Sirius was innocent but was unable to do anything about it, and it's possible that *trying* to do something about it might have made things worse. Would I bet on this theory? Not with JKR still writing her sneaky plot twists. There is so much that we don't know ? this was an attempt to make sense of some of the things we do know. Ravenclaw Bookworm From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 14 00:52:42 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:52:42 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112872 theotokos wrote: {snippety, snip, snip...) > Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver > instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over to > his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with the > tip of his wand. [snip] > What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers > about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it have > something to do with LV possession of Harry? I've always thought that was revealing that Voldemort had been possessing the snake (they were one but are, in essence, divided). Snape does tell Harry during an Occlumency lesson that Harry was seeing through the snake's eyes because that is where LV was at the time... Was my understanding over-simplified again? ~tina From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 14 01:41:19 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:41:19 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: > I do think there are some reasons.... Snape tries to get Harry *expelled* on many occasions, and at his level it would mean out of the wizarding world. And he does *not* fake that. < He must be faking, or rather making hollow threats, since Snape doesn't actually have the power to expel Harry himself and knows that Dumbledore won't expel anybody on a first offense, and will require solid proof in any case. Once the situation has altered and Umbridge, not Dumbledore, is in charge, the E-word never passes Snape's lips, even when he is provoked to the point of physical violence. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 01:49:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:49:55 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112874 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: >> Chuckle... Snape *helping* Harry out in the Quidditch match is, in my opinion, > some sort of vengeance to James, saying that *he*, an enemy, saved him. > That he is better than his old enemies, and so on. It is, in my opinion, an > occasion where Snape fulfill one of his fantaisies.... > Alla: Ummmm, who cares, actually why Snape saved Harry? Take Harry's character for example. I will always be of opinion that Harry's "saving people thing" (Boy, did I want to slap Hermione when she said that :o)) is one of the best character qualities I want to see in person, even if it is done for "wrong " reasons. Do "wrong " reasons for wanting to help the people around you even exist? But even if you argue that Harry wants to help people around him because he wants fame, some kind of proving himself to the world ( not that I really believe it), does it really matter? People, whom he helps benfit from it. Same thing with Snape, IMO. He may have saved Harry only because he did not want to be in James' debt anymore (I actually HOPE that this was the reason, because that how I see Snape's character) He may have saved Harry simply because he would have done it for ANY student. The fact that he did it for the son of his school enemy only makes him look better, don't you think? No matter what Snape's reasons were, he still SAVED Harry and that is a good thing, me thinks. Unless, of course you will argue that Snape saved Harry in order to betray him to Voldemort several years later and BACK IT UP, then of course his act become quite despicable one. Somehow I doubt that you can back it up my last scenario. I know I can't, because it is pretty outlandish SPECULATION. :o) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 01:59:13 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:59:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112875 > Snow wrote: > Yes! Exactly. The curse that was used by Voldemort to kill Harry > could not be the AK curse (but it was a killing curse) because as > Fake Moody said there is no countercurse to an AK. Along with the > fact that Tom Riddle quite plainly says, "So. Your mother died to > save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm." > Riddle admits that the curse was countered by a charm therefore the > AK which cannot be countered could not have been the killing curse > that was attempted by Voldemort on baby Harry. There is also the fact that Harry only remembers one flash of green light that accompanies the AK curse, which killed Lily. Carol responds: JKR has said that Harry didn't see Lily die. Maybe the door Lily was blocking was closed (and LV wanted her to "step aside" so he could open it). If so, then Harry would have only one green flash--from the AK aimed at him. My understanding of a countercurse is that it's a spell used to counter another curse *after the fact.* Lily's protective charm (which I think was triggered by the combination of her self-sacrifice and the AK that hit Harry) would obviously have been placed on him *before* the fact. If I'm right, Lily performed a charm (or "countercharm," to use Tom's word, which admittedly muddies the waters a bit, especially since he seems to think that her self-sacrifice was all that was required to save Harry), not a countercurse; ergo Crouch!Moody's statement about there being no countercurse is not contradicted. I do agree that the charm worked in a way similar to Protego: it created the lightning scar, which acted as a sort of shield that deflected the AK back onto Voldemort. (How some of LV's powers were deflected onto Harry I can't begin to guess.) Also Crouch!Moody refers to AK as "*the* Killing Curse" (GoF Am. ed. 215)--not *a* killing curse or the unforgiveable version of the killing curse but the one and only killing curse. While there may be other curses that can be used for killing, Avada Kedavra appears to be the only one specifically intended for that purpose and specifically referred to by that term. Dare I suggest that maybe JKR hadn't thought out all the details and implications when she wrote the first two books and that we're bound to find inconsistencies between them and the later books? (The idea that Neville's family thought he might be "all-Muggle" rather than a Squib is another example.) Maybe, like LOTR, "the tale grew in the telling," but unlike Tolkien, she didn't have the luxury of "rewriting it backwards" because the earlier books were already published and highly popular, and she was under pressure to write the new ones rather than revising the old ones for consistency. (Consider Tolkien's revision of the Gollum sequence in "The Hobbit"; he rewrote it twenty or so years after the original publication to tell "what really happened," and actually threw the blame onto Bilbo for reporting the story untruthfully in the Red Book. JKR has dismissed a few of her own inconsistencies by similar means--Marcus Flint was held back a year being the best known. Who knows what we'll see when she revises the books, or whether she'll even spot the inconsistencies that are so obvious to her more attentive readers?) Carol, who is not blaming JKR for not having the time to revise her books, but does wonder how she can possibly tie so many loose ends together without still more inconsistencies and some glaring plot holes From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 02:04:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:04:37 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: > I do think there are some reasons.... Snape tries to get Harry > *expelled* on many occasions, and at his level it would mean out of > the wizarding world. And he does *not* fake that. Plus, as you said > yourself, he doesn't only target Harry but all Gryffindors, and > favours Slytherin. This has nothing to do with being *fair* or > *moral*. Maybe Snape is lying to himself though, but I think he > just continues his grudge against the Gryffindors and his belief that > anything Slytherin do it's because they are martyrised (yeah right) > and nothing based on proof. Alla: Well, I 'll grant you that Snape has a grudge against Harry and no, I don't think it comes anywhere close to fair treatment, but you have to give me the better examples, really, than Snape's threats to expel him. Have you ever treated those seriously? Snape rants and raves in front of Dumbledore when for example Harry and Ron flied to school in Ford Angula In CoS. Does Dumbledore pay any attentions to Snape hysterics? Nope. He lets McGonagall to deal with boys right away and I think it is a pretty safe bet to assume right away that Minerva is not going to expel them. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 02:32:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:32:37 -0000 Subject: More fuel for the fire regarding Fred and George In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112877 sad1199 wrote: > > Also, the thread about Time-Turning Fred and George knowing how the > Quidditch match would end. I think they just took a lucky guess > because of their loyalty to the Irish team and their admiration for > Krum combined. IF they had turned time wouldn't they have known > about the Death Mark in advance? I know it happened later but Fred > and George seem the like the type to stay and party for a while... Carol responds: I agree that there's no need for time-turning to account for the twins' bet, and they do appear to have more than their share of good luck. But they're also extremely intelligent, and if you think about it, they arrived at a logical conclusion: The best *team* would win but the best *seeker* would get the snitch. (It's an outcome I'd like to see more often rather than having the other players knocking themselves out for hours only to have one seeker or the other taking away all their glory. Maybe catching the snitch should be worth fifty points but not a hundred and fifty.) Anyway, the twins probably discussed all probable outcomes and came up with one that was unorthodox but brilliantly logical. And since, according to Hermione, logic is a rare quality in wizards, it's not surprising that few or no other wizards placed the same bet or that Bagman (whose grasp of logic appears to match Goyle's) offered them such good odds. (Too bad he paid in Leprechaun gold.) Carol, who hopes we've seen the last of the time turner From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 14 02:39:05 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:39:05 -0400 Subject: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry Message-ID: <20040913.224829.1860.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112878 So, it's been discussed -- very convincingly -- that the spell Voldemort used on baby Harry wasn't an AK, but something else. (See: archives for evidence of this.) The OP suggested that V meant to absorb Harry's powers or something. But rewatching CoS, it occurs to me that V is the *last* heir of Slytherin. The last person in a long, proud, powerful magical family. Considering the purebloodists' emphasis on bloodline and such, wouldn't one of V's primary goals be to find someone to carry on his bloodline? So . . . what if V wasn't trying to *take* baby Harry's essence, but *give* Harry Voldemort's. The spell was extremely powerful, enough to take out the Potter's house; a spell like what that I'm suggesting is more extreme magic than anything we've seen, and would surely take a lot of power and a really badass dark wizard. Why would he pick Harry? If Harry was destined to kill V, and V is concerned with continuing his bloodline, then he must fear that Harry will grow up to kill any of V's heirs (because dark wizards are paranoid like that). If Harry IS V's heir, then V is hoping that Harry (selfishly, because that's the only kind of motivation V understands) won't kill himself for any kind of V-stopping heroics. Why did V decide to do it then? Maybe Oct. 31, 1981 wasn't the last day of the war only because V died. DD himself said that some DE's are as evil and dangerous as Vold himself; I don't see why the end of their leader would be the sole reason they were defeated. Maybe V's forces had been waning, and V could see his days were numbered. He had to act before someone like Dumbledore incapacitated Vold, leaving Vold vulnerable for when Harry grew up and killed him. Question is, is this still V's plan? I'm not sure about this, but I think it's possible. In terms of literary conventions, I think it's safe to say that somwhere along the line, Harry will have to choose again between doing what's good and doing what's easy (ie, going evil; first time he did this was deciding not to align himself with Draco and Slytherin, a small, important decision that I see coming up again). We've seen V try to hurt, incapacitate, and control Harry, so maybe it wasn't only luck that Harry survived all those confrontations with V. Or maybe V *was* trying to kill Harry, because Voldemort can "put a stopper in death," too; a near-dead Harry can be suspended at the brink of death, and then "reborn" as V's heir. So. What do you think? Aura who just came up with her first wild plot theory, and is probably about to find out that not only is she not the first to think of it, but that it was discussed to death and dismissed 2 years ago. Just can't win... ;) ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 02:58:47 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:58:47 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos wrote: In the American HB page 474: > > There was a flash of flame in the very middle of the office, leaving behind a single golden feather that floated gently to the floor. > "It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds....Minerva, go and head her off--tell her any story--" > > I think it is agreed who the "she" is but how did she know? It is the middle of the night for goodness sakes! Does she somehow have the portraits watched or watching? This is actually fairly easy to figure out. When McGonnagal was taking Harry and Ron to Dumbledore's office, they met the caretaker's cat, Mrs. Norris. She must have run straight to Filch, and he to Umbridge... Salit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 03:05:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:05:21 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112880 "Tonks" wrote: > > I have been thinking about the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottoms > > gives to her visitors and the one she gave to Neville. He does not > > throw it away like his grandmother tells him too. Maybe Mrs. > > Longbottoms tries to get a message to her son. Maybe there is > > something written on the wrappers that makes sense to Neville. And > > JKR's desk on her website is full of gum wrappers. At first I just > > thought she was a smoker trying to quit. But now I think it is a > > clue. So any thoughts as to what message might be on the gum > > wrappers? > Naama responded: > I don't think that the gum wrappers contain a message, and this for > two reasons: > 1. Alice is insane. This is not just a matter of an institutional > decision, but described for us clearly. She is unconnected to > reality and to herself. I don't think she is in a mental conditiona > that would enable her to do something as integrated as saving a gum > wrapper, writing a message on it, hiding it and then giving it to > her son. > 2. More importantly is the emotional content of the scene - Alice, > insane and unconnected, tries to reach her son from the fog she is > in. If this was a disingenous attempt at communicating (and why > couldn't she just talk to him?), it would rob the scene of its > emotional impact. Also, it would mean that she is not insane, or not > as insane as she seems, which would make her an extremely cruel > mother - having her son believe her insane when she is not. Carol adds: I agree with Naama, especially about the emotional impact of the scene. Alice can't even talk, much less write a message, even if she could have anything to say that would be important after fourteen years in a mental ward, and there's no indication that she gives the wrappers to anyone besides Neville. She is like a one-year-old baby who wants to show someone that she likes him by giving him some small possession that she doesn't know is worthless to the visitor (a pacifier, for example). She senses somehow that Neville is connected to her and cares about her, so she gives him the only thing she has to give, wrappers from the gum she has chewed. (Apparently she's forgotten how to blow bubbles since there's no blue residue on the ceiling, but she probably likes the taste of the gum. My guess is that it's the one pleasure in her life, along with rare visits from the son she's almost forgotten.) It appears that Frank is even more severely damaged than Alice: There's no indication that he can even move from his bed. My guess is that if Alice were as badly off as Frank, Neville would want to stop visiting them (if his grandmother would allow it). Seeing them both as living corpses would be too much to bear. At least he has this one small human interaction with his mother to look forward to--and maybe dread as well--each time he sees her. At any rate, I find the scene very touching, especially Neville's gesture of putting the gum wrapper in his pocket as if to say that it isn't worthless; it's a gift from his mother. We're meant to sympathize with Neville and to understand him a little bit, as Harry begins to do in that scene. Harry pities him and sees that in some ways Neville is worse off than he is. I for one hope that Harry will develop more respect for Neville, even possibly a real friendship. certainly Neville deserves that after the DoM. Carol, who thinks that any message in the gum wrappers would ruin the most emotionally powerful moment in the series so far From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 03:14:15 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:14:15 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112881 I'm just wondering if Fawkes gave the two tail feathers at the same time? Mr. Ollivander seems to imply so when he said, "It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand gave another feather -- just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother -- why, its brother gave you that scar." However, simply because Fawkes gave two feathers doesn't mean he gave both of them at the same time. Ollivander did not call the first feather "its twin." He called the first feather, "its brother". My "brother" and I weren't born at the same time, but twins would be. I see these possibilities: 1) Both tail feathers were given at the same time, which means they were given by Fawkes prior to Tom Riddle's entry into Hogwarts, which in turn, means that Harry's wand had been languishing in Ollivander's shop for over 50 years(?!) at the time he purchased it. However, simply because Fawkes gave two feather doesn't mean they HAD to use both of them, does it? It would seem to me that this would be an unusual event, to be avoided, given the potential for forcing the Priori Incantatem. To me, there must have been a reason for doing so; I see DD's hand all over this. But see # 4 below. 2) Both tail feathers were not given at the same time. This leads to different possibilities: Tom Riddle got the wand that was created with the first feather. After DD saw what Tom Riddle had become, but before Trelawney's prophesy, DD had Ollivander pull another tail feather and create a second wand, anticipating the role such a wand would play. OR DD had Ollivander create a second wand only after Trelawney's prophesy, anticipating the role that such a wand would play. OR (Admittedly gettin' crazy now) DD had both wands created before Tom Riddle was born, based on a prophesy made by Trelawney's great great (how many greats?) Grandmother, the famous seer, Cassandra. (I admit, I have nothing to support this, other than my curiosity as to why Cassandra is mentioned by name as being such a famous Seer. After all, that is why DD agreed to interview Trelawney in the first place.) Other possibilities, ya'll? This whole scenario raises some questions for me: 1) Was Fawkes DD's pheonix at the time he gave both feathers, regardless of whether both were given at once, or separately? I see nothing to suggest an answer either way, but I'm assuming that Fawkes did belong to DD when both feathers were given. Just seems like to much of a coincidence to be accidental. 2) Had Ollivander ever attempted to give Harry's wand to anyone else? I guess were are to assume that the wand would not choose a wizard other than Harry, but I still wonder if an attempt was made. (I wonder why Neville used his father's wand instead of getting his own? It apparently wasn't a matter of money, like with the Weasleys. I guess it was his Gran trying to "help" him be like his father.) 3) Couldn't DD have Ollivander pull another tail feather from Fawkes and create another wand for himself? Ollivander talks about nearly being gored by a unicorn when pulling the hair from the unicorn that was in Cedric's wand (GOF), so apparently the "donation" is not always voluntary. I don't see why he couldn't pull another one from Fawkes. But, if so, why hasn't he done so? 4) If DD in fact, had a second wand made, presumably for the one to be marked by the Dark Lord, then why wasn't that the first wand that Ollivander tested on Harry (assuming Harry is the one marked -- I don't want to get into that on this thread)? Ideas, anyone? Angie From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Sep 14 03:13:54 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:13:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112882 In a message dated 9/13/2004 9:16:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, garybec101 at comcast.net writes: > Becki here; > > I wholeheartedly agree with Theotokos. Marietta did not care about > anyone else but herself in this situation. She benefited for > months, all the way to April, from the DA meetings. She learned all > kinds of defensive spells to help her in school. I know it wasn't > OWL year for her and Cho, but you can't deny that they are not > better prepared entering their NEWT year. This is a very good point. Marietta attended the meetings regularly, learned all she could, THEN turned them in. I still want to know just why. We never see her pov, we don't know why she did it, or what she thought would happen. Please note, she didn't seem to have warned he best friend Cho. Cho was one of the attendees who were nearly caught by Umbridge and the IS. I certainly don't quite compare her actions to Wormtail's but I would definitely have dropped the friendship, were I involved. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 03:17:01 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:17:01 -0000 Subject: Ginny has GREEN eyes? and What were the Malfoys DOING there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112883 I was just listening to the US audiobook of CoS (the one with Jim Dale) and two things struck me. First of all, at the end of Chapter 3, "The Burrow", Ron and Harry are walking up the stairs to Ron's room, and they walk by an open door inhabited by a pair of "bright GREEN eyes"-- Ginny's. Now I just checked in the US hardcover edition, and the book definitely reads "bright BROWN eyes." Does the color variation occur in any other edition? Because if Ginny's eye color is green (like, say, Lily's and Harry's--not to mention Dobby's) rather than brown, then that HAS to be significant, and not only from a ship perspective... though from that perspective too, I suppose. If we want to get Freudian. If, on the other hand, it's a one-of-a-kind change... then we can blame it on Mr. Dale, and move on. The second question that came up was in the next chapter, "At Flourish and Blots". Malfoy and son enter the shop where Harry is hiding in order to sell some illicit and/or incriminating items. The proprietor starts getting chatty about lack of respect being shown to pure-bloods and then... "In that case, perhaps we can return to my list," said Mr. Malfoy shortly. "I am in something of a hurry, Borgin, I have important business elsewhere today -" (CoS, US ed, p 51) Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS ARE GOING TO BE IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???? His whole plot--indeed, the whole plot of the book-- hinges on his being able to slip the diary to Ginny. He clearly is counting on this. So how does he know she'll be there just then? Sorry if this has been discussed to death before... Antosha From erikal at magma.ca Tue Sep 14 03:22:03 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:22:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! SHIP? Message-ID: <01b901c49a0a$0273a3e0$4ca31a40@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 112884 HumanTupperware: >This is a bit off the topic of this thread, but this passage really >struck me when I read it.....but I thought that perhaps when Harry >is staring at Pavarti's hair, perhaps we are getting a little hint about >a future romance? Is there a Pavarti/Harry ship anywhere? I'm >curious! Well I don't know if it's a full fledged ship, but there may be a Harry/Parvati rowboat out there ;) Actually I recall that there was mention of Harry/Parvati in a SHIP thread a year or so ago, but I can't find it. More recently, Harry/Parvati was mentioned in message #92350 and there were a couple of messages on the subject back in April. See #94871. So there are a few people out there who have suggested Harry/Parvati as a possibility. 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 Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Sep 14 03:24:08 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:24:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) Message-ID: <66.45ac0030.2e77be58@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112885 In a message dated 9/12/2004 9:23:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, mgrantwich at yahoo.com writes: > He genuinely thought Sirius was guilty. Only if Sirius was really > and truly guilty would Snape have derived the most unspeakably > wonderful satisfaction from turning him in. Snape's pinned a lot of > his own personal self-esteem on being right about Sirius Black for > over 20 years while everyone else - including that uber-prat James > Potter - was completely taken in by Sirius' so-called charm and > supposed good looks. Only by presenting a guilty Sirius Black to > Dumbledore and saying "Ah ha! NOW you have to admit that I was > right! But no matter. I forgive you, Headmaster for doubting me all > thse years." This I agree with. I think that somewhere deep inside the part of Snape's character that made him a DE he truly believed that a friendship like the one James and Sirius shared had to be false, that someone like Sirius, with his family connections would backstab a friend with ease. > An innocent Sirius being dementored would not have been satisfying at > all. It ignores Snape's iron morality with his exquisitely honed > sense of fairness. This I quibble with. I think Snape might have appreciated the irony of the man who'd tried to kill him so long ago being kissed for something he hadn'd done. Especially as it seems that Sirius was never punished for his actions in the prank. I don't believe he'd have taken it upon himself to arrange it, but an "Ooops, too late" would have been an ironic victory. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 03:37:49 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:37:49 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <66.45ac0030.2e77be58@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112886 Lynx412 at A... wrote: >> This I quibble with. I think Snape might have appreciated the irony of > the man who'd tried to kill him so long ago being kissed for something he > hadn'd done. Especially as it seems that Sirius was never punished for his > actions in the prank. Alla: How do we know that Sirius was never punished for his actions in the Prank? He was not expelled, true. But surely Hogwarts are able to offer other punishments? I don't know, thousand detentions in the Forbidden Forest, for example. From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Sep 14 03:44:39 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:44:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) Message-ID: <1e3.2a9f1a5d.2e77c327@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112887 In a message dated 9/13/2004 11:40:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: > Alla: > > How do we know that Sirius was never punished for his actions in the > Prank? He was not expelled, true. But surely Hogwarts are able to > offer other punishments? I don't know, thousand detentions in the > Forbidden Forest, for example. Granted, we don't know how or if MWPP were punished of the Prank, what we do know [or can assume from Cannon] is that Snape doesn't think they were punished enough. Personally, I don't think DD overlooked it. I hope that in the remaining books we'll find out just what DD did about it at the time. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 03:48:07 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:48:07 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112888 KathyK wrote: >>I really don't think it's that unbelieveable that the Order would so quickly accept that Voldemort is back and that there are people in the Ministry who would take Dumbledore's or Harry's or Arthur's or Lupin's word for it.<< HunterGreen: They had more than Harry's word for it too, there was still the fact of Cedric's death and Polyjuiced!Mad-Eye Moody. Yes, they said that Barty Jr. was acting under his own insane motives, but I wonder how so many people were able to ignore Cedric's death. A tragic accident? How often do healthy 17 (or possibly 18) year old boys drop dead? Yes, he had some injuries from the maze, but he was certainly alive when he touched the trophy. The Diggory's (I assume), were a well- known family, the fact that their son died would not be easily ignored (at least by some people). From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 03:34:00 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:34:00 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny has GREEN eyes? and What were the Malfoys DOING there? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112889 Antosha asked: >Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS ARE GOING TO >BE >IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???? His whole plot--indeed, the whole plot of the >book-- >hinges on his being able to slip the diary to Ginny. He clearly is counting >on this. So how >does he know she'll be there just then? The Hogwarts students tend to do their shopping every year at around the same time. Malfoy had a good chance of encountering the Weasleys in Diagon Alley, especially if he knew that there was a celebrity/new Hogwarts teacher signing books that day -- and he was at that time on the Board of Governors, so he undoubtedly knew who the new DADA teacher was. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 03:53:03 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:53:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: Poor Snidget Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112890 Modesty Rabnott - who? - in her first solo! Poor Snidget (QTA, Chap. 4) To the tune of St. Bridget, from Jerry Herman's Mame MIDI at: http://www.hamienet.com/cat379.html THE YEAR: 1269. THE SCENE: Madam Modesty Rabnott intervenes in a Quidditch game on behalf of an endangered bird. MODESTY RABNOTT: Poor Snidget, delivered to a Quidditch game By Chief of the Council Barberus Bragg. All those who would hunt you I hold up to blame For the murder of birds just makes me gag. The players competed for the prize Bragg set A purse of a hundred-fifty Gall. But I'll not permit them to make good their threat Accio to me, Snidget, you little birdie, Bea-ea-ea-ea-ea-ea-ea-ea-eak and all. [speaking, as she pens a letter to her sister] They fined me, Prudence, but I've still got the Hippogriff! (music) So if you have pity on your poor sister, Look for me, dear old Prudence, I'll live in your old Noo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-ook this fall. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 04:52:30 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:52:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112891 Snow (me) previously: > especially when Voldemort attempted to possess him in the Ministry, > > where the pain became so intense that Harry wished he were dead. It > > sounds like something was being ripped out from inside of Harry to > > the point were he wished he were dead because there could be no > > greater pain. Voldemort himself describes this same type of > > feeling "pain beyond pain" and also being ripped from his body when > > his own being was split. Kneasy snipped atrociously: If this theory is correct then JKR will somehow have to explain why Voldy didn't get his missing bits back during the Ministry possession. Or maybe he did. Snow: Voldy would have retrieved his missing bits if it weren't for the "just kill us and I can see Sirius again" that released Harry from the possession, which also rejected any chance of Voldy getting back his missing pieces. If Voldy would have stuck around much longer the effort involved for Harry would have killed him but it would have also killed Voldemort if Voldy had stuck around any longer after Harry made his silent request. The possession nearly did kill Harry (which would have made Voldemort whole again) just the same as when Voldemort through Quirrell attempted to physically attack Harry. Harry felt the same effect of blinding pain at that time and also in the graveyard when Voldemort physically touched him. It's almost like superman with kryptonite, except for the power that Harry has. But this power that Harry has to be engaged by some type of catalyst, at the moment. Harry became strengthened in the graveyard by the phoenix song, which he not only heard but felt was in him. Harry became strong enough to beg for death at the hand of Dumbledore with the thought of seeing Sirius again. It is a feeling induced power. It's no wonder that Harry can produce a full-fledged corporeal Patronus at such a young age; you must feel the strongest memory of happiness! In Harry's case it is to be with the ones he loves. The question now would be who can withstand the ultimate pain. Harry doesn't quite realize exactly what this power is that he possesses any more than we, but he will. Voldemort is still unaware that any part of him has been missing since that night at GH, but he will. When the two finally have their final showdown, Harry will have had most of what little world he had taken from him, with nothing left to live for there is so much to die for which will be Voldemort's final downfall. This love from Harry will be so strong to want to belong in the same world of his Mother, Father, Godfather, and probably some of his closest friends it will be such a longing- to be with the ones he loves, such hopefulness- to be with his friends again, such ultimate powerful emotion- that it will destroy both parts of Voldemort. Do not dwell on dreams Harry and forget to live Do not dwell on those you have lost for they are always with you even if you cant be with them. Do not forget to live you will meet with them again Although this may be the ending the path to get there should be quite a ride! Snow From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 05:07:12 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:07:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112892 Snow (me) previously: > > Yes! Exactly. The curse that was used by Voldemort to kill Harry > > could not be the AK curse (but it was a killing curse) because as > > Fake Moody said there is no countercurse to an AK. Along with the > > fact that Tom Riddle quite plainly says, "So. Your mother died to > > save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm." > > Riddle admits that the curse was countered by a charm therefore the > > AK which cannot be countered could not have been the killing curse > > that was attempted by Voldemort on baby Harry. There is also the > fact that Harry only remembers one flash of green light that > accompanies the AK curse, which killed Lily. > Carol snipped: My understanding of a countercurse is that it's a spell used to counter another curse *after the fact.* Lily's protective charm (which I think was triggered by the combination of her self-sacrifice and the AK that hit Harry) would obviously have been placed on him *before* the fact. If I'm right, Lily performed a charm (or "countercharm," to use Tom's word, which admittedly muddies the waters a bit, especially since he seems to think that her self-sacrifice was all that was required to save Harry), not a countercurse; ergo Crouch!Moody's statement about there being no countercurse is not contradicted. Snow: I don't want this to sound bad but wouldn't a counter (curse) be during a curse not after one? To counter ones intention would be before or during not after, wouldn't it? Curse and Charm seem to be the bigger issue. I suspect that there is no counter of any type to an AK what so ever, whether it is a countercurse or a countercharm. If this were true then whatever killing curse was used (on Harry) at GH could not have been an AK, which cannot be countered. Carol snipped: Dare I suggest that maybe JKR hadn't thought out all the details and implications when she wrote the first two books and that we're bound to find inconsistencies between them and the later books? (The idea that Neville's family thought he might be "all-Muggle" rather than a Squib is another example.) Maybe, like LOTR, "the tale grew in the telling," Snow: Yes and Yes. First I think that everything necessary to the story is in the first two books and second I believe that you are right that we will find inconsistencies in the following books because as you point out what JKR had quoted herself about the fifth book "the tale grew in the telling", which is bound to be caught up in such scrutiny from the very avid, devout reader. I got such a chuckle out of the Neville portion of your response because I saw the same dilemma with that portrayal. There wasn't a problem until OOP when Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort didn't choose the pureblood but the half-blood like himself. Now there's a problem with the first book reference. Why would Neville or any member of his family believe him to be a muggle or if they all were pureblood? Carol snipped again: Carol, who is not blaming JKR for not having the time to revise her books, but does wonder how she can possibly tie so many loose ends together without still more inconsistencies and some glaring plot holes Snow: And so many doubt that there is an end to this site after the seventh book We'll See! From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 05:51:55 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:51:55 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112893 Angie: > > However, simply because Fawkes gave two feathers doesn't mean he gave > both of them at the same time. Ollivander did not call the first > feather "its twin." He called the first feather, "its brother". > My "brother" and I weren't born at the same time, but twins would > be. > I see these possibilities: > > 1) Both tail feathers were given at the same time, which means they > were given by Fawkes prior to Tom Riddle's entry into Hogwarts, which > in turn, means that Harry's wand had been languishing in Ollivander's > shop for over 50 years(?!) at the time he purchased it. > > However, simply because Fawkes gave two feather doesn't mean they > HAD to use both of them, does it? It would seem to me that this > would be an unusual event, to be avoided, given the potential for > forcing the Priori Incantatem. To me, there must have been a reason > for doing so; I see DD's hand all over this. But see # 4 below. > > > 2) Both tail feathers were not given at the same time. Finwitch: I don't know if it matters whether the tail-feathers given at the same time or not! The important thing is that they're both Fawkes' feathers, thus creating the Priori Incantatem-effect, as well as giving Harry an advantage, being that Fawkes is Harry's friend, as well as Dumbledore's pet. Angie: > 3) Couldn't DD have Ollivander pull another tail feather from Fawkes > and create another wand for himself? > > Ollivander talks about nearly being gored by a unicorn when pulling > the hair from the unicorn that was in Cedric's wand (GOF), so > apparently the "donation" is not always voluntary. I don't see why > he couldn't pull another one from Fawkes. But, if so, why hasn't he > done so? Finwitch: Well, Ollivander says that Fawkes *gave* the feathers, whereas he mentions having pulled the unicorn hair out, not about the unicorn *giving* it. Also, Harry & co in CoS, and Dumbledore in OOP - hang of Fawkes' tail-feathers, when the bird carries them! AND it is said that Phoenixes can carry heavy loads and fast at that... A person can, therefore, safely HANG, with full weight, on a feather of a phoenix, and it does NOT come off. Therefore, I doubt that Ollivander *could* pull out a phoenix feather! I see Fawkes giving a feather by simply dropping it to Ollivander (or, more likely, to Dumbledore). As to why Ollivander tells Dumbledore who bought the phoenix-wand, well - it pays to do such favours to someone who has a pet phoenix, considering how faithful phoenixes are - maybe in hopes of getting MORE feathers at later date? Or was that information a condition for getting one in the first place, on a magically binding contract? What I'm wondering, is the wand that did not choose Harry: Maple with a phoenix feather - and THAT phoenix wasn't Fawkes, since only two of Fawkes' feathers were ever made into wands (Harry and Tom)! Does that wand, perhaps, belong to Neville? I hope Book Six tells us whether Neville's wand has phoenix feather as a core! Finwitch From greatelderone at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 06:08:55 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:08:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Snow: > I don't want this to sound bad but wouldn't a counter (curse) be > during a curse not after one? To counter ones intention would be > before or during not after, wouldn't it? Curse and Charm seem to be > the bigger issue. I suspect that there is no counter of any type to > an AK what so ever, whether it is a countercurse or a countercharm. GEO: What was used at GH was hardly a countercharm. It was a wide blanketing protection against Voldemort and his powers created by the act of Voldemort killing Lily. Countercharms and curses are more like spells that are spoken or used by the wand. What happened there was more of an unconscious magical act by Lily and definitely not a countercharm or curse. > If this were true then whatever killing curse was used (on Harry) at > GH could not have been an AK, which cannot be countered. GEO: And the spell wasn't countered. Remember it left a scar on Harry and rebounded and destroyed Voldemort's body and quite a bit of the house. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 06:19:10 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:19:10 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112895 > > Frugalarugala: > Although I really think that Uncle Algie might have been trying to > prune the family tree, if Neville didn't have magic, "Trevor proving > it" was a joke. There was a thread going at the time I posted this, > speculating that Trevor might be yet another animagi, because he > keeps disappearing on Neville. > > Actually, I've just always been bugged by the bits with Trevor. I > hope he has some importance in the whole storyline other than giving > Neville something to panic over, 'cause I like Neville when he's not > worrying over that toad, but I suspect his sole purpose is to show > Neville's worrywart, panicky side. Finwitch: I think that Trevor will be of importance later. Remember that Petunia tells Harry how Lily came home with plans to raise toads or was it frogs? That Basilisks are hatched by a toad (or a snake)? All the chocolate frogs and their cards? With all the detentions Neville got from Snape, only details we hear, is when he's to disembowl a bowl of toads? Also, a Toad, an Owl (both Harry & Ron, now) and a Cat (Hermione has a half-cat) are the *suggested* pets... Lots of froggy things-- there MUST be something magical about them! Frugalarugala: > But even though I was being facetious, but I do think Uncle Algie > might have been pruning. I mean, what if Neville HAD been a squib? > He said he nearly drowned, and he's a wizard, if he had been a squib > would he have been a goner? Squibs presumably aren't more tough than > wizards. > > Oh, and as far as the Mimbulus Mimbletonia goes, yeah Neville likes > it--but who the hell gives plants that sprays stinkiness as birthday > presents?! (Actually, I can't even type that without laughing! FTD > has nothing on Uncle Algie!) Neville likes it, I know. Finwitch: Well - Algie didn't exactly PLAN to drop Neville (the surprise was what brought out Neville's magic, I think); and well, I don't think Neville would have died (just broken his wrist or something, and we know how good wizarding magic is to heal that sort of thing) And about Mimbulus Mimbletonia - it's *rare* and therefore, *valuable*. Also, Neville is great at Herbology -- I think that giving Neville a plant for a birthday gift was great! Because Neville is great in herbology and probably loves plants - Neville certainly appreciates it greatly! It shows that Algie knows Neville's strenghts and gave him something to remind him of the fact that he IS good at something... Mind you, giving Mimbulus Mimbletonia to Ron or Harry wouldn't be a great idea... giving it to Neville IS. It takes Neville's interests into account, you see. Finwitch From greatelderone at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 06:25:09 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:25:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > It well may be that Voldemort cannot truly die until he his whole > again. GEO: Or it might be because of Voldemort's attempts at immortality. If he spent more than thirty years trying to achieve, I'm guessing there might at least have some result. Voldemort hasn't been whole since his confrontation with > little Harry. Voldemort has lost whatever efforts he formerly made at > assuring himself immortality and now has to start over with his quest > for it. GEO: Proof? Frankly there's whole lotta speculation, not very much evidence from the book to back this up. > especially when Voldemort attempted to possess him in the Ministry, > where the pain became so intense that Harry wished he were dead. It > sounds like something was being ripped out from inside of Harry to > the point were he wished he were dead because there could be no > greater pain. GEO: You mean like Voldemort's spirit that was attempting to possesse Harry at that time? That would be whats causing the pain imo. Voldemort himself describes this same type of > feeling "pain beyond pain" and also being ripped from his body when > his own being was split. Voldemort felt the pain beyond pain in one > instance; GEO: That would be JKR using similar descriptions to describe similar situations. In the MoM scene, Voldemort's spirit is rejected from Harry's mind and in the situation at GH, we have his spirit getting ripped out of his body. The only revelation that might point to is that Voldemort has become more separate from his own body than regular humans and wizards. > Harry has had to live with that same unbearable pain ever > since his first encounter with the remaining portion of what lies > within him; Voldemort. GEO: Or it just might be a similarity in description and lack of originality on the part of the author. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 06:29:47 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:29:47 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Innocence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > HunterGreen: > They had more than Harry's word for it too, there was still the fact > of Cedric's death and Polyjuiced!Mad-Eye Moody. Yes, they said that > Barty Jr. was acting under his own insane motives, but I wonder how > so many people were able to ignore Cedric's death. GEO: If it implied that Voldemort was back then I'm sure quite a majority in the wizard world would have tried to ignore or find some excuse for what happened. A tragic accident? > How often do healthy 17 (or possibly 18) year old boys drop dead? > Yes, he had some injuries from the maze, but he was certainly alive > when he touched the trophy. The Diggory's (I assume), were a well- > known family, the fact that their son died would not be easily > ignored (at least by some people). GEO: The "some people" would be the Order, but a good number of others would have refused to believe Dumbledore's story and would have stuck with Fudge since his version provided more security and comfort. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 06:53:11 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:53:11 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos wrote: Theotokos: > > Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with the tip of his wand. > The instrument tinkled into life at once with rhythmic clinking noises. Tiny puffs of pale green smoke issued from the minuscule silver tube at the top. DD watched the smoke closely, his brow furrowed, and after a few seconds, the tiny puffs became a steady stream of smoke that thickened and coiled in the air....A serpent's head grew out of the end of it, opening its mouth wide. Harry wondered whether the instrument was confirming his story: He looked eagerly at DD for a sign that he was right, but DD did not look up. > "Naturally, naturally," murmured DD apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke with the slightest sign of surprise. "But in essence divided?" > Harry could make neither head nor tail of this question. The smoke serpent, however, split itself instantly into two snakes, both coiling and undulating in the dark air. With a look of grim satisfaction DD gave the instrument another gentle tap with his wand: The clinking noise slowed and died, and the smoke serpents grew faint, became a formless haze, and vanished. > > What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it have something to do with LV possession of Harry? > > I am lost. Geoff: You might pick up on some ideas by following a thread from a long while ago. It was entitled "The Smoke Serpent" and started at message 79231. Geoff See views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 07:06:15 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:06:15 -0000 Subject: Ginny has GREEN eyes? and What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112899 Antosha: > Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS ARE GOING TO BE > IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???? His whole plot--indeed, the whole plot of the book-- > hinges on his being able to slip the diary to Ginny. He clearly is counting on this. So how > does he know she'll be there just then? Finwitch: I don't know if he knew that the *Weasleys* were going to be there. Nor did his plot depend on slipping the diary to *Ginny* - anyone probably could have done right - anyone but Draco, that is! He just had to slip it into *someone's* book, in a crowd with all that book-signing going on to distract possible witnesses... (being able to get at Arthur Weasley trough Ginny was just an added bonus to L. Malfoy...) Finwitch From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 07:25:01 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:25:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112900 Snow wrote: >Voldemort hasn't been whole since his confrontation with little >Harry. Voldemort has lost whatever efforts he formerly made at >assuring himself immortality and now has to start over with his >quest for it. GEO replied: >>Proof? Frankly there's whole lotta speculation, not very much evidence from the book to back this up.<< HunterGreen: [GoF chpt 33, pg 654, US edi] (voldemort:) '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.' Sort of vague, but it does imply that at the very least Voldemort believes he is mortal. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 09:15:44 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:15:44 -0400 Subject: Sirius' Innocence Message-ID: <001701c49a3b$6a5a0950$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112901 DuffyPoo wrote: >>>"*You* are to alert Remus Lupin, Arabella FIgg, Mundungus Fletcher -- the old crowd. Lie low at Lupin's for a while, I will contact you there." (GoF) Doesn't say anything about Lupin and Sirius getting in touch with the 'old crowd' together. "I might add that werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind that his support will count for very little." (PoA) Just because DD and Sirius trust Lupin doesn't mean all of the 'old crowd' did as well. If a werewolf and a convicted murderer/escapee showed up at my door claiming the murderer was innocent, the 14 years-dead was alive, that LV was 'back' and that DD wanted to regroup, I'd have signed up in a second....NOT. How many times have we heard convicts - and their familes/friends - claim they are innocent? I'd have thought they were under a confundus charm.<<< Melanie said: "I will say this though I see no real reason why three 14 year olds would lie about it. You can say all you want, but to accuse Harry whose best friends are a muggle born and a Weasley of aiding in an effort to bring Voldemort back to power seems a bit sketchy." DuffyPoo: I never said anything about Harry, Ron and Hermione lying about it. Nothing of the sort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 09:30:58 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:30:58 -0400 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie Message-ID: <003101c49a3d$8b194c30$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112902 Arugala > Then there's Great Uncle Algie, AKA the gloved balcony dangler of > the WW. Nearly drowning Neville, "accidently" dropping him out of > windows--I smell Death Eater. I mean, twice nearly knocking off the > kid who might be the one with the power to destroy Voldemort, who > also appeared to be a squib? Would a DE want a squib in the family? < DuffyPoo: Begging pardon for butting in. HP was already "The Boy Who Lived" by this time. Neville was 8 at the time of the dropping out of the window business although Neville doesn't say how old he was at the timeof the near-drowning. Any DE worth his salt already believes the Potter kid was LV's undoing. Besides, if Neville was a squib, he wouldn't have had the power to defeat LV, IMO. I think a DE would be happier with a squib for a great-nephew than the vanquisher of his Lord and Master. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 09:47:03 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:47:03 -0400 Subject: The Sneak Mark Message-ID: <003f01c49a3f$ca52d5e0$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112903 tina said: "I'm not sure I would agree that it 'became' an anti-Umbridge group (indicating over the course of time). As the group thought of names the 'Anti Umbridge League' came up straight away. " DuffyPoo: According to the Lexicon (because I don't have time to look it up myself) the Hog's Head DA meeting was on Oct 5, and the first real DA meeting, where they chose the name of the group, was Oct 9. Umbridge is only mentioned three times at the original meeting...the rubbish Umbridge is teaching, that Umbridge has some idea that DD is going to use the students against the ministry, and that, by signing their names to the paper, they are agreeing no to tell Umbridge or anyone. They all knew then that what they were agreeing to was something that was going to be kept hidden from Umbridge, but not necessarily Anti-Umbridge. The Anti-Umbridge league name came up at the second meeting, on the 9th, when they were voting on a name. By that time, when Marietta realized it was going to be an anti-Umbridge/anti-Ministry group, she could have backed out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 10:18:06 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:18:06 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Lynx412 at A... wrote: > >> This I quibble with. I think Snape might have appreciated > the irony of > > the man who'd tried to kill him so long ago being kissed for > something he > > hadn'd done. Especially as it seems that Sirius was never punished > for his > > actions in the prank. > > > Alla: > > How do we know that Sirius was never punished for his actions in the > Prank? He was not expelled, true. But surely Hogwarts are able to > offer other punishments? I don't know, thousand detentions in the > Forbidden Forest, for example. mhbobbin: I have wondered if the Marauders lost the magical map about this time, and somehow related to this incident. As DD doesn't know about the map (at the end of GOF), it probably wasn't confiscated by him, but truly by Filch. It was in Filch's filing cabinet where the twins found it years later, and where Lupin was likely looking for it when he finds the Boggart in PoA. We know so little of the pre-story that I suspect all that we do know ties together, if loosely. While the map confiscation probably wasn't the punishment, it just may be related. mhbobbin From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 01:43:19 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914014319.91229.qmail@web80312.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112905 theotokos wrote: {snippety, snip, snip...) >Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver >instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it >over to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it >gently with the tip of his wand. [snip] > What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers > about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it >have something to do with LV possession of Harry? Tina responded: I've always thought that was revealing that Voldemort had been possessing the snake (they were one but are, in essence, divided). Snape does tell Harry during an Occlumency lesson that Harry was seeing through the snake's eyes because that is where LV was at the time... Was my understanding over-simplified again? ~tina theotokos responds to tina: I don't think your understanding over-simplified but as I asked the question I am sure I am not the one to answer that. So, you think DD can see what LV does? How does that work and why wouldn't he be able to see where he is so the OotP can swoop in on him and end this thing? There must be some other twist on the device DD used. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 01:45:20 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:45:20 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112906 Theotokos wrote: >>> In Ch. 22 "St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries" Harry has just had the experience of being Nagini and seeing Mr. Weasley bitten. The kids are now is DD office, Fawkes is keeping a "look out", and Phineas has gone to alert Sirius of the imminent arrival of the Weasley children and Harry. In the American HB page 474: > There was a flash of flame in the very middle of the office, leaving behind a single golden feather that floated gently to the floor. > "It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds....Minerva, go and head her off--tell her any story--" > I think it is agreed who the "she" is but how did she know? It is the middle of the night for goodness sakes! Does she somehow have the portraits watched or watching?>> Marcela here: If you remember, when Minerva and both Harry and Ron are walking to Dumbledore's office, Mrs. Norris spots them and Minerva had to shoo it away. Ergo, Mrs. Norris alerted Filch, whom alerted Dolores. Same situation happened before when Harry went to the owlery to send Sirius a message, at the beginning of the school year: Mrs. Norris spotted him -Harry said something like 'I'm allowed to walk in the halls this early in the morning' to Mrs. Norris and sure enough, after a while Filch showed up thinking Harry was asking for dungbombs and Cho sort of gave him an alibi. Theotokos: > AND on page 470: > Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with the tip of his wand. > The instrument tinkled into life at once with rhythmic clinking noises. Tiny puffs of pale green smoke issued from the minuscule silver tube at the top. DD watched the smoke closely, his brow furrowed, and after a few seconds, the tiny puffs became a steady stream of smoke that thickened and coiled in the air....A serpent's head grew out of the end of it, opening its mouth wide. Harry wondered whether the instrument was confirming his story: He looked eagerly at DD for a sign that he was right, but DD did not look up. > "Naturally, naturally," murmured DD apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke with the slightest sign of surprise. "But in essence divided?" > Harry could make neither head nor tail of this question. The smoke serpent, however, split itself instantly into two snakes, both coiling and undulating in the dark air. With a look of grim satisfaction DD gave the instrument another gentle tap with his wand: The clinking noise slowed and died, and the smoke serpents grew faint, became a formless haze, and vanished. > What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it have something to do with LV possession of Harry? > I am lost.>> Marcela here: Well, we are all in the same boat as you and with no compass, :P. There are some theories and speculations that the smokey snake is both LV's and Harry's wills/souls but that they are 'in essence divided', to make it short, meaning that LV's essence takes the bad path and Harry's the good one (or wrong and right, or whatever, but do not share the same fate). And as for your last question, it could very well be the explanation as to why LV wasn't able to possess Harry in the end of the book or why LV 'felt' Harry's presence in his (or the snake's mind) when he was attacking Mr. Weasley -Harry wanted to stop the attack so strongly that LV sensed him in his mind. Sorry if this doesn't help, but do not despair, you'll get some long answers to this dilemma soon . Marcela From robkristjansson at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 02:12:49 2004 From: robkristjansson at hotmail.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:12:49 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112907 > Yonna: > Well there is the parselmouth thing. That power probably came from > LV. Then there's all the bits where he has been feeling and even > seeing what LV is doing and feeling. Granted some of that was > planted in his mind from LV himself in OotP. IMHO I think HP will > gain the rest of LV's powers if and ***when*** he vanquishes him. And I also seem to remember some Tom Riddle palaver in CoS where he (Tom) is all wound up about how this boy, with nothing apperently special about him, could defy the greatest wizrd of the age. Mind you, I could be mixing up movie with book. Rob From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 11:33:45 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:33:45 -0400 Subject: Ginny has GREEN eyes? and What were the Malfoys DOING there? Message-ID: <006301c49a4e$b2aa0530$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112908 Antosha said: "Now I just checked in the US hardcover edition, and the book definitely reads "bright BROWN eyes." Does the color variation occur in any other edition?" DuffyPoo: Both of my Canadian versions - HB and PB - (same as the UK version I'm told) say brown eyes. Antosha said: "In that case, perhaps we can return to my list," said Mr. Malfoy shortly. "I am in something of a hurry, Borgin, I have important business elsewhere today -" (CoS, US ed, p 51) Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS ARE GOING TO BE IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???" DuffyPoo: Malfoy, Sr, in no way indicates here that his 'important business elsewhere' is running into the Weasleys and slipping Ginny the diary. He is, after all, planning to buy Draco - and the whole Slytherin team - racing brooms. (I have always thought that Malfoy was intending to give HP the diary and ended up giving it to Ginny out of spite over the fight with Arthur.) However, as Janet said, Lockhart would be in F&B signing books that day, it is quite likely lots of people were in Diagon Alley who would normally be there at another time. (In PoA, Harry is living at the Leaky Caulron for three weeks, and over that time runs into many of his school mates. They are not all there on the same day.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 11:34:56 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:34:56 -0400 Subject: HP's powers Message-ID: <006701c49a4e$dc7bbd40$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112909 > DuffyPoo: > Not I. He was a wizard baby boy before LV he'll be a wizard > after - if he lives. I personally can't see any proof, yet, > that any of his powers came from LV. JMO Yonna: "Well there is the parselmouth thing. That power probably came from LV. Then there's all the bits where he has been feeling and even seeing what LV is doing and feeling " DuffyPoo: Dumbledore assumes it came from LV. It could well have been a gift HP had of his own. He was the product of a powerful witch and wizard after all. As he was only 15 months old at the time of the attack, it is quite likely the Parseltongue wouldn't have shown itself yet, as it did not until HP was nearly 11. The bits of feeling and the dreams aren't magical powers, IMO. They are due to the link that was made between HP and LV when the curse backfired, thanks to Lily's sacrifice. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 11:41:32 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:41:32 -0400 Subject: Colin Creevy Message-ID: <006b01c49a4f$c9f1afd0$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112910 Hannah said: "I think there is a lot more to Colin than meets the eye. He is mentioned in all of the books from CoS onwards, even when he doesn't have much part to play in the story. It's like JKR wants us to remember that he's there. She even gives him a little brother (a sort of Colin#2) in GoF. Whatever narrative functions Colin's character might perform, it doesn't seem necessary to have two similar characters just to tell Harry he's great and stare at things open-mouthed with wonder." DuffyPoo: I think one of the reasons for Colin's existence is to prove once again, "that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be!" (DD - GoF - The Parting of the Ways) We've seen two instances - Lily and Hermione - where Muggle-born witches are quite powerful in their magic despite being Muggle-born. We haven't seen that in a wizard, yet. While some are saying that Wormtail may turn out to be the Muggle-born DE that JKR mentioned at the Edinburgh book reading, Wormtail certainly is no example, as far as we've seen, of a powerful wizard. Malfoy says "He [Dumbledore] loves Muggle-borns. A decent headmaster would never've let slime like that Creevey in" and while this was a slight at DD it was also a slight at Muggle-borns. It would be nice to see Draco get his comeuppance in Colin. ;) Hannah said: "I also believe that Colin Creevy may be a half-blood. Although he is attacked by the Slytherin monster, I think one muggle parent would be enough to justify a basilisk attack in the eyes of the pure- blood fanatics. Colin seems to come from a close family, yet he only mentions his Dad, not his Mum. He says he is sending pictures to his Dad, and even volunteers that he is muggle milkman. Why isn't he including his Mum in this? Even the first time I read this, I took it that his Mum was dead/ had left them. And missing parents in Potterverse always flag up warning signs. She could well have been a witch." DuffyPoo: You may be right. I'm thinking of Dean Thomas' backstory here. Perhaps the Mom left the family or died. Colin and Dennis would be raised as Muggles by their Muggle-milkman-dad. They certainly were raised as Muggles. Colin had a Muggle camera and had to be told of the potion to develop pictures to make them move. He knew nothing of Quidditch. However, Draco Malfoy believes Colin is Muggle-born (see quote above). The pure-blood-prejudiced kids seem to 'know' everyone else's blood status. In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one setting the basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns and who were not (not that I'm saying she is pure-blood-prejudiced, but she knew what she was supposed to be doing: setting the basilisk on Muggle-borns). I think this shows that Penelope Clearwater and Colin Creevey are Muggle-borns as well as Hermione and Justin. (On a side note, since Sir Nicholas was also kind of petrified by the basilisk, does that prove that he was Muggle-born as well?) Hannah: "My supporting evidence for this is the existence of wizard!Dennis. A wizard child born to two muggle parents is fairly unusual. Lily's sister (Petunia) is not magical, neither is Hermione's younger sister (from JKR website/ chats), so it doesn't seem that siblings of muggle born wizards are usually magical too. But here are the Creevys with two wizard sons. This would be (be my reasoning), extremely unusual for two muggles, but normal for a witch and a muggle." DuffyPoo: I, personally, don't think this is enough evidence. Not enough to prove anything. We only have the Creeveys and the Evans'. For our purposes Hermione doesn't have a sister. "JK Rowling replies -> I always planned that Hermione would have a younger sister but she's never made an appearance and somehow it feels like it might be too late now." She doesn't give any indication, that I can see, whether the sister would magical or not. Justin and Penelope, our other two known Muggle-borns don't appear to have siblings either. Neither does Dean Thomas who we believe, from the book, is a Muggle-born (apart from what JKR's site says.) So, the Creeveys have two Muggle-born wizards and the Evans' have one Muggle-born witch and one Muggle. Those are the only real cases we know of. Hannah: "So... could Colin Creevy be the half blood prince?" DuffyPoo: At this point, anything is possible and your guess is as good as anyone else's. ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 11:41:53 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:41:53 -0400 Subject: How did Umbridge know? Message-ID: <006f01c49a4f$d7a623e0$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112911 Theotokos >>In Ch. 22 "St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries" Harry has just had the experience of being Nagini and seeing Mr. Weasley bitten. The kids are now is DD office, Fawkes is keeping a "look out", and Phineas has gone to alert Sirius of the imminent arrival of the Weasley children and Harry. In the American HB page 474: There was a flash of flame in the very middle of the office, leaving behind a single golden feather that floated gently to the floor. "It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds....Minerva, go and head her off--tell her any story--" I think it is agreed who the "she" is but how did she know?<< DuffyPoo: I'm not going to be able to help you at all with this question, but to add a similar situation. In PoA, the Gryffindors are partying because they beat Ravenclaw at Quidditch, putting them, I think, into the final when at one time they thought they would be out of it. Professor McGonagall showed up and ended the party and insisted they all go to bed. After Ron is attacked by Sirius, and everyone gets up again , Fred Weasley even suggesting that the party is carrying on, and McGonagall shows up again, quite indignant and telling Percy she expected better of him. How did SHE know? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 11:42:58 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:42:58 -0400 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family Message-ID: <007301c49a4f$fc1d2980$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112912 > DuffyPoo: > IMO (for what it's worth) the blood connection charm that DD used was with Lily/Petunia because she was the only living relative HP had. If Alice were James' sister, there would have been a choice for DD to place HP. There was not. Hickengruendler: "I disagree. Dumbledore made it clear, that Harry is safe at the Dursleys because that's the place where his mother's blood dwells. It was Lily's sacrifice that saved them, and Dumbledore said, that because of this sacrifice Harry is safe at the Dursleys. That has nothing to do with James." DuffyPoo: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the *only family* he has left now." (PS) You are right, he IS only safe at the Dursleys because of Petunia (his mother's blood). What I was saying is, if Petunia was not in the picture, and Alice was James' sister, the blood protection could have worked the same. This charm of DD's isn't contingent on Lily's sacrifice, only the fact that the same blood runs through their veins. If both Alice and Petunia were sisters of James and Lily, DD would have had to have made a choice in placing Harry. He did not have the choice to make because Petunia and Vernon are Harry's only family. Hickengruendler: "On the other hand, I do think it is possible that they are distant relatives, the same way the Blacks and the Weasleys are. Sirius said, that all the pure-blood families are related, and yet he mentioned neither the Potters nor the Longbottoms as being related to the Black family." DuffyPoo: If this were the case, Alice and Frank were still alive at the time of James and Lily's death. Dumbledore could have placed Harry with them. He did not, because the Dursleys are Harry's only living relatives. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From redlena_web at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 04:17:24 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:17:24 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! SHIP? In-Reply-To: <01b901c49a0a$0273a3e0$4ca31a40@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112913 > HumanTupperware: > > >This is a bit off the topic of this thread, but this passage really > >struck me when I read it.....but I thought that perhaps when Harry > >is staring at Pavarti's hair, perhaps we are getting a little hint about > >a future romance? Is there a Pavarti/Harry ship anywhere? I'm > >curious! > > Erika (Wolfraven): > Well I don't know if it's a full fledged ship, but there may be a Harry/Parvati rowboat out there ;) > That ship/rowboat/raft has already sunk. In the GoF, Harry took Parvati to the Yule Ball after Cho turned him down. I don't have my book handy at the moment, but as the Lexicon puts it (on http://www.hp- lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-o-r.html) ... "Harry was a rather disappointing escort, paying Parvati very little attention, and Parvati took up with a boy from Beauxbatons instead (GF23), and was somewhat cool toward Harry for quite some time afterward - understandable on the whole, since he had ignored her very obviously for most of the evening in a very public situation." From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 14 12:59:54 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:59:54 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I feel that > whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the right > to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point. To me, the issue > is her character. If I had been a minor member of the DA I think I > would have felt intimidated by the ruthlessness of Hermione's > action, especially as I would now know that I, too, would be > carrying a latent hex that I had not agreed to receive or even known > about (as a practical point the hex would have been a more effective > deterrent if people had known it existed - keeping it quiet makes > one wonder if Hermione was *banking* on someone talking, for the > shock value). I doubt that in its wider implications the 'sneak' > hex was good for DA morale. Alshain: I just wonder how in the world one "agrees" to become the object of a hex? If someone hexes me and I'm too slow to block it and grow tentacles as a result, have I agreed to the result? Nope. If I've broken a promise I've made to somebody, no matter how good my intentions are, should I be surprised or feel hurt if there are consequences? I don't think so. That's what witness protection programmes are for, after all. Furthermore, I agree that it may have been fairer play if Hermione had told everyone about the hex, but OTOH telling people would have been tantamount to open threat (don't squeal or else). And though I think Hermione has many faults, I'm prepared to sympathise with her for that weakness. The issue of the hexed list wouldn't even have arisen if everyone had played straight. When Marietta began to have conscience troubles she could have told someone about them (Zacharias wasn't punished for expressing doubts), could have dropped out quietly, but she didn't. OK, Marietta and Hermione have different set of values here. What ensues is the familiar problem with value relativism. If Character A's set of values is just as valid as the opposing one of Character B's, then it follows, doesn't it, that the reverse is true as well. One of them can't be "just as good as the other one" and "morally superior" at the same time. Trying to pass moral judgment using one of those value sets is only nonsensical. You need a third and objective scale for that, otherwise you'll be going in circles. Alshain, who had better stop reading philosophy for a hobby From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 13:06:58 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:06:58 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry In-Reply-To: <20040913.224829.1860.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112915 Aura wrote: > So, it's been discussed -- very convincingly -- that the spell > Voldemort used on baby Harry wasn't an AK, but something else. > (See: archives for evidence of this.) The OP suggested that V meant > to absorb Harry's powers or something. But rewatching CoS, it > occurs to me that V is the *last* heir of Slytherin. The last > person in a long, proud, powerful magical family. > > Considering the purebloodists' emphasis on bloodline and such, > wouldn't one of V's primary goals be to find someone to carry on > his bloodline? > > So . . . what if V wasn't trying to *take* baby Harry's essence, but > *give* Harry Voldemort's. The spell was extremely powerful, enough > to take out the Potter's house; a spell like what that I'm > suggesting is more extreme magic than anything we've seen, and > would surely take a lot of power and a really badass dark wizard. > > Why would he pick Harry? If Harry was destined to kill V, and V is > concerned with continuing his bloodline, then he must fear that > Harry will grow up to kill any of V's heirs (because dark wizards > are paranoid like that). If Harry IS V's heir, then V is hoping > that Harry (selfishly, because that's the only kind of motivation V > understands) won't kill himself for any kind of V-stopping heroics. > SSSusan: These are very intriguing thoughts, Aura, especially since it has been recently speculated that what Voldy used at GH was not AK. The only reaction I had, though, which would go a bit against the likelihood of this, is that Voldy had already taken extraordinary steps towards immortality...and had apparently experienced some success. If he felt he was immortal, would he worry about having an heir at all? Or do you think he *would* have, just as a precautionary step? Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 13:30:23 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914133023.91934.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112916 --- totorivers wrote: > Snape isn't that great of a wizard, > as far as we know. Even though he is supposed to be a good > Occlumens, Harry does go into his head once. > > Toto Harry didn't go into his head on his own; he threw up a shield charm ("Protego!") and Snape's own spell boomeranged on him, allowing Harry access to Snape's memories. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 13:38:12 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914133812.93668.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112917 >> theotokos wrote: >> {snippety, snip, snip...) >> "Dumbledore now swooped down upon one of the fragile silver >> instruments whose function Harry had never known, carried it over >> to his desk, sat down facing them again, and tapped it gently with >> the tip of his wand." > [snip] >> What is that about? It must be giving DD some sort of answers >> about Harry's vision. Essence divided? two snakes? Does it >> have something to do with LV possession of Harry? Yes, I think it refers to what Moody will tell Arthur, Molly and Tonks in the next couple of chapters: that VOldemort is "possessing" Harry somehow. It's noteworthy that Dumbledore does this silver instrument thing BEFORE he tells Harry and the others anything about Arthur's condition or any other important information. He has to ensure that Harry has not been taken over by Voldemort - YET - and that it's safe to talk in front of him. "But in essence divided?" And the smoke splits into two snakes, assuring Dumbledore that Harry hasn't "gone" yet. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 14 13:38:42 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:38:42 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <1e3.2a9f1a5d.2e77c327@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynx412 at A... wrote: > > Alla: > > > > How do we know that Sirius was never punished for his actions in the > > Prank? He was not expelled, true. But surely Hogwarts are able to > > offer other punishments? I don't know, thousand detentions in the > > Forbidden Forest, for example. Cheryl: Granted, we don't know how or if MWPP were punished of the Prank, what > we do know [or can assume from Cannon] is that Snape doesn't think they were > punished enough. Personally, I don't think DD overlooked it. I hope that in > the remaining books we'll find out just what DD did about it at the time. > > The Other Cheryl ...and Alshain: Knowing what we know about Snape's hatred of MWPP and his fear of being subjected to ridicule, would any punishment short of expulsion, drawing and quartering, have sufficed then? I think not. And now, after he's been brooding on The Incident for half his life, letting those feelings fester inside him? Nothing anyone says is going to make him change, because I don't think he's ready to admit to himself that he's wasted half a lifetime with being angry and bitter with the people who bullied him in school. And there's great and twisted pleasure to be had in casting yourself in the role of A Victim Unjustly Wronged, whether it's true or not. I find Snape's self-respect quite intriguing. On the one hand he has very high opinions of himself and his worth and takes himself far too seriously (or he might have made fun about Neville's Boggart instead of becoming angry); on the other hand the bullying MWPP subjected him to must have hurt his self-confidence badly. Alshain From kreneeb at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 13:47:40 2004 From: kreneeb at hotmail.com (hermionekitten9) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:47:40 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! SHIP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112919 > HumanTupperware: > > >This is a bit off the topic of this thread, but this passage really > >struck me when I read it.....but I thought that perhaps when Harry > >is staring at Pavarti's hair, perhaps we are getting a little hint about > >a future romance? Is there a Pavarti/Harry ship anywhere? I'm > >curious! > > Erika (Wolfraven): > Well I don't know if it's a full fledged ship, but there may be a Harry/Parvati rowboat out there ;) > That ship/rowboat/raft has already sunk. In the GoF, Harry took Parvati to the Yule Ball after Cho turned him down. I don't have my book handy at the moment, but as the Lexicon puts it (on http://www.hp- lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-o-r.html) ... "Harry was a rather disappointing escort, paying Parvati very little attention,and Parvati took up with a boy from Beauxbatons instead (GF23), and was somewhat cool toward Harry for quite some time afterward - understandable on the whole, since he had ignored her very obviously for most of the evening in a very public situation." kitten: I Don't understand what that has to do with anything... after all Neville and Ginny is a most popular ship and they didn't have a grand old time either... There is also an argument to be made that JKR could have purposely had them not have a good time to throw us of the scent-g- right now its still up in the air... there is a good chance that Harry could end up with Parvati.. we don't know. I don't think its sunk at all... really the only ship that has sunk is Hermione/Draco. I like the idea of Harry ending up with any minor character (my heart is set on Susan Bones) but I really don't care who... I just *really* don't want Harry to end up with Hermione, Ginny or Luna. kitten (who is laughing at the thought of everyones reaction if Harry did end up with someone like Susan or Parvati) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 14 14:05:58 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:05:58 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynx412 at A... wrote: > This is a very good point. Marietta attended the meetings regularly, learned all she could, THEN turned them in. I still want to know just why. We never see her pov, we don't know why she did it, or what she thought would happen. Please note, she didn't seem to have warned he best friend Cho. Cho was one of the attendees who were nearly caught by Umbridge and the IS. < Pippin: Actually, I think we do have some clues to what triggered the betrayal, though Rowling doesn't make it obvious. First we have the story of Regulus, who "got in so far, panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out." That sounds like it might apply to Marietta. We also have Fudge's statement in GoF that "half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban." Did Harry do something that would have caused Marietta to panic? Perhaps. We know they had started learning the patronus spell. I don't think Harry thought clearly enough about the implications of teaching it. As far as he's concerned it's just a class treat. It's far beyond ordinary wizarding levels--they don't need to know it for their OWLs. In his mind, he's not training people to resist dementors, either, because he knows what kind of training it really takes to do it. He's also firmly convinced that the dementors are outside Ministry control and may be already working for Voldemort But to someone who believed that the dementors were under ministry control, and who didn't realize how much magic it would take to actually fight them, being part of "Dumbledore's Army" and training to use the patronus spell would look pretty bad, especially after the Azkaban break out. It'd be like if your self-defense group started training with armor-piercing bullets. You'd wonder if someone wasn't planning to fight cops. Pippin From sunnylove0 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 14:35:30 2004 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:35:30 EDT Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112921 At Monday night's dinner, Harry worries about how his interview will go over with the wizarding public, especially appearing in a magazine like The Quibbler, but Neville reassures him, saying that people have got to him. After dinner, Harry and Hermione discuss what went wrong with his date with Cho Chang (Harry is clueless again). They are joined by Ron and Ginny, who confess that the Quidditch team is nothing short of a disaster. This is confirmed later by Fred and George, who admit that without Quidditch, they're considering leaving Hogwarts. The following Saturday, after an awful game (Ron misses fourteen goals to the never ending chorus of "Weasley is our king" ) Gryffindor loses to Hufflepuff by a merciful ten points due to Ginny's timely catching of the snitch. Harry, dejected and knowing he could have done better (Umbridge has been rubbing it in with satisfied stares), is reassured by Ginny, who says when Umbridge is gone and Harry is back, she'll try out for Chaser. Ron feels so bad he tries to resign, but Angelina refuses. That night, Harry dreams once more of the corridor. The next morning, Harry is deluged with mail, including an issue of The Quibbler: his interview has been printed. The trio open other letters to find responses to the article, many surprisingly positive. The commotion attracts Umbridge who, livid, bans Harry from Hogsmeade weekends, gives him another week of detention, and to Hermione's glee, completely bans The Quibbler, unintentionally encouraging everyone to read it. The response is delightful: the teachers reward Harry with candy and house points, Seamus apologizes and says he's sent the interview to his mother, Cho gives Harry a kiss, and Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, and a Slytherin boy Hermione identifies as Theodore Nott, whispering angrily but not daring to discuss the article out loud. That night, Harry has a dream where he is interrogating DE Rookwood, about Bode, whom Malfoy has placed under Imperius to steal an unknown object, under false information from Avery. He then looks into a mirror and seeing himself as Voldemort, wakes up in shock. In the morning, the trio discuss the dream, and Hermione reminds them of Sturgis Podmore's arrest---Malfoy could have tried the same thing on him. She then reminds Harry, to his anger, that he shouldn't be having these dreams if he was practicing Occlumency. This is rubbed in later at the Occlumency session itself---Snape catches a vision of the dream and interrogates Harry about it. In the argument that follows, Snape reveals that it is his job, and not Harry's, to know what Voldemort is up to. During the nest Legimens spell, Harry manages to concentrate long enough to conjure a shield spell, breaking into some painful memories of Snape's. Snape then breaks the vision, white and shaking. Upset and frightened himself, Harry cannot block another vision of the corridor. Snape is reprimanding him angrily when a woman screams upstairs. Upstairs, Trelawney is throwing a fit: Umbridge has fired her and ordered her from the castle. But Professor Dumbledore insists that she stay, and introduces the horrified Umbridge to Trelawney's replacement...the centaur Firenze. ************** Discussion Questions: 1) Has Harry learned anything from his date with Cho and advice from Hermione? Will he be better at dating in the future? 2) Why is Harry's interview so convincing, when Dumbledore's speeches are not? 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that he is not part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from a DE family. 4) Why does Harry continue to neglect Occlumency? Would he do better if he had a teacher other than Snape? Or is his wish to see the corridor overriding his better judgement? 5) Why is Snape so upset when Harry breaks into his memories? Does he expect Harry to taunt him, like James? 6) Is Trelawney's incompetence the only reason Umbridge wants her thrown out of the castle? Given what we know now, what might have happened if Umbridge had succeeded? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 14:40:18 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914144018.99187.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112922 > At any rate, I find the scene very touching, especially Neville's > gesture of putting the gum wrapper in his pocket as if to say that > it > isn't worthless; it's a gift from his mother. We're meant to > sympathize with Neville and to understand him a little bit, as > Harry > begins to do in that scene. Harry pities him and sees that in some > ways Neville is worse off than he is. I for one hope that Harry > will > develop more respect for Neville, even possibly a real friendship. > certainly Neville deserves that after the DoM. > > Carol, who thinks that any message in the gum wrappers would ruin > the most emotionally powerful moment in the series so far Dreading the wrath of the list because I just want to say I so agree with this. Neville stepped onto the stage in a big way in OOTP and this touching moment is seared into every reader's mind. I would regard it as a major betrayal if JKR uses the gumwrappers as some way of communication. Magda > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From sunnylove0 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 14:42:28 2004 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:42:28 EDT Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26 Footnotes Message-ID: <5b.58c7bc10.2e785d54@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112923 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! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 14 14:47:38 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:47:38 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112924 David: > On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I feel that whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the right to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point. < Pippin: To me, it's exactly the point. Hermione is very sensitive about lack of due process, lack of informed consent, cruel and unusual punishments, unrepresentative government and being nasty to toerags in general, but it's a case of being able to see the speck in your neighbor's eye better than the two by four in your own. David: (and I don't believe difficulty is seriously JKR's criterion for rightness) Pippin: But that's the proverbial wisdom of Scotland! 'O see you not yon narrow road, So thick beset with thorns and briars! That is the path of righteousness, Though after it but few enquires. ' 'And see ye not that braid, braid road, That lies across that lily leven? That is the path of wickedness, Though some call it the road to Heaven ' -Thomas the Rhymer Pippin From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 15:23:20 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:23:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sunnylove0 at a... wrote: > > 5) Why is Snape so upset when Harry breaks into his memories? Does he > expect Harry to taunt him, like James? Actually, Harry's vision of the DOM door opening wide angers Snape more than Harry's mental penetration - "For some reason, Snape seemed even angrier than he had done two minutes before, when Harry had seen into his teacher's memories." And look at Snape's immediate reaction when Harry *first* opens his memory - "I don't remember telling you to use a Shield Charm but there is no doubt that it was effective " Snape doesn't seem angry, just a bit nonplussed. This is one of the few times - maybe the only time - that Snape gave Harry positive feedback during the Occlumency lessons. My guess is that Harry was probably more worried about Snape's reaction - I'm sure that Snape expected that Harry would have seen some of his memories - that's why I'm sure it's true that he "did not beg for the job, and why he so carefully placed the real "off-limits" memories in the Pensieve. - CMC From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 14 16:03:51 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:03:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112926 sunnylove0 at a... wrote: >> > > Discussion Questions:> > 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that he is not part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from a DE family. Potioncat: It just hit me recently that it's interesting that it was Hermione who knew Nott. (Gad, what a pun that makes!) Of course, she seems to know more people than Harry does. It could be that a smart Muggleborn learns who the Slytherins are. Or it could be that she has other classes with Theo, and interacts with him out of sight of Harry and possibly Draco. She doesn't say anything about Nott, and I wonder what she knows about him? Potioncat who does know there is a difficult knot called the Theodore Knot (also Fiodore Knot) and hopes his entire name isn't Theodore Mark Evans Nott. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 14 16:55:10 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:55:10 -0400 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie Message-ID: <001a01c49a7b$994f9140$93c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 112927 Finwitch: "I think that Trevor will be of importance later. Remember that Petunia tells Harry how Lily came home with plans to raise toads or was it frogs?" DuffyPoo: Can you possibly mean this "and came home every holiday with her pockets full of frog-spawn, turning teacups into rats"? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 16:57:34 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:57:34 -0000 Subject: Ginny has GREEN eyes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112928 Antosha wrote: <> Blame it on Mr. Dale. Ginny's eyes are referred to as brown in both the UK and US editions, as well as on the UK audiotape. But Dale definitely says "green" on the US audiotape. ~Phyllis who thinks this was a Freudian slip on Dale's part, and had formulated all sorts of fascinating theories about what Ginny's green eyes signified before she found out it was only a mistake... From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 14:59:36 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914145936.77949.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112929 2) Why is Harry's interview so convincing, when Dumbledore's speeches are not? I think DD's speeches were to government, i.e. the Wizengamot and other MOM officials. Some believed and others didn't. The MOM has the welfare of the whole to consider as well as their jobs. Although we haven't seen textual evidence it is inferred that Fudge's job, at least, is at the will of the people. If they publicly "believed" DD there would be an uproar for sure. Harry's interview went beyond MOM boundaries straight to the people. He told the whole story as he experienced it and named names--something DD did not do, except to gov't agencies. Also, Harry's interview came after the escape of the DE's from Azkaban 5) Why is Snape so upset when Harry breaks into his memories? Does he expect Harry to taunt him, like James? I think he is embarrassed at being used to abominably by James and the others who laugh at him. He is not calm and collected as we usually see him now. He was unable to get the best of James and hates anyone seeing him weak. Same for the memory of being in his room and of seeing his father(?) being cruel to his mother. Harry saw him crying. How embarrassing to caught feeling. 6) Is Trelawney's incompetence the only reason Umbridge wants her thrown out of the castle? Given what we know now, what might have happened if Umbridge had succeeded? I think she would be vulnerable to LV. He probably knows who made the prophesy since he know the prophesy its self, part of it at least. T would be in "grave danger" if she left the safety of Hogwarts. Theotokos From theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 15:08:43 2004 From: theotokos_8679 at sbcglobal.net (theotokos) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Warlock/Wizard Message-ID: <20040914150843.25907.qmail@web80304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112930 I have read information on the Lexicon and other places I cannot recall but there does not appear to be a definitive definition/distinction between warlock and wizard. Anyone know more about this? Has JKR ever been asked to clarify? Are they simply synonyms? Theotokos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 17:08:44 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:08:44 -0000 Subject: Ginny has GREEN eyes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > Antosha wrote: > > < Dale) and two things struck me. > > First of all, at the end of Chapter 3, "The Burrow", Ron and Harry > are walking up the stairs to Ron's room, and they walk by an open > door inhabited by a pair of "bright GREEN eyes"-- Ginny's.>> > > Blame it on Mr. Dale. Ginny's eyes are referred to as brown in both > the UK and US editions, as well as on the UK audiotape. But Dale > definitely says "green" on the US audiotape. > > ~Phyllis > who thinks this was a Freudian slip on Dale's part, and had > formulated all sorts of fascinating theories about what Ginny's green > eyes signified before she found out it was only a mistake... Yeah, I had all sorts of theories percolating away like a slightly over-cooked polyjuice potion... Ah well. Not that this is precisely canon evidence, but I noticed that on the cover of the US book and audio, Ginny is clearly shown as having the same brown eyes as her brother. For what it's worth. Another possibility bites the dust... Antosha From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 15:40:16 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:40:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sunnylove0 at a... wrote: > > > > 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that he is not > part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from a DE family. > (First time post, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes). It seems to me a better question would be: why *don't* H and R know who Nott is? He's a Slytherin in their year, which means he's been taking Potions and CofMC, and perhaps other classes (can't remember which others might be joint classes), with them every week for 4 and a half years. This is another example of how Harry doesn't notice things that he has no interest in -- just like he doesn't notice that Ginny fancies him or that she has moved her interest on to other boys. It's probably also a sign that H&R aren't paying close attention in class (as if we hadn't already realized that). Hermione probably knew the name of every Slytherin in her year after the first week of school (first year), just by paying attention when role was called. (And, as the mother of a boy, I'd have to say this may to be typical of males. My 8-year-old son can spend an entire week at daycamp playing with the same kid, and at the end of the week, the kid is still "my friend" and he has now idea what the child's name is.) Sandy (who'd love to think of a cute name to use instead, but who's suffering from writer's block at the moment) From paniaguamd at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 17:06:48 2004 From: paniaguamd at hotmail.com (twingles47) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:06:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > sunnylove0 at a... wrote: > >> > > > Discussion Questions:> > > 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that > he is not part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from > a DE family. > > Potioncat: > It just hit me recently that it's interesting that it was Hermione > who knew Nott. (Gad, what a pun that makes!) Of course, she seems > to know more people than Harry does. It could be that a smart > Muggleborn learns who the Slytherins are. Or it could be that she > has other classes with Theo, and interacts with him out of sight of > Harry and possibly Draco. She doesn't say anything about Nott, and > I wonder what she knows about him? > > Beth: In a way, it's almost more interesting that the others don't know who he is--after all, they've had Care of Magical Creatures with the Slytherins since POA. Are there any examples of students who've added electives they had missed in earlier years, or is the Slytherin/Gryffindor rift so deep that they haven't bothered to learn the names of classmates after three years in a class that seems to be maybe twenty or thirty people. Beth, hoping Theodore Nott turns out to be the "good Slytherin" From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 17:13:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:13:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112934 sunnylove: > > 5) Why is Snape so upset when Harry breaks into his memories? > > Does he expect Harry to taunt him, like James? Caius: > Actually, Harry's vision of the DOM door opening wide angers Snape > more than Harry's mental penetration - "For some reason, Snape > seemed even angrier than he had done two minutes before, when Harry > had seen into his teacher's memories." > > And look at Snape's immediate reaction when Harry *first* opens his > memory - "I don't remember telling you to use a Shield Charm but > there is no doubt that it was effective " Snape doesn't seem angry, > just a bit nonplussed. This is one of the few times - maybe the > only time - that Snape gave Harry positive feedback during the > Occlumency lessons. > > My guess is that Harry was probably more worried about Snape's > reaction - I'm sure that Snape expected that Harry would have seen > some of his memories - that's why I'm sure it's true that he "did > not beg for the job, and why he so carefully placed the real "off- > limits" memories in the Pensieve. SSSusan: Yes, Caius is right. This episode and the one during first Occlumency lesson, when Snape remarks "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been" show Snape at his most complimentary. And remember that the moment of being REALLY livid is reserved for when Harry sees those memories in the Pensieve. I think Caius is right that Snape expected Harry might well get a glimpse of the memories he left inside himself and so wasn't all that angry. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ankashai at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 03:28:42 2004 From: ankashai at gmail.com (ankashai) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:28:42 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <20040914003405.77087.qmail@web80307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos ..> wrote: > In Ch. 22 "St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries" "It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds....Minerva, go and head her off--tell her any story--" > > I think it is agreed who the "she" is but how did she know? It is the middle of the night for goodness sakes! Does she somehow have the portraits watched or watching? Well now that you mention it, that first 'she' could be any number of people-- Mrs. Norris springs to mind, or even the Fat Lady ( is there an evil Fat Lady ship yet? I'm sure I can find a way to prove it...! ), but both seem highly unlikely, and don't really go with the next line of the quote. I don't think McGonagall is going to spin tales for a cat. Assuming that the 'she' Dumbledore is referring to is Umbridge, I can easily see her setting up some sort of magical alarm system to alert her when students exit their dorms. Her monitoring of the Hogwarts fires seem proof to this ( chapter 17, the grasping hand that appears in the fireplace during a chat between Sirius and Harry ), and unless I'm mistaken Harry and Sirius were talking some time late at night. Hardly the hour you'd expect Umbridge to be darting around. Likewise, the notorious Mrs. Norris or Filch could be the informant (though one would think they'd get some sleep once in a while! The teachers at Hogwarts seem to have nothing better to do in the middle of the night but roam the castle, keeping on the lookout. ); one of the paintings could have been asked to keep an eye on things, and wake Umbridge in the event of a disturbance; even one of the ghosts could have chosen to tell her, though that seems rather unlikely. Or maybe it wasn't Harry that Umbridge was watching, but rather McGonagall. After all, if I was her I'd certainly be interested in the activities of the deputy headmistress, even if she wasn't one of Dumbledore's strongest supporters. -Hawke P.S. Oh yes, this was supposed to be an introduction post as well! Hi, I'm Hawke, the slightly psychotically rambunctious rambler who just recently discovered the joys of overanalyzing Harry Potter during Hurricane Frances. Mind you, my copy of book five is packed *somewhere* ( we just moved ), and my copies of books 1-3 are in French ( even though my French is rather rusty. I got bored at a Paris train station ), so most of my references are some weird mix of memory, the HP Lexicon, and chapter summaries online. And no, I'm not drunk just high on sugar and chinese food. It's been a long day. =D From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:08:11 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:08:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sunnylove0 at a... wrote: > Discussion Questions: > 2) Why is Harry's interview so convincing, when Dumbledore's speeches are not?< KathyK: All the WW got before the _Quibbler_ interview was an incomplete second hand account from Dumbleodre. With Harry's interview, the public is getting a more in-depth, personal description of Lord Voldemort's return. I think people were more open to the possibility LV was back than they were before the Azkaban break out. After all, Sirius escaped from prison two years before this. Why had it taken so long for him to rally the Death Eaters? Maybe it's not Black who is the problem, maybe Dumbledore and the Potter boy are right: Voldemort is back. So I believe it's a combination of the first-hand account and the DE's escape. > 4) Why does Harry continue to neglect Occlumency? Would he do better if he had a teacher other than Snape? Or is his wish to see the corridor overriding his better judgement?< KathyK: Harry (Or LV's) wish to see what's behind the door is causing the failure of his Occlumency lessons, IMO. While I think Snape teaching Harry was not the wisest choice given their mutual dislike for one another, I don't think Harry would ever learn Occlumency no matter how hard he tried or how good Snape's teaching methods might be because he wanted that door open. Even if Snape continued the Occlumency lessons after Harry's dip into the Pensieve, I don't see Harry mastering it. I can't believe I'm saying it's not Snape's fault! ;-) > 5) Why is Snape so upset when Harry breaks into his memories? Does he expect Harry to taunt him, like James?< KathyK: I have to agree with Caius that Harry was more worried that Snape was angry rather than Snape actually being very angry. > 6) Is Trelawney's incompetence the only reason Umbridge wants her thrown out of the castle? Given what we know now, what might have happened if Umbridge had succeeded?< KathyK: I don't think Trelawney's incompetence is the only reason. It's the *excuse* but the reason is, Umbridge is looking to make somebody squirm. The pleasure she took in firing her and in forcing her to leave the castle was great. Especially given the recent success of Harry's interview. Umbridge needed to do something to again feel as if she had control of Hogwarts. Banning discussion and possession of said article was not enough to satisfy her. She needed to do something *big* to show she's in charge. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:10:47 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:10:47 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112937 > > DuffyPoo: Not I. He was a wizard baby boy before LV he'll be a wizard after - if he lives. I personally can't see any proof, yet, that any of his powers came from LV. JMO > Yonna: Well there is the parselmouth thing. That power probably came from LV. Then there's all the bits where he has been feeling and even seeing what LV is doing and feeling. Granted some of that was planted in his mind from LV himself in OotP. IMHO I think HP will gain the rest of LV's powers if and ***when*** he vanquishes him. Kemper now: I like to think that Harry could speak to baby snakes prior to that horrible Halloween. As for HP gaining the rest of LV's powers when HP vanquishes him..? Are you thinking of Highlander Potter, the Lad Who Lived? From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 18:26:01 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:26:01 -0000 Subject: How did Umbridge know? In-Reply-To: <006f01c49a4f$d7a623e0$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > I'm not going to be able to help you at all with this question, but to add a similar situation. In PoA, the Gryffindors are partying because they beat Ravenclaw at Quidditch, putting them, I think, into the final when at one time they thought they would be out of it. Professor McGonagall showed up and ended the party and insisted they all go to bed. After Ron is attacked by Sirius, and everyone gets up again , Fred Weasley even suggesting that the party is carrying on, and McGonagall shows up again, quite indignant and telling Percy she expected better of him. How did SHE know? Okay, this is just my speculation. However, I hazard a guess that one of the portraits in each common room (perhaps the password checker) has the responsibility to snoop on the students' behaviour for their head of house and report immediately if something out of the ordinary is going on. Note that when an emergency arises in the bedrooms (e.g. Harry's snake dream episode), McGonnagal has to be called by a student. Presumably there are no portraits there? Salit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:41:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:41:24 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: <001b01c498f1$461fb580$5d62acce@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112939 DuffyPoo wrote: > 3) The wand Sirius uses in the DoM is one from the Black family home that belonged to either his Mother or Father or Regulus. > > I think Sirius probably had his wand with him when he was captured. It would have been broken or at the very least taken from him. He was going after Pettigrew, after all, and while I wouldn't put it past Sirius to kill Wormtail with his bare hands, it would have been quicker with a wand. ;-) Carol responds: While I agree that Sirius's wand must have been taken from him and broken after he ostensibly murdered Peter and the Muggles (why, why didn't they do Priori Incantatem on it?), I think there's another possibility. Mr. Ollivander refers to Lily's *first* wand, implying that she later bought another, presumably more powerful wand. The same could be true for Sirius: he could be using his old wand from his school days as opposed to a more powerful one that was taken away. (Maybe he'd have had better luck against Bellatrix with the wand that was destroyed. Oh, well!) Carol From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 14 19:02:33 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:02:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > And with that segue, SSSusan begins yet again, with her spiel on > Sacrificial Love. [Some are sure to be running for cover just now.] > > Plain Old Love, as it were, can definitely include or involve those > kinds of damaging, stiffling side-effects Kneasy has cited. Yet it > seems to me that Sacrificial Love - or a willingness to die out of > love for others - doesn't include the more negative side-trappings of > Plain Old Love *and* has the bonus that it deals with this > willingness to die that Harry seems to have. Voldy doesn't have it - > he wants to live forever - and so he would NEVER consider sacrificing > himself, for love or any other motive. > > So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy > Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of > Mysteries. > Um. I'm having trouble with this one. How often does Sacrificial Love turn up in the books? Once - maybe. Yeah sure, Lily sacrificed herself - the 'maybe' was because it happened before the books kicked off, but gets referred to later. I'd expect the boys in the back-room of the Ministry to concentrate on something that has a wider application, or at least something they can get examples of to study. Can't study lovin' Lil's mind set or emotions - she's gone; an ex-witch, joined the choir invisible, etc. How do you study that? All very nice and fluffy of course, which is probably one of the main reasons for my dubiety, the other main one is that it seems to be as rare as hen's teeth. We've had a few examples of sacrifice - most notably the metaphorical and literal sacrifice of Ron in PS/SS. Not made out of feelings of love, I think - just necessity. I'm not even sure that thoughts of sacrifice crossed Harrys' mind on his rescue mission to the Ministry, more the impulse to act, to do something to help Sirius. And if, as DD says, Harry is full of this stuff, he doesn't seem to show it at the critical moment when Voldy grabs his mind at the end of OoP. Sure, he seems willing to die - but for no purpose. He will see Sirius again, but that won't save Sirius or anybody else; it's not really a sacrifice in the way that most would understand it. Mind you, I don't doubt that DD sees Harry sacrificing himself for the greater good of the WW - he just hasn't got round to letting Harry in on his plan. He'll manoeuvre Harry into a postion where it becomes an inevitability. "We are defined by our choices, Harry; and your choice, should you choose to accept it, is to lay down your life for the WW. And Voldy would probably get you anyway. This owl will self-destruct in 10 seconds." Poor Harry. Kneasy From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 14 19:15:00 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:15:00 -0000 Subject: Alice & the Potter Family In-Reply-To: <007301c49a4f$fc1d2980$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112941 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > DuffyPoo: > "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the *only family* he has left now." (PS) You are right, he IS only safe at the Dursleys because of Petunia (his mother's blood). What I was saying is, if Petunia was not in the picture, and Alice was James' sister, the blood protection could have worked the same. Hickengruendler again: "Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I can give you." (OOTP, "The Lost Prophecy"). I really think this means, that it is Lily's blood that keeps Harry save, and has nothing to do with James. But anyway, I agree with you that Alice is not James' sister, because a) Harry should know by now, and b) McGonagall would knew that Dumbledore lied, when he said that the Dursleys are his only relatives. > Hickengruendler: > "On the other hand, I do think it is possible that they are distant > relatives, the same way the Blacks and the Weasleys are. Sirius said, > that all the pure-blood families are related, and yet he mentioned > neither the Potters nor the Longbottoms as being related to the Black > family." > > DuffyPoo: > If this were the case, Alice and Frank were still alive at the time of James and Lily's death. Dumbledore could have placed Harry with them. He did not, because the Dursleys are Harry's only living relatives. JMO Hickengruendler: Not, if Alice and Frank are only very distant relatives. Even assuming, that James' blood also would keep Harry save (and like I said, I don't think that's true), if Alice were just James' cousin, than she's a way more distant relative to Harry than Petunia or even Dudley is, and it would still make sense, that Dumbledore gives Harry to the Dursleys. Don't forget, according to OotP, all the Pureblood families are related. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 14 19:33:09 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:33:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112942 Kneasy > Um. I'm having trouble with this one. > How often does Sacrificial Love turn up in the books? Once - maybe. Yeah sure, Lily sacrificed herself - the 'maybe' was because it happened before the books kicked off, but gets referred to later. I'd expect the boys in the back-room of the Ministry to concentrate on something that has a wider application, or at least something they can get examples of to study. Can't study lovin' Lil's mind set or emotions - she's gone; an ex-witch, joined the choir invisible, etc. How do you study that?< Well, considering they've also got time in a bottle and the solar system somehow sandwiched into a basement laboratory, I wouldn't put it past them. But I think the PBTD* is *unselfish* love. That gets rid of Kneasy's drawbacks, and also avoids the martyr complex -- "Look what I've done for you!" I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books--sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it. Pippin *Power Behind The Door From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 14 19:40:40 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:40:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: ?> > I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books--sacrificial > love is only the most spectacular example of it. > Give me ten examples. Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great difficulty in doing so. In fact, love of any sort in much thinner on the ground than most posters realise. Count 'em up and see. Kneasy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 19:53:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:53:20 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112944 Rob wrote: > Does anyone figure HP will lose his powers once he vanquishes LV? I > figure this must be a possibility, since it seems most of his powers > seem to come from LV, and the hero in G vs. E epics often has to > sacrifice something for the people's benefit. > Carol responds: Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" shouts Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' James Potter?") and they were particularly good at Transfiguration and Charms, respectively. Presumably Harry inherited at least some of their skill. The ability to produce a "corporeal Patronus," for example, seems more likely to have been inherited from James than transferred to Harry from Voldemort. Certainly his skill at Quidditch (and flying) comes directly from James. I think he'll lose whatever powers he acquired from Voldemort (Parseltongue and possibly Legilimency--I'm not sure what else) but retain the powers that are native to him (to steal a phrase from Tolkien). If (and this is a big if) only Voldemort can kill him and he is otherwise immune to death until the final confrontation, he will certainly lose that immunity and be subject to death by falling (or whatever) like any other wizard. I tend to think that he's immune to AK and less susceptible to Imperio than other wizards because of the scar. Maybe he'll retain the scar but it will be just a scar (as Gandalf's ring is just a ring after the One Ring is destroyed). In short, if he survives, he'll be "just Harry"--an ordinary young wizard--which is exactly what he wants to be. I can't imagine him losing his powers and having to live in the Muggle world (or become the first artificially created Squib). No, Harry was born with magical powers ("His name's been down [in the Hogwarts book] since he was born") and I doubt very much that he'll lose any powers that were not acquired from Voldemort. And those, no doubt, he'll be happy to lose. Carol, who is hopelessly addicted to parentheses From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 20:23:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:23:04 -0000 Subject: Sirius as DD's messenger to the Order (Was: Sirius' Innocence) In-Reply-To: <004901c49921$fac60b30$5e280dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112945 Susana wrote: > DD sends Sirius to Lupin so the can *toguether* get in touch with the 'old > crowd'. > > The 'old crowd' most likely knew Sirius and the affection he had for James. With Lupin stating he saw Pettigrew who confess the betrayal, and asking them to regroup on DD's command, I don't see the strangeness. Carol responds: I *do* see the strangeness. Look at Mrs. Weasley's reaction when she first sees Padfoot transform himself into Sirius. She screams in terror because she still thinks he's a murderering traitor. It seems to me that DD is trying to make Sirius feel useful, but once he goes to Lupin, his role as messenger will be over, and Lupin will have to do most of the talking, with Sirius sitting at his feet in dog form. Only when the other person has heard the full story and is fully persuaded of its truth would it be safe for Sirius to transform into his human self. One way to manage this would be to go to Mrs. Figg first. Since she's a Squib, she can't panic and cast a spell on Sirius. Once she's persuaded, they could summon Mundungus to Mrs. Figg's house. If "Figgy" is convinced, Mundungus will be easier to persuade. And so on. (Too bad they wouldn't be able to take Mrs. Figg with them to other houses, but she can't apparate and her house is probably not connected to the Floo network. Clearly figuring out who to contact in what order, who to take with them, and so forth would be a challenge.) In some cases, the best bet might be for Lupin to stick his head into the fireplace rather than apparating or Flooing to the person's house. Imagine Sirius in dog form Flooing into someone's living room!) Obviously I don't know exactly how they did it, but I think that Lupin would have to persuade Black to take uncharacteristic precautions. Obviously, Black alone could not be the messenger. Carol, who is trying to get into the habit of calling Sirius "Black" to match Lupin and Snape From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 14 20:25:05 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:25:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > ?> > > I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books--sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it. > > Kneasy: > Give me ten examples. > Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great difficulty in doing so.< Off the top of my head James dies to defend Lily and Harry Lily dies to defend Harry Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game Molly takes Harry into the Weasley family Harry goes to rescue Ginny Harry defends Dumbledore to Riddle Sirius offers a home to Harry Harry rescues Sirius and Buckbeak Molly's hug (GoF) Harry thinking of Ron and Hermione as he fights the dementors Harry thinking of Sirius as he struggles with Voldemort That's eleven. I'm sure there are more. Pippin From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Tue Sep 14 20:41:34 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:41:34 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112947 Following through on the gum wrappers thread, I suddenly wondered why it was that Ron and Ginny were apparently as surprised as Hermione to learn that Alice and Frank were in the closed ward? Coming from the Dursleys, Harry could not be expected to know what happened to the Longbottoms until he sees it in the pensieve, and the same goes for muggle born Hermione. But Dumbledore tells Harry that there was an outcry in the wizarding world when the Longbottoms were attacked, 'a wave of fury', so all wizarding families must know what happened. Dumbledore himself doesn't seem to have ordered secrecy as a protection for Neville- he appears genuinely surprised to hear that Neville has not explained things to Harry, and it is only the realisation that Neville does not want the matter widely known that makes DD enjoin Harry to keep it quiet. In fact, the sort of pathetic individual who could make bullying capital out of insanity ie Draco Malfoy, appears to have a fair idea already. You would have thought that Ron or Seamus or other pure blood kids would have mentioned at home that Neville was in their class - he is quite a distinctive character. We must assume that their parents know what happened to Neville's parents, so why does no one explain? Is this silence (as I suspect)merely a literary device to develop Neville as a character? Sympathy from other parents keeping them quiet is possible, but would they all react the same way? Or something else? Leah From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 21:25:27 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914212527.96883.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112948 --- littleleahstill wrote: > You would have thought that Ron or Seamus or other pure blood kids > would have mentioned at home that Neville was in their class - he > is > quite a distinctive character. We must assume that their parents > know what happened to Neville's parents, so why does no one > explain? > > Is this silence (as I suspect)merely a literary device to develop > Neville as a character? Sympathy from other parents keeping them > quiet is possible, but would they all react the same way? Or > something else? > > Leah I view it as another sign that for all the toasts to the Boy-Who-Lived and McGonagall's claim in PS/SS that October 31 would be known as "Harry Potter Day", the WW put the Bad Days behind them as quickly as they could. Voldemort was dead (hopefully), Sirius Black was behind bars and everything was back to what passed for normal in the WW. There's a lot of simply not talking about things, from what I can see. I think the Longbottoms fall into this category. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 14 21:33:20 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:33:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112949 Pippin: > Off the top of my head > > James dies to defend Lily and Harry > Lily dies to defend Harry > Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game > Molly takes Harry into the Weasley family > Harry goes to rescue Ginny > Harry defends Dumbledore to Riddle > Sirius offers a home to Harry > Harry rescues Sirius and Buckbeak > Molly's hug (GoF) > Harry thinking of Ron and Hermione as he fights the dementors > Harry thinking of Sirius as he struggles with Voldemort > > That's eleven. I'm sure there are more. > Potioncat: -Dobby risking his safety to warn Harry -Hermione with Harry to save Sirius and Buckbeak (she knew the danger) -The members of the DA who help Harry break into Umbridge's office -Snape going after a murderer and werewolf to protect Harry in the Shrieking shack....OK, delete that one. Potioncat who expects someone will say these are examples of courage not love. From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 14 22:02:08 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:02:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry Message-ID: <20040914.180430.408.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 112950 SS Susan: > These are very intriguing thoughts, Aura Awww! You're so sweet for only subtly mocking me! ;) > Voldy had already taken extraordinary > steps towards immortality...and had apparently experienced some > success. If he felt he was immortal, would he worry about having an > heir at all? Or do you think he *would* have, just as a > precautionary step? I can't put my finger on why, exactly, but somehow, I don't see Vold not wanting an heir just because he's immortal. The motivations are just very different. Being immortal onself is about fear of dying and being completely powerful, but an heir is like a family. Having an heir means proliferation of the name, expansion of the power, being able to do more. An immortal Vold is just one entity, but having an heir can make "the Voldemorts" a ruling family, which could come in handy if V wants to take over the world. Maybe use his granddaughters as bartering chips in the game of political marriages with other dark qizards, give the grandsons armies to control, etc. :) If nothing else, I can imagine some dark, demented, awesome fanfics on this idea. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 22:17:07 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:17:07 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: Rob: > And I also seem to remember some Tom Riddle palaver in CoS where he > (Tom) is all wound up about how this boy, with nothing apperently > special about him, could defy the greatest wizrd of the age. Mind > you, I could be mixing up movie with book. Geoff: It's both. book and DVD. '"...I have many questions for you, Harry Potter." "Like what?" Harry spat, fists still clenched. "Well," said Riddle, smiling pleasantly, "how is it that a baby with no extraordinary magical talent managed to defeat the greatest wizard of all time?....."' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.231 UK edition) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 22:31:56 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:31:56 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112952 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Angie: > > > > However, simply because Fawkes gave two feathers doesn't mean he gave > > both of them at the same time. Ollivander did not call the first > > feather "its twin." He called the first feather, "its brother". > > My "brother" and I weren't born at the same time, but twins would > > be. Mac now: Nice point Angie - agreed by me now you make me think about it. > > I see these possibilities: > > > > 1) Both tail feathers were given at the same time, which means they > > were given by Fawkes prior to Tom Riddle's entry into Hogwarts, which > > in turn, means that Harry's wand had been languishing in Ollivander's > > shop for over 50 years(?!) at the time he purchased it. Mac now: Yes, could be, but seems unlikely, even though Ollivander's is LONG established and there's something odd about his appearance (read description in SS/PS) suggesting he's both old and not quite like other wizards. > > However, simply because Fawkes gave two feather doesn't mean they > > HAD to use both of them, does it? It would seem to me that this > > would be an unusual event, to be avoided, given the potential for > > forcing the Priori Incantatem. To me, there must have been a reason > > for doing so; I see DD's hand all over this. Mac now: Yes, me too. DD must have known. Fawkes is HIS pheonix. > Finwitch: > > I don't know if it matters whether the tail-feathers given at > the same time or not! Mac now: IMO it REALLY does (see below). > > Finwitch: > > Well, Ollivander says that Fawkes *gave* the feathers, whereas he > mentions having pulled the unicorn hair out, not about the unicorn > *giving* it. > > Also, Harry & co in CoS, and Dumbledore in OOP - hang of Fawkes' > tail-feathers, when the bird carries them! AND it is said that > Phoenixes can carry heavy loads and fast at that... > > A person can, therefore, safely HANG, with full weight, on a feather > of a phoenix, and it does NOT come off. Therefore, I doubt that > Ollivander *could* pull out a phoenix feather! I see Fawkes giving a > feather by simply dropping it to Ollivander (or, more likely, to > Dumbledore). Mac now: I agree with this (good point Finwitch). Fawkes volunteers (if he chooses) - but is NOT forceable. (Finwitch again:) > What I'm wondering, is the wand that did not choose Harry: Maple with > a phoenix feather - and THAT phoenix wasn't Fawkes, since only two of > Fawkes' feathers were ever made into wands (Harry and Tom)! Does that > wand, perhaps, belong to Neville? I hope Book Six tells us whether > Neville's wand has phoenix feather as a core! > > Finwitch Mac now: I recently re-read this bit too and spotted that *a* pheonix feather wand hadn't been *the one* for Harry. It makes me think about whether DD might not give Neville an unknown advantage by having a THIRD feather donated by Fawkes for his specific use (as a wand of course) in book 6. I have a theory (earlier post somewhere) that the prophecy could STILL apply to both Harry and Neville, i.e. Harry for one part and Neville for the repeat - it never made sense to me that it is SO repetitious and, given the view that the last part was the bit LV's spy missed hearing, it seemed to me that it was mostly repetition that would have been missed unless the spy was discovered REALLY early on into the prophecy. Anyway, as usual I digress. What I had wanted to stress was an earlier post which (as many do) went by the board and was not commented on (message 112280) which was about the wands but may have been ignored because of its subject heading. Anyway, here's the repeat: "" ... Don't ask me how/why, but suddenly this post makes me ask the question that if a pheonix feather from *Fawkes* is as special as we all seem to think it IS, then how is it that Tom Riddle was given the first wand in the first case? Is it that the SECOND feather became important only once the 1st wand had turned out to be in the wrong hands or was it that somehow Tom Riddle was selected to receive this wand because he was a fantastically promising student and/or had a terribly sad and 'deserving' background before Hogwart's? The latter would be really interesting. I am also reminded, because wandwoods are mentioned, of the discussion about Harry's scar (shape of a lightning bolt i.e. the rune eihwaz, associated with yew trees - a dark magical wandwood and the one used for the 1st wand - LV's). Harry's is made of Holly which is associated with good (redemption?) - worth reading at the link below (Warning - long!) if you haven't encountered these ideas (scar/runes/wandwoods, LV/Harry connection) and lots of other good things besides such as Hermione's frustration at her mistake on runes exam (ehwaz vs eihwaz - GoF or OotP - can't recall which) - http://www.cosforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16412.html ... " SO, to conclude this NEW post - Just WHY did Riddle get such a special wand in the first place? and Does DD blame himself for the mistake that a feather from HIS pheonix turned out to be in part the instrument of such mayhem in the hands of 'the most evil/powerful' wizard that ever lived'? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 22:33:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:33:24 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112953 > totorivers wrote: > > Why didn't you talk about the morality? Snape has never shown himself to have moral either...he enjoys taunting *children*, and have absolutely no problem handing a man to the dementor's kiss. Rowling also declared that Snape was a true DE for a time, meaning that he tortured/raped children, and he probably enjoyed it > > > SSSusan: > WHAT? How do you know this is what DEs do? How do you know which DE > activities Snape participated in and which he did not? It's *canon* > that many of the DEs were kept in the dark about who other DEs were > and/or what they were doing. I *suspect* [can't yet know] that Snape > did participate fully in some kind of DE ugliness, but there's no way > you can state that he *did* do these things quite so assuredly. > > > totorivers: > > I have trouble as envisioning such a man as *moral*. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan responded: > Again, there is much we do not know about Professor Snape. Yet, what > about Snape's decision to save Harry during the Quidditch match in > SS/PS? He could have played dumb about what was going on, he could > have sneered and said "Que sera, sera." But he didn't. He > intervened, in order to save Harry's life. Was that not a "moral" > decision? What about accepting the burden of turning to & sticking > with DD & The Order at "great personal risk"? Is that not "moral"? > > I know that many posters here fully expect to find out that Snape > never did anything except as it fit into his own agenda. I don't > believe that fully, though we can't be sure. > > Carol adds: I agree completely with SSS. There is no evidence that Snape or any DE, even Antonin Dolohov, who seems to have no redeeming tratits whatever, raped and tortured children. Nor do I expect to hear any testimony that they did so. This is, after all, a children's series in which rape, I hope, plays no part. Toto, please don't assume that you *know* what the DEs did beyond the evidence we've been given. We know, for example, who murdered the Prewetts, who specialized in the Imperius curse and made other people do terrible things, who tortured the Longbottoms into insanity. Snape has not been associated with any of these crimes, and even the people who committed them have not been accused of the crimes you mention. There is no canon to back you up. As for Snape, who is "now no more a Death Eater than I am," according to Dumbledore, he not only did the things SSS mentioned, he also alerted the Order to Harry's danger at the end of OoP and in so doing made it possible for them to save not only Harry but five other students as well. And he goes into great danger, possibly contacting the DEs to explain why he wasn't at the graveyard, at the end of GoF. Other examples of his courage and loyalty to Dumbledore can be cited, complete with quotes and page numbers if you need them. I, for one, think that Snape is wholly worthy of Dumbledore's trust. He is always on hand when Dumbledore needs him and there may be more even to his teaching methods than meets the eye. (I have a feeling that specific lessons he has taught will come into play, for example, that first lesson when he makes sure that Harry knows what a bezoar is.) As JKR herself has said, we shouldn't judge Snape by appearances. There *is* a redemptive pattern to Snape for which examples can be cited from canon, and he *has* gone out of his way not only to save (or try to save) Harry but to risk his life working for the Order (in addition to his teaching and supervisory duties). Just because Harry dislikes Snape and he's presented *from Harry's POV* as a "greasy git" who is sarcastic to his students doesn't mean that he's evil. Dumbledore trusts him. Maybe we should, too. Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 22:34:02 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:34:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112954 SSSusan earlier: >>>> And with that segue, SSSusan begins yet again, with her spiel on Sacrificial Love. [Some are sure to be running for cover just now.] Plain Old Love, as it were, can definitely include or involve those kinds of damaging, stiffling side-effects Kneasy has cited. Yet it seems to me that Sacrificial Love - or a willingness to die out of love for others - doesn't include the more negative side-trappings of Plain Old Love *and* has the bonus that it deals with this willingness to die that Harry seems to have. Voldy doesn't have it - he wants to live forever - and so he would NEVER consider sacrificing himself, for love or any other motive. So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries. <<<< Kneasy: > Um. I'm having trouble with this one. > How often does Sacrificial Love turn up in the books? Once - > maybe. SSSusan: Yep, NOT often at all--precisely my point. It's a RARE thing to encounter. And I think it would HAVE to be a rare action to be true. Kneasy: > Yeah sure, Lily sacrificed herself - the 'maybe' was because it > happened before the books kicked off, but gets referred to later. > I'd expect the boys in the back-room of the Ministry to > concentrate on something that has a wider application, or at least > something they can get examples of to study. Can't study lovin' > Lil's mind set or emotions - she's gone; an ex-witch, joined the > choir invisible, etc. How do you study that? SSSusan: Actually, for some reason I've not even articulated to myself, I HAVEN'T been thinking of Lily at the times that I have written about sacrificial love. Maybe because all the talk about THAT [Lily] has had to do with "ancient magic"...setting up a protection...something that lives in someone else's blood. My vision of Sacrificial Love w/ Harry in mind isn't like that at all. In fact, it really isn't magic so much as it's just HUMAN. Kneasy: > All very nice and fluffy of course, which is probably one of the > main reasons for my dubiety, the other main one is that it seems > to be as rare as hen's teeth. > We've had a few examples of sacrifice - most notably the > metaphorical and literal sacrifice of Ron in PS/SS. Not made out > of feelings of love, I think - just necessity. SSSusan: Yes, I'd agree that it's rare as hen's teeth. And I'm not sure how I feel about Ron's action in PS/SS as it related to sacrificial love; you may well be right its having been about "necessity" rather than "love." But I also really don't think that what I'm talking about is fluffy either. Perhaps it would be so to you or to others, but in my mind a willingness to sacrifice oneself, potentially enduring torture or a gruesome death, isn't really fluffy. [And just to be clear--I'm NOT talking about romantic love for some ONE, either.] As to the Ministry studying it, you've got a point that it may be difficult to study if it's so rare. Hadn't thought of that. But since I know nothing about HOW they're studying it, I'm not sure what "evidence" or materials they would need in order to do so.... Maybe there are other means. Kneasy: > I'm not even sure that thoughts of sacrifice crossed Harrys' mind > on his rescue mission to the Ministry, more the impulse to act, to > do something to help Sirius. > > And if, as DD says, Harry is full of this stuff, he doesn't seem > to show it at the critical moment when Voldy grabs his mind at the > end of OoP. > Sure, he seems willing to die - but for no purpose. He will see > Sirius again, but that won't save Sirius or anybody else; it's not > really a sacrifice in the way that most would understand it. SSSusan: Oh, I'm not sure sacrifice crossed Harry's mind then, either. In fact, I doubt that it did. I've in mind something Harry likely won't be ready to seriously consider until he grows more, probably not much before the end of 7th year. I *don't* think, in year 5, he WAS at the point of being capable of true sacrificial love. You're quite right that it was more of a SELFISH thing in the Ministry: end my pain; reunite me with Sirius. Understandable, of course, but still a self-centered focus. No, I'm thinking of Harry's learning over the next two years to be even more other-directed. I'm less skeptical than you, in general, about Harry's motives, but even I think he will need growth in this area to be ready to sacrifice himself, not out of a selfish desire to be done with it all, but as a conscious means of saving others whom he loves. Kneasy: > Mind you, I don't doubt that DD sees Harry sacrificing himself for > the greater good of the WW - he just hasn't got round to letting > Harry in on his plan. He'll manoeuvre Harry into a postion where > it becomes an inevitability. "We are defined by our choices, Harry; > and your choice, should you choose to accept it, is to lay down > your life for the WW. And Voldy would probably get you anyway. > This owl will self-destruct in 10 seconds." SSSusan: Hee. This is, of course, a possibility. But I'm hoping for a more TRUE choice on our Harry's part. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 22:49:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:49:33 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112955 > Janet: > > I've got just one word for you: Quidditch. > > > SSSusan: > Ugh. Good point, Janet. I should've thought of that, as those scenes where Harry FLIES are so very joy-filled. > > It seems an extremely sad thing that one would decide to NOT go on > because of this, but you are right that Quidditch & flying have been > central in Harry's life since his arrival at Hogwarts. > Yes, it's a pity to have to give up a huge dream, but to let its loss ruin your will to go on? Don't most people who've had to abandon a > dream find something else which gives them joy or satisfaction? > > "It does not do to dwell on dreams, Harry, and forget to live." > > Hmmmm. I wonder if there's anything which could replace flying for a > Powerless!Harry? Ooooh--could he still FLY the magical Ford Anglia? > > I know, I know. Not the same at all. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol responds: But (if you haven't already answered this) why should Harry lose powers he was clearly born with? His Quidditch and flying skills are almost certainly inherited genetically from James and have nothing to do with Parseltongue and whatever other powers Harry received from Voldemort when the AK was deflected. Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 14 22:50:17 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:50:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: Snow: > Yes! Exactly. The curse that was used by Voldemort to kill Harry > could not be the AK curse (but it was a killing curse) because as > Fake Moody said there is no countercurse to an AK. Along with the > fact that Tom Riddle quite plainly says, "So. Your mother died to > save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm." > Riddle admits that the curse was countered by a charm therefore the > AK which cannot be countered could not have been the killing curse > that was attempted by Voldemort on baby Harry. There is also the fact > that Harry only remembers one flash of green light that accompanies > the AK curse, which killed Lily. Geoff: Mulling over the comments which have appeared in this thread and combining it with the late hour has produced the following set of observations. It has been pointed out that to make a Crucio curse work properly, the user has got to be really wound up. 'Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed "Crucio!" Bellatrix screamed: the spell had kncoked her off her feet but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had...... "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. she had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long....."' [OT: Why does Bellatrix's use of "boy" make me think she's Welsh, he ponders] (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" p,.715 UK edition) Now, the thought crossed my mind that suppose for an Avadra Kedavra curse, the same applies - that the user has to really want to hurt the victim - or possibly the spell can fail if the used is distracted in some way. Why do I say this? Because of Crouch!Moody's interesting comment in GOF. '"Avadra Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out now and point them at me and say the words and I doubt I'd get so much as a nose-bleed..."' (GOF "The Unforgivable Curses" p.192 UK edition) He then reiterates that there is no blocking the curse or counter- curse; but he seems to imply that the power behind it may have an effect on the result. Suppose Voldemort was not firing on all cylinders at this point? He had just killed James and Lily. Maybe his evil battery is a bit drained so that he hasn't got the power to break through to baby Harry? So then what - a backfire? A ricochet? One flattened Dark Lord. Hmmm. Back to the hot chocolate. Geoff See views of Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 14 22:52:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:52:07 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry In-Reply-To: <20040914.180430.408.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112957 SSSusan: > > These are very intriguing thoughts, Aura Aura: > Awww! You're so sweet for only subtly mocking me! ;) SSSusan: Blustering, "But I *wasn't* mocking!! They *were* intriguing thoughts, Aura. I just wanted to know your answer to the one question I came up with." SSSusan: > > Voldy had already taken extraordinary steps towards > > immortality...and had apparently experienced some > > success. If he felt he was immortal, would he worry about > > having an heir at all? Or do you think he *would* have, just as > > a precautionary step? Aura: > I can't put my finger on why, exactly, but somehow, I don't see > Vold not wanting an heir just because he's immortal. The > motivations are just very different. Being immortal onself is > about fear of dying and being completely powerful, but an heir is > like a family. > Having an heir means proliferation of the name, expansion of the > power,being able to do more. An immortal Vold is just one entity, > but having an heir can make "the Voldemorts" a ruling family, > which could come in handy if V wants to take over the world. SSSusan: And so thank you for answering it. :-) So, now who's going to be the "lucky" little lady who gets to bear his children? Eeeewww. I'm sure Bella would volunteer, but.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 23:04:33 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:04:33 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > These are very intriguing thoughts, Aura, especially since it has > been recently speculated that what Voldy used at GH was not AK. JKR said this August: The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?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? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. 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. Mac now: She (JKR) talks of a killing curse. There's only ever been one kind so far (AK) and I think that is what was attempted - remembering that LV's AK might well be MUCH more powerful than any other wizard's given what Bellatrix has said about having to really *mean* your unforgiveable curses.I made a post before about why the Harry AK didn't come out of LV's wand during the GoF priori incantatem replay but either JKR flinted it or else because no-one actually died (which is not to say nothing happened) then maybe it wasn't 'counted'. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 14 23:22:46 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:22:46 +0100 Subject: How did Umbridge know? References: <006f01c49a4f$d7a623e0$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <00da01c49ab1$dbfd5c80$132f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 112959 DuffyPoo wrote: >I'm not going to be able to help you at all with this question, but to add a similar situation. In PoA, the Gryffindors are partying because they beat Ravenclaw at Quidditch, putting them, I think, into the final when at one time they thought they would be out of it. Professor McGonagall showed up and ended the party and insisted they all go to bed. After Ron is attacked by Sirius, and everyone gets up again , Fred Weasley even suggesting that the party is carrying on, and McGonagall shows up again, quite indignant and telling Percy she expected better of him. How did SHE know?< -------------------------- She could have just been checking if they had really gone to bed. But I did think she came rather quickly when Neville went for her after Harry witnessed the snake attack considering how big the castle is. Could her quarters be close to the common room? Could she have heard noise? (Maybe she was having a party of her own - doesn't full me, that one!) Susana -- Going to bed frustrated at the 1318 unread e-mails in her mailbox. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Sep 14 23:25:46 2004 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:25:46 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112960 David: > > On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I > feel that whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the > right to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point. < > Pippin: > To me, it's exactly the point. Hermione is very sensitive about > lack of due process, lack of informed consent, cruel and > unusual punishments, unrepresentative government and being > nasty to toerags in general, but it's a case of being able to see > the speck in your neighbor's eye better than the two by four in > your own. Agreed. But I felt that perhaps people were being tempted into thinking 'if I can get her off on a technicality, I can go back to liking her in peace'. On the one hand, getting off on a technicality doesn't make one back into the pristine character of former reader innocence; on the other, discovering flaws in even the most identified-with and pedestal-placed character can be a pleasurable reader experience. > Pippin: > > But that's the proverbial wisdom of Scotland! I won't trouble with the logical flaw here as I'm sure you're well aware of it. But you do tangentially raise an interesting issue: that, while I find it very hard to seize on much specific, my sense of JKR's culture is overwhelmingly English, not Scottish. The best I can do is the rather feeble point that Hogwarts reflects English, not Scottish practice in regard to examinations and the start of the school year. Of course, she was born and brought up in England, but even if I didn't know that, I think I would have surmised it anyway. What do Scottish list members think? David From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 23:28:26 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:28:26 -0000 Subject: Warlock/Wizard In-Reply-To: <20040914150843.25907.qmail@web80304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, theotokos wrote: > I have read information on the Lexicon and other places I cannot recall but there does not appear to be a definitive definition/distinction between warlock and wizard. Anyone know more about this? Has JKR ever been asked to clarify? Are they simply synonyms? > > Theotokos > Mac now: I assume that because DD belongs to the international confederation of warlocks (or whatever it is) and is clearly a wizard that YES the terms are interchangeable. However, what I have not understood is what makes a crone a crone (or is it a hag?), as opposed to a witch. JKR talks of what sound like child-eating witches in many of the books (cropping up at bars mostly and in knockturn alley) but never really says much more. I for one would like to know more about them but doubt there's any real significance. On a similar note, will we ever see a vampire? (also mentioned widely but not yet encountered and No No NO I don't believe in vampire!Snape, but please don't berate me for this personal view if you are a fan of the theories). Could a half-blood prince be a 50% sated vampyre count? (I joke, badly). From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 23:34:29 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:34:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112962 > SSSusan: > So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord > Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in > the Dept. of Mysteries. > Kneasy: > > Um. I'm having trouble with this one. > > How often does Sacrificial Love turn up in the books? Once - > > maybe. > SSSusan: > Yep, NOT often at all--precisely my point. It's a RARE thing to > encounter. And I think it would HAVE to be a rare action to be true. > Kneasy: > > I'm not even sure that thoughts of sacrifice crossed Harrys' mind > > on his rescue mission to the Ministry, more the impulse to act, to > > do something to help Sirius. Neri now: Although I'm too lazy to dig the canon citation now, I'm sure DD said that the Power-that-Voldy-knows-not is the power that sent Harry to the MoM to rescue Sirius. It is also the power that saved Harry from possession. So find what is it that fits with both cases and this is your answer. Neri Neri From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 23:48:25 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:48:25 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > DuffyPoo wrote: > > 3) The wand Sirius uses in the DoM is one from the Black family home > that belonged to either his Mother or Father or Regulus. > > > > I think Sirius probably had his wand with him when he was captured. > It would have been broken or at the very least taken from him. He > was going after Pettigrew, after all, and while I wouldn't put it past > Sirius to kill Wormtail with his bare hands, it would have been > quicker with a wand. ;-) > > > Carol responds: > While I agree that Sirius's wand must have been taken from him and > broken after he ostensibly murdered Peter and the Muggles (why, why > didn't they do Priori Incantatem on it?) An interesting point Carol. However, since Fudge was there and he has a history of NEVER asking the right questions, in fact, completely the opposite (so that I've always felt ESE!Fudge or Imperio'd!Fudge have to be the case), it doesn't surprise me at all. What I've never really seen any discussion on is why Sirius is laughing madly when arrested. This, presumably, meant that he was taken to be mad and carted off as quickly as possible and without too many probing questions asked. Are there any theories out there I haven't seen about why Sirius laughed? It certainly seems to have been what damned him, in the mind'seye of the WW, to all those years in Azkhaban (see Ernie Prang and Stan Shunpike's convo on the Knight Bus). Could Pettigrew have hexed Sirius just before blasting a hole into the sewer by which he escaped as scabbers? (I don't recall a mad laughter spell), but there is a mad/uncontrollable dancing (tarantallegra) spell after all. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 00:02:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:02:30 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: <20040914133023.91934.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112964 > > Snape isn't that great of a wizard, > > as far as we know. Even though he is supposed to be a good > > Occlumens, Harry does go into his head once. > > > > Toto > > > Harry didn't go into his head on his own; he threw up a shield charm > ("Protego!") and Snape's own spell boomeranged on him, allowing Harry access to Snape's memories. > > Magda Carol agrees with Magda and adds: Which, I think, is exactly what Snape *wanted* him to do and why he put his worst or most important memories in the Pensieve, so Harry couldn't access them. He is, after all, trying to teach a resistant Harry to protect himself from intrusion into his mind. As for Snape not being "that great of a wizard," I think Lupin, for one, would disagree. He calls Snape a *superb* Occlumens and he points out that Snape can make the very tricky Wolfbane potion, as Lupin himself can't do. Snape, as we've already established in another thread, is the Potions *master* in more than one sense of the word. In addition, we see Snape perform a Legilimency spell, surely not a common accomplishment and probably not a necessary part of being an Occlumens (which involves *blocking* Legilimency spells). And surely the ability to remove thoughts from his own head, as Dumbldore also does, is part of what makes him not just an Occlumens but an especially skilled one. Moreover, he has apparently memorized every potion and antidote he teaches--a whole years' worth for seven levels of students. When a potion turns the wrong color, he knows exactly which step was missed, and he writes them on the board with the flick of a wand (just one example of the silent magic he rather frequently performs--not saying the spell out loud, just *willing* the magic to happen. He knows and performs the countercurse against Quirrell when Quirrell is jinxing Harry's broom. He makes a total fool of Lockhart in the Duelling Club with a key defensive spell, Expelliarmus. He conjures stretchers for Sirius and three students and wafts them back to Hogwarts with a wave of his wand. He knew more curses at age eleven than most seventh years. And these are just the instances that come immediately to mind. I'm sure that other posters can supply additional examples. Not that great a wizard? Then Dumbledore had better choose someone else as his righthand man. Carol, who would like to see the evidence on which you're basing this conclusion From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 00:21:29 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:21:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112965 > > Discussion Questions:> > > 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that > he is not part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from > a DE family. > > Potioncat: > It just hit me recently that it's interesting that it was Hermione > who knew Nott. (Gad, what a pun that makes!) Of course, she seems > to know more people than Harry does. It could be that a smart > Muggleborn learns who the Slytherins are. Or it could be that she > has other classes with Theo, and interacts with him out of sight of > Harry and possibly Draco. She doesn't say anything about Nott, and > I wonder what she knows about him? > > Potioncat who does know there is a difficult knot called the > Theodore Knot (also Fiodore Knot) and hopes his entire name isn't > Theodore Mark Evans Nott. Carol: Like Harry and Ron, she has at least two classes, Potions and Care of Magical Creatures, with the Slytherins, and the Potions classes have been going on for five years. Whether Hagrid has addressed Theo by name or not (no pun intended), Snape almost certainly has, and Hermione, being the observant person she is, almost certainly would have noticed it. And as you say, she may have other classes with Theo--arithmancy, maybe. I doubt that he'd take Muggle Studies. In fact, she may have known his name since the Sorting Ceremony in their first year, but simply not had a reason to mention it before. (As for Ron and Harry not knowing him, it's amazing that they could be so unobservant.) Carol, who thinks that Theo is the Slytherin who saw the Thestral and hopes we'll see more of him in Book 6 but that we won't be subjected to *too* many puns on his name From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 00:38:20 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:38:20 -0000 Subject: Love in HP (was Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > ?> > > I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books-- sacrificial > > love is only the most spectacular example of it. > > > > Give me ten examples. > Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great difficulty > in doing so. > > In fact, love of any sort in much thinner on the ground than most > posters realise. Count 'em up and see. > > Kneasy hmmmm a tall order but here goes (but bear in mind this is a gut response and so lots more *do* exist - AND I'm not a fast typer even!): (Noting that Love as in 'he loves her/SHIP love' (romantic love) IS sparse in JKR because that's not what the books are about - Harry/Cho for example never even gets going and then is over - but to take a much wider definition such as the love a parent has for their child, a servant has for their master, an honourable person has for their beliefs etc, etc): Of course, Harry displays unselfish love repeatedly - his 'saving people' fixation (or whatever it was Hermione accused him of) - always for (in his mind) noble motives and usually at personal risk in one way or another. SS/PS [1] recuing a poor beleaguered python despite knowing it'll invoke Vernon Dursley's rage [2] rescuing Neville's remembrall (and dignity) at the risk of expulsion, [3] rescuing Hermione from the troll, [4] rescuing the stone including Ron's sacrifice, [5] Quirrel's sacrifice for his master. [6] Rescuing Hagrid from his rashness with Norbert, [7] Firenze going against type CoS [8] Dobby's going against type to warn Harry, [8] Hagrid's rescuing Aragog at the expense of expulsion, [9] rescuing Ginny from the chamber and not leaving Gilderoy behind. PoA [9] Harry's love of his parents (not just anger) forces strong magic to silence Aunt Marge at the possible expense of all he holds valuable otherwise (WW) [10] Rescue of Buckbeak and, of course, sirius. [11] Rescue, if you will, of Pettigrew's 'worthless' life GoF [11] Rescue of triwizard 2nd task 'victims' [12] return of Diggory's body OotP [13] Arguably, all members of OotP are showing their love of Good over evil by being members at great personal expense potentially [14] rescue of Sirius (again), to say nothing of his fellows, only he fails [15] Off scene we hear of many OotPvI members who 'gave their life', including Molly's brothers Fabian and Gideon. [16] hagrid getting beaten up for his love of his brother, [17] DA members risks for 'what is right' [18] Firenze again There are, of course many other loves, especially maternal which JKR knows and how (read her biography about her own mum and recall that until recently and in most of the formative years Jessica was all JKR had). Examples include Mrs Weasley's love in the tear-jerking Gof scene and in OotP boggart encounter, Mrs Diggory's, Mrs Crouch's, Petunia's for Dudley and not least Lily's for Harry. Also Snape - who does he love (if anyone) and why? I believe he'll turn out to have extremely noble motives despite his inherent bitter nastiness (whether act or uncontrollable side-effect). He is nasty through and through in the most petty ways quite often and yet when called for does the most noble things. ...And Dumbledore ... scheming plotter or deeply loving? Lastly, Harry necessarily has little love in his life - whenever he comes close to achieving it, it is snatched away - nothing ever approaches the love he has lost (mum and dad) - I suspect this is necessary for the denoument. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 00:48:02 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:48:02 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: <20040914212527.96883.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > --- littleleahstill wrote: > > > You would have thought that Ron or Seamus or other pure blood kids > > would have mentioned at home that Neville was in their class - he > > is > > quite a distinctive character. We must assume that their parents > > know what happened to Neville's parents, so why does no one > > explain? > > > > Is this silence (as I suspect)merely a literary device to develop > > Neville as a character? Sympathy from other parents keeping them > > quiet is possible, but would they all react the same way? Or > > something else? > > > > Leah > > I view it as another sign that for all the toasts to the > Boy-Who-Lived and McGonagall's claim in PS/SS that October 31 would > be known as "Harry Potter Day", the WW put the Bad Days behind them > as quickly as they could. Voldemort was dead (hopefully), Sirius > Black was behind bars and everything was back to what passed for > normal in the WW. > > There's a lot of simply not talking about things, from what I can > see. I think the Longbottoms fall into this category. > > Magda Mac now: It is clear that in GoF trials (pensieve scene) the Longbottom incident met very widespread outrage and would have been WELL known - BUT among the adults and not the kids. The kids would not have been told about Neville's parents in part to pretect THEM (JKR writes an old-fashioned world where children are 'protected' as much as can be from the horrible' so yes Magda your last point about 'forgetting it') and it is also in my view to give Neville a level playing field so that his fellows don't constantly say 'there goes that poor Longbottom kid' - he has enough burdens as it is. Even HE keeps it quiet and it is clear that DD for one has had a policy of so doing. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 01:32:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:32:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112968 > Carol adds: huge snip. > Just because Harry dislikes Snape and he's presented *from Harry's > POV* as a "greasy git" who is sarcastic to his students doesn't mean > that he's evil. Dumbledore trusts him. Maybe we should, too. Alla: Maybe we should or maybe we should not. Yesterday I was worrying that I went into defending Snape mode for too long. :o) I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is absolutely NO canon whatsoever to indicate what exactly Snape did while being a DE, but just because we saw certain DE committing certain crimes, does not mean, IMO, that Snape was given a free pass and allowed not to commit crimes (what crimes - we don't know). Personally I am hoping that he did a lot of bad things, otherwise,as I said earlier, it cheapens his redemption in my eyes. Snape is sarcastic to his students? If you put "sadistic" instead, I would probably agree with you. Nope, Snape is not evil, but he is not a good person either. Person with honor? Yes, I hope so, though we don't know for sure yet. Good erson? I doubt it. Yes, I would say the fact that Harry views him as "greasy git" is not a reason for dislike of said character. I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that Snape enjoys to cause another human beings emotional pain comes back over and over again. I am having a lot of trouble calling such person a "good one" Hmmm. Which examples to choose?. 1. The first Potions lesson inn PS/SS was cited so many times, that I really don't want to do it again today. I may even agree with you that Potions, which Snape mentions especially putting "stopper in death" will become important at the end, but you are not saying that Snape KNEW that in PS/SS? I mean, it would be a nice foreshadowing, but what Snape got to do with it? How it makes his absolutely undeserved attack at Harry, who just been thrown out in the world unknown , looks less asdistic? 2. Then we have Snape ranting and raving about James all through PoA (you are just like your father, Potter). Since GoF is the book I reread most recetnly, I will quote couple scenes from there. 3. GOF, when Pansy threws at Hermione the copy of "Witch Weekly". Snape takes the magazine away from them. I can understand that. Even though Trio did not bring it to the lessons, you are not supposed to read the paper during the potions lessons, so I will pretend that Snape does not know who brought the magazine to class. I would even be able to let it pass, if Snape say took points and let it be, but he decides to read the magasine out loud. "The dungeon rang with Slytherin's laughter, and an unpleasant smile curled Snape's thin mouth. To Harry's fury, he began to read the article aloud. "Harry Potter's Secret Headache'... dear, dear, Potter, what's ailing you now? "A boy like no other, perhaps..." Harry could feel his face burning. Snape was pausing at the end of every sentence to allow the Slytherins a hearty laugh. The article sounded ten times worse when read by Snape. Even Hermione was blushing scarlet by now" - p.515, paperback, GoF 4. Harry trying to warn Dumbledore about Crouch Sr. was recently discussed and even though I don't consider it to be the example of ESE! Snape I definitely think of it as one of the best examples of Snape's sadistic nature. Here is the quote: "Mr. Crouch!" Harry shouted. "From the Ministry! He is ill or something - he is in the forest, he wants to see Dumbledore! Just give me the password up to ----" The headmaster is busy, Potter," said Snape, his thin mouth curling into unpleasant smile. "I've got to tell Dumbledore!" Harry yelled. "Didn't you hear me, Potter?" Harry could tell Snape was thoroughly enjoying himself, denying Harry the thing he wanted when he was so panicky. "Look," said Harry angrily, "Crouch isn't right --- he's --- he's out of his mind - he says he wants to warn----" - GoF, p.558, paperback. There is nothing in this scene that Harry even theoretically done wrong, he is worried about Crouch, he is scared and nervous. I am willing to assume that Snape knew that Dumbledore is in his office. What exactly stopped him from telling Harry to wait a minute and Headmaster will be here? I think nothing except Snape being Snape. Many argued that Harry is able to handle what Snape throws at him. yes, I said many times that Harry is not Neville, but why shoud it matter? I think Snape's intentions should matter, not Harry's strength. But, I think I posted earlier that Snape does manage to make Harry afraid of himself in OOP (to his delight, I am sure :o)). "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter." Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, paperback, p.533. Alla From steve51445 at adelphia.net Tue Sep 14 03:58:59 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:58:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny has GREEN eyes? and What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040914035902.DEHK2583.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 112969 >Antosha: >and they walk by an open door inhabited by a pair of "bright GREEN eyes"-- >Ginny's. > > >Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS ARE GOING TO BE >IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???? His whole plot--indeed, the whole plot of the book-- >hinges on his being able to slip the diary to Ginny. Steve now: I never noticed the difference in eye color. The lexicon shows her with brown eyes but I think it's based on the us editions. It'll be interesting to see if the UK edition has green or brown. As far as the Malfoys in DA. I think that since Lockhart was there signing autographs, and his popularity with the women in the WW, it's a good bet that Molly and Ginny would be there on that day. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 14 11:51:08 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:51:08 -0000 Subject: Magic instrument, DD 'tracking' LV? (was Re: How did Umbridge know?) In-Reply-To: <20040914014319.91229.qmail@web80312.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112970 > Tina responded: > I've always thought that was revealing that Voldemort had been > possessing the snake (they were one but are, in essence, divided). > Snape does tell Harry during an Occlumency lesson that Harry was > seeing through the snake's eyes because that is where LV was at > the time... Was my understanding over-simplified again? > > theotokos responds to tina: > I don't think your understanding over-simplified but as I asked > the question I am sure I am not the one to answer that. So, you > think DD can see what LV does? How does that work and why wouldn't > he be able to see where he is so the OotP can swoop in on him and > end this thing? There must be some other twist on the device DD > used. Gosh, I'm not at all certain about how or when the magical instrument works (or what it is for that matter). I do not think DD can tap into LV whereabouts at any 'ol time (that would make the tale quite a bit shorter!). Not sure why he could here. I'll do a bit of research and see what I can find. Thanks, tina From yonnab at cox.net Tue Sep 14 14:37:36 2004 From: yonnab at cox.net (Yonna) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:37:36 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112971 > Carol: > I think it means either three times apiece or three times per > couple (for example, two for James and one for Lily would count > as the Potters defying him three times). Joining the Order would > count as two defiances per couple (one per person). Frank's being > an auror, possibly meeting one of Voldemort's most important DEs > in battle, could easily constitute a third defiance for the > Longbottoms. Maybe James, though not an auror, also battled someone > or simply refused an invitation to join the DEs. Yonna: Well unless the canon is off a bit in the SS Lily and James were never asked. SS Am. edition, softback, pg. 55. (Hagrid talking to Harry in the hut by the sea): "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 to Dumbledore ter want anythin' ter do with the Dark Side." So to defy LV must have meant something more than to just say "no" to LV and jioning the DE, or Dark Side. Maybe it was that LV or one of his DE tried to make the Potters do something with the Imperious curse, and then they, just like HP in GoF, had the will to refuse. So that would be 1 for James and 1 for Lily. There would be two times, now all we need is a third. From neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 14 18:50:09 2004 From: neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com (zoe0coll) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:09 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <006301c49a4e$b2aa0530$70c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112972 > Antosha: Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS > ARE GOING TO BE IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???" > > DuffyPoo: > Malfoy, Sr, in no way indicates here that his 'important business > elsewhere' is running into the Weasleys and slipping Ginny the > diary. He is, after all, planning to buy Draco - and the whole > Slytherin team - racing brooms. (I have always thought that Malfoy > was intending to give HP the diary and ended up giving it to Ginny > out of spite over the fight with Arthur.) snip I've never been sure whether L Malfoy knew the exact power of the Diary. In Cos ch 2 Dobby's Warning, Dobby says "If Harry Potter goes back to Hogwarts, he will be in mortal danger" .... "there is a plot...to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts..." I've always felt that Malfoy was just looking for a way to give it to any Hogwarts student he came across, because whoever he gave it to, the outcome - that of taking over someone's soul and eventually using their mind and body to set the Basilisk on to the muggle borns and mudbloods, is what Malfoy was hoping would happen. This would obviously put Harry in mortal danger as he is a half blood, but later in COS ch 17 The Heir of Slytherin, Tom says "so Ginny poured out her soul to me and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted..." He wasn't looking for Harry Potter, he had preserved himself in the diary to "finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work" He also tells Harry "Haven't I already told you,...killing mudbloods doesn't matter to me any more? For many months now, my new target has been - you." This suggests that his original target (and by assumption Malfoy's) was just to kill mudbloods. Finding out about Harry through Ginny was just an added bonus! Zoe C From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 01:57:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:57:21 -0000 Subject: Wormtail, not Snape, at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <001a01c4996b$6102f270$b5c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112973 > Ffred said: > "We know that Peter went with him - firstly because he had to, to tell Voldemort where it was, secondly because we know that Sirius found him absent from home and realised what had happened, and thirdly because JKR indicated that Peter had spirited Voldemort's wand away afterwards." > > DuffyPoo responded: > Wormtail didn't have to be with LV when he went to GH, he only had to tell him, verbally, where the hiding place was. (DD had only to write on paper "the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London" for HP to be able to get in. He didn't have to be there in person.) That Wormtail was absent from his own hiding place doesn't mean he was at GH, only that he was now in hiding elsewhere - somewhere that Sirius didn't know. Sirius and Hagrid were in the remains of GH moments after the incident - "before the Muggles started swarmin' around." The Potters' bodies were still on the grounds but there is no evidence of Wormtail being there. Carol adds: While I do think that Wormtail was at Godric's Hollow and that he salvaged Voldemort's wand before disapparating (not "disappa *rat* ing," because I don't think he could have retained his own wand and Voldemort's in rat form), I agree with DuffyPoo that we have no solid evidence that he did so. I also think, for what it's worth, that he placed Voldemort's wand in safekeeping, which is how he was able to return it twelve years later, but used his own wand to cast the spell that blew off his finger and killed the Muggles. Quite possibly that wand was destroyed in the explosion or else he left it behind when he turned into a rat. He certainly didn't have it when he was restored to human form in the Shrieking Shack. But at this point that's just an explanation of events that makes sense to me. The only canon behind it is Wormtail's use of Voldemort's wand at the graveyard in GoF. Setting aside his presence or absence at Godric's Hollow, my question is, if Wormtail had disappeared from his own house, as Sirius states (and I'm not doubting Sirius's word here), how did Sirius know where to find him after GH (on a street in Muggle London?)? It doesn't make sense to me. Unless, maybe, Peter's mother lived nearby and that's where Sirius expected to confront him. Regarding Snape's possibly being at Godric's Hollow, I don't see why he would be since he was not the Secret Keeper and as far as we know, didn't know that Wormtail was. It makes much more sense for Voldemort's companion, if any, to be Wormtail. Also, Snape tells Umbridge that he's been teaching at Hogwarts for fourteen years, not "fourteen years this November," as would be the case if her were hired after Godric's Hollow. (Compare McGonagall's response, which indicates that she wasn't hired at the beginning of term.) If Snape's statement is an exact time rather than an approximation (and Snape, we know, appreciates precision), he would have been at Hogwarts when the Potters were killed at midnight on October 31. (My unprovable hypothesis is that he woke up with his Dark Mark hurting, watched in astonishment as it faded almost to nothing, and immediately reported what had happened to Dumbledore. That would account for the DEs knowing that something drastic had happened to Voldemort and for Bellatrix, at least, having some hope that he wasn't wholly destroyed.) Carol, responding to speculation with counterspeculation From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Tue Sep 14 19:50:53 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:50:53 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112974 Pippin: > But to someone who believed that the dementors were under > ministry control, and who didn't realize how much magic it would > take to actually fight them, being part of "Dumbledore's Army" > and training to use the patronus spell would look pretty bad, > especially after the Azkaban break out. It'd be like if your > self-defense group started training with armor-piercing bullets. > You'd wonder if someone wasn't planning to fight cops. Except, once again, that it is known that Dementor don't obey that well, as Marietta has seen during the Quidditch match in 3rd year. Plus, a patronus doesn't kill dementors, just drives them away.... Self defence, my friend... Don't try to put values to Marietta just for your dislike of Hermione please, Hermione has her faults, but what Marietta did was betrayal both of Harry and her friend... And the risk of expulsion to them, just for a chance of advancement for her mother. She was greedy. Of course, if greediness is a value for you... Toto From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 02:00:26 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:00:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112975 SSSusan: >>>> So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries.<<<< Kneasy: >>> Um. I'm having trouble with this one. How often does Sacrificial Love turn up in the books? Once - maybe.<<< SSSusan: >> Yep, NOT often at all--precisely my point. It's a RARE thing to encounter. And I think it would HAVE to be a rare action to be true.<< Kneasy: >>> I'm not even sure that thoughts of sacrifice crossed Harrys' mind on his rescue mission to the Ministry, more the impulse to act, to do something to help Sirius.<<< Neri: > Although I'm too lazy to dig the canon citation now, I'm sure DD > said that the Power-that-Voldy-knows-not is the power that sent > Harry to the MoM to rescue Sirius. > > It is also the power that saved Harry from possession. So find > what is it that fits with both cases and this is your answer. SSSusan again: Yup, Neri, you're right. Here's the text: "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature. It is also, perhaps the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantitites and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you." [US hardback, pp. 843-844] I would argue that, while sacrificial love certainly isn't the ONLY thing which would fit this bill, it *is* a good match for it. The references here to both to something "more wonderful *and* more terrible than death" and to Harry's *heart* having saved him make me believe this, because in those words are references to love and to death, that is, the two things which combined could definitely equal Sacrificial Love. Siriusly Snapey Susan From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 19:51:53 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:51:53 -0000 Subject: Notts and Knots (Re: CH. DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112976 Potioncat wrote: > Potioncat who does know there is a difficult knot called the > Theodore Knot (also Fiodore Knot) and hopes his entire name isn't > Theodore Mark Evans Nott. O dear. Does this possibly suggest that Mr. Nott's father's name is Gordian? Ah! I see it now! -- a family of wizarding seamen, probably piratical sorts given their Slytherin tendencies -- with names like Blackwall, Bowline, Carrick, Napoleon, Bouchier and so on. You could really go some awful places with this game! -cunning spirit From arienastera at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 01:55:34 2004 From: arienastera at yahoo.com (arienastera) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:55:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112977 This is just a wierd idea that came to me while reading a while ago. I don't know if this has been brought up before (Hi, I'm ArienAstera, and I'm a n00b) or if I'm just slow... And I tried to get my sisters opinion, but she's a bit biased about poor Sirius. Makes me sick sometimes, to be honest :). But anyway, read this passage and tell me what you think.. Page 383, OotP, American Version "Midnight came and went while Harry was reading and rereading a passage about the uses of scurvy-grass, lovage, and sneezewort and not taking in a word of it.... *These plantes are moste efficacious in the inflaming of the braine, and are therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement Draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot-headedness and recklessness....* ... Hermione said Sirius was becoming reckless cooped up in Grimmauld Place.... *... moste efficacious in the inflaming of the braine, and are therefore much used...* ... the *Daily Prophet* would think his brain was inflamed if they found out that he knew what Voldemort was feeling... *... therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement Draughts...* ... confusing was the word, all right; *why* did he know what Voldemort was feeling? What was this wierd connection between them, which Dumbledore had never been able to explain satisfactorily? *... where the wizard is desirous...* ... how he would like to sleep... *... of producing hot-headedness...* ... It was warm and comfortable in his armchair before the fire..." So, like I said, I don't know if this has already been discussed, but I wasn't there, so humor me... :) Could Snape have given Sirius a potion to make him more reckless than normal? I know anyone would get bored cooped up that long, but surely even he knows when to draw the line? JKR seems to emphasize that Potions Text bit, so maybe we're supposed to look at it more than just "Harry's tired, he's allowed to be distracted this late". We all know that Snape tried his darndest to get Sirius in POA, so whats stopping him now that he knows where Sirius is. Even if Snape knows he's innocent, he still hates him with a fiery passion. Thanks for listening to me, ArienAstera From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Tue Sep 14 19:53:26 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:53:26 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112978 > David: > > On some of the wider arguments presented in this thread, I > feel that whether, as a technical legal matter Hermione had the > right to 'punish' Marietta is somewhat beside the point. < > > Pippin: > To me, it's exactly the point. Hermione is very sensitive about > lack of due process, lack of informed consent, cruel and > unusual punishments, unrepresentative government and being > nasty to toerags in general, but it's a case of being able to see > the speck in your neighbor's eye better than the two by four in > your own. Toto: Once again, you assume something, that Hermione did that for *punishment*. She didn't. When Malfoy bothers her, she does not punish him, and so on... What Hermione did was a preventive measure: If there is a betrayer, they would know who it is, and be able to remove that person from the D.A. Hence, she couldn't warn them, as it would have given them a chance to take off the hex. Toto From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 15 00:31:42 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:31:42 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112979 Alshain wrote: > I find Snape's self-respect quite intriguing. On the one hand he has > very high opinions of himself and his worth and takes himself far too > seriously (or he might have made fun about Neville's Boggart instead > of becoming angry); on the other hand the bullying MWPP subjected him > to must have hurt his self-confidence badly. I don't see these two things in conflict at all. Dumbledore (for example) would almost certainly have been able to laugh off the Boggart Incident--because he *isn't* a quivering mass of self-loathing and anxiety like Snape is. Being able to laugh at oneself *can* be a trait of a weak-willed person colluding with his/her oppressors, but more usually a person who can laugh at him/herself is confident and secure in his/her identity. Someone who works with teenagers really *ought* to be able to take a certain amount of mockery--it's par for the course (have I mentioned that I'm a teacher?)--but Snape is far too insecure to do so. Alex From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 23:26:36 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:26:36 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Death in the HP Universe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112980 Unlike RL, the WW in Rowling's Harry Potter novels does indeed seem to possess a measure of evidence that there is some sort of survival after death. The wizards are confident enough in this matter as to fund "state" research into the phenomena. In OotP, when Harry is suffering from Voldemort's attempt to possess him, he actually begs Dumbledore to kill him, so that at least he would see Sirius again. This sounds like Harry certainly believes that death isn't the final chapter. Why then is Voldemort so afraid of death? Unlike us, he is from a society that is comfortable dealing with phenomena such as ghosts, beasts you can only see if you've directly perceived death, and veiled gates into the beyond -- why is he so squeamish as to consider death the ultimate affront? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:13:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:13:12 -0000 Subject: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112981 redlena_web (I think) wrote: > Now, you seem to be implying that Harry *does* unwittingly use Legilimency to get some information for the O.W.L. test from the mind of the student in front of him. I don't think this is the case. > Harry doesn't really need to use Legilimency to come up with an answer to this question; he's just very tired and having trouble focusing. Looking at the student in front of him was another place to look other than his blank piece of paper while he thought, though it > turns out to be a bit distracting. > But he's gradually able to remember a bit more from Hermione's notes...(pg. 725-726) but in his extremely tired state he's > having trouble remembering all the details so he stares ahead of him "at the back of Parvati's head again" and idly wishes for a shortcut through his struggling. "If he could only perform Legilimency and open a window in the back of her head and see what it was about trolls that had caused the breach..." But he can't perform Legilimency, and even if he could, he'd most likely need to make eye contact with Parvati, not just stare at the back of her head. > Harry comes up with the answer on his own, once his eyes are closed. I don't think any Legilimency helped him get the information. Carol adds: I agree that Harry not only did not but could not have used Legilimency in this situation, and not only because he couldn't make eye contact with Parvati. Clearly, Harry has not fully processed Snape's distinction between the Muggle concept of mind reading, in which the mind reader can supposedly read another thoughts as if the mind were a book he could open at will and Legilimency, which allows the Legilimens to see memories and detect emotions. If Harry had succeeded in entering Parvati's mind, a very unlikely proposition, he would only have sensed her own fear and frustration. He would not have seen the words she was writing or thinking. Snape sees some of Harry's memories, apparently wholly random and mostly bad, after casting a Legilmency spell. Harry sees Snape's after an accidental Protego and later, when he very unwisely looks into the Pensieve. Neither incident indicates Harry's skill or even his potential as a Legilimens. We may see it later; certainly it would be a helpful skill to acquire if he could. But there is no Legilimency, not even an accurate understanding of the concept, in the Parvati incident. Carol From drliss at comcast.net Wed Sep 15 02:19:18 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (Lissa Hess) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:19:18 -0400 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: <1095213713.17850.74249.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20040914221606.017786d0@mail.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 112982 macfotuk >What I've never really seen any discussion on is why Sirius is >laughing madly when arrested. This, presumably, meant that he was >taken to be mad and carted off as quickly as possible and without >too many probing questions asked. > >Are there any theories out there I haven't seen about why Sirius >laughed? It certainly seems to have been what damned him, in the >mind'seye of the WW, to all those years in Azkhaban (see Ernie Prang >and Stan Shunpike's convo on the Knight Bus). > >Could Pettigrew have hexed Sirius just before blasting a hole into >the sewer by which he escaped as scabbers? (I don't recall a mad >laughter spell), but there is a mad/uncontrollable dancing >(tarantallegra) spell after all. Lissa: There was a little discussion on this a while ago. I have three theories: 1.) Sirius's mind just broke with grief at that point- he knew he was framed, he was done for, and James and Lily were dead (and for all he might guess at that point, Peter could be on his way to kill Remus as well). He laughed because it was an impossible reaction to an impossible situation. 2.) Relief- Absolute proof that Remus wasn't the traitor, and laughing at the sheer implausibility that little Peter had pulled this off. 3.) (I wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't) Peter tossed a Cheering Charm at Sirius- an overdone Cheering Charm made Ron laugh like crazy in fourth year. Nice, simple spell that gets Sirius laughing uncontrollably... and unable to protest his own innocence because he's laughing too hard to speak. Lissa From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 02:21:28 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:21:28 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Death in the HP Universe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112983 cunning_spirit wrote: > Unlike RL, the WW in Rowling's Harry Potter novels does indeed > seem to possess a measure of evidence that there is some sort of > survival after death. > Why then is Voldemort so afraid of death? Unlike us, he is from a > society that is comfortable dealing with phenomena such as ghosts, > beasts you can only see if you've directly perceived death, and > veiled gates into the beyond -- why is he so squeamish as to > consider death the ultimate affront? SSSusan: Presumably because it may entail his losing power and no longer being in control, I would guess. I mean, while it appears that many in the WW believe in some sort of survival after death, as you put it, we're not really given any glimpse about how it WORKS. Maybe Voldy doesn't care for what he's heard or what is speculated about it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:22:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:22:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arienastera" wrote: >> So, like I said, I don't know if this has already been discussed, > but I wasn't there, so humor me... :) > > Could Snape have given Sirius a potion to make him more reckless > than normal? I know anyone would get bored cooped up that long, but > surely even he knows when to draw the line? JKR seems to emphasize > that Potions Text bit, so maybe we're supposed to look at it more > than just "Harry's tired, he's allowed to be distracted this late". > > We all know that Snape tried his darndest to get Sirius in POA, so > whats stopping him now that he knows where Sirius is. Even if Snape > knows he's innocent, he still hates him with a fiery passion. > Alla: Hi, yep, I think it was discussed, but what stops us from doing it again? :o) I think more or less general consensus was that Kreacher MAY have slipped the Potion to Sirius, although even that is not clear yet. I am hoping that Snape did not do it, because that would mean that he is really partially to blame for Sirius' death and I don't want to think that Snape revenge can go THAT FAR. Although, you never know with JKR, of course. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:25:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:25:10 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112985 > Finwitch: > My theories for Sirius' wand in OOP go as follows: > > 1. Sirius MADE one himself (as one of the brightest students, why not? > Sure, Ollivander is more experienced, but he's not the ONLY ONE able > to make wands. Just look at Krum, or better yet, Fleur Delacour! Who > do you think made *her* wand?) during his stay with Buckbeak in a > place with exotic birds. Carol: I doubt that Fleur made her own wand. Presumably Beauxbatons has its own equivalent of Diagon Alley with a (French) wandmaker not averse to using Veela hair, just as the Durmstrang students get their wands from Gregorivitch (didn't check the spelling, sorry, but it's in "The Weighing of the Wands" in GoF). As for making the wand himself, I doubt that he has the skill, and even if he did, where would he find suitable wood from a wand tree, much less the requisite Phoenix feather, unicorn tailhair, or dragon heartstring? Yes, his parents were Dark Wizards, but would even they have such items lying around the house? I think it's much more likely that he found a wand at Grimmauld Place, either a family member's or the wand he used as a child (see my earlier post for an slight elaboration of this idea). He must have had a wand in his hand when he was caught--"evidence" that he had committed the crime. (Peter's, if it wasn't destroyed in the explosion, would presumably have been on the other side of the street.) Carol From gelite67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:29:56 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:29:56 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112986 > Finwitch wrote: > > I don't know if it matters whether the tail-feathers given at > the same time or not! The important thing is that they're both Fawkes' > feathers, thus creating the Priori Incantatem-effect, as well as > giving Harry an advantage, being that Fawkes is Harry's friend, as > well as Dumbledore's pet. > But I think it also goes to what DD knew and when. Of course, we KNOW he knows a lot that JKR has yet to reveal. Finwitch also wrote: > > Well, Ollivander says that Fawkes *gave* the feathers, whereas he > mentions having pulled the unicorn hair out, not about the unicorn > *giving* it. > > Angie reples: Good point. But voluntary or not, I think if DD wanted a tail feather, Fawkes would give it. > Fonwitch wrote: I hope Book Six tells us whether > Neville's wand has phoenix feather as a core! > >Angie replies: Well, Neville had his father's wand, but it got broken in OOP, so he will need a new wand in Book Six. I know I'll be watching to see if he "core" is identified. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:43:05 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:43:05 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112987 Mac now: Yes, could be, but seems unlikely, even though Ollivander's > is LONG established and there's something odd about his appearance > (read description in SS/PS) suggesting he's both old and not quite > like other wizards. > Angie wonders: If you mean it is unlikely that the wand had languished in the wand shop, then when do you believe it was created? > Mac now: I agree with this (good point Finwitch). Fawkes volunteers > (if he chooses) - but is NOT forceable. > >Angie replies: As I indicated to Finwitch,I believe Fawkes would give up a feather if DD requested it, I guess in that sense it doesn't matter. My poorly worded point was that a new feather could be gained at any time. > > Mac wrote: It makes me > think about whether DD might not give Neville an unknown advantage > by having a THIRD feather donated by Fawkes for his specific use (as > a wand of course) in book 6. I have a theory (earlier post > somewhere) that the prophecy could STILL apply to both Harry and > Neville, i.e. Harry for one part and Neville for the repeat Angie replies: Good points, both. I know Neville is going to have a larger role to play; can't wait to see what it is. As for the prophesy, I'd wondered about the repeated language, which is not repeated verbatim, so I see your excellent point. I mean, it doesn't say that the one marked as LV's equal is the one with the power to vanquish him. Hmmmm . . . . > > > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:46:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:46:15 -0000 Subject: "Redemptive pattern" for Snape (was Re: Harry dies sort of.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: > > Alla: > > Alla wrote: > > Sorry, I am still confused. I would be the first one to say that > IMO Snape was not a victim throughout his wars with Marauders and > could dish it out quite well, but don't you think judging by Pensieve scene that Snape has quite a lot to blame James and Sirius for? > > > > Now, if you would say for example that Snape blames Marauders for > > him becoming DE and back it up, then yes, I would agree with you. > > > > Right now I don't understand your argument, sorry. > > > > I can see quite a lot of Snape undeservingly blaming Harry for > > James' mistakes, but that is about it, frankly. > Toto responded: > Ok, i'll better explain myself... I have the impression that Snape > is trying to makes what James and Sirius Did look on par to what he > himself did (and yes i see the DE as attacking children, not just > the parents....DE raid after all, father coming back to see their > family killed or mad...). I see Part of Snape's hate on them as a > need to blame them for what he did, as if he was innocent... > Toto Carol butts in, with apologies: I think what Alla is asking you for is canon support for your stand. Not "I see" or "I get the impression" but "I think such and such because. . . ." You need solid evidence from the books (quotations with page numbers) that will support your position. Opinions without canon to support them are just opinions, or even just feelings. And I agree with Alla that you have not supported your position so far. We have no evidence that the DEs attacked children (unless you count the Muggle-baiting incident where they're tossed into the air in GoF). And what evidence do you have that Snape is trying to make what James and Sirius did look as bad as what he did? What *did* he do? We don't know. We *do* know what James and Sirius did because the Pensieve presents memories as they happened, not as they are subjectively viewed by the owner of the memory. That's the whole point of putting them in a Pensieve--so they can be studied and understood objectively. (The fact that Harry can move around within the memory, that he is seeing not with Snape's eyes but with his own, that he hears and sees what young Severus did not because Severus was absorbed in his exam questions indicates that this is not Snape's version of events but what really happened. And Harry accepts it as such.) I hope I'm responding to your points, but I'm not sure if this is the incident you're talking about. If need be, I can come back with quotes and page numbers, but I'd rather wait to see if we're on the same page. Show me some canon, not just your assumptions, and place your comments in a context so we know which incidents you're referring to. That way I can respond with canon of my own. Or Alla can, since I'm really just jumping in uninvited here. Carol, who agrees with Alla except for the part about Snape blaming James and Sirius for his own decision to join the Death Eaters, which I don't think we can find canon support for--though of course I could be wrong. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 02:53:30 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:53:30 -0000 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20040914221606.017786d0@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lissa Hess wrote: > Lissa: > > There was a little discussion on this a while ago. I have three > theories: > > 1.) Sirius's mind just broke with grief at that point- he knew he > was framed, he was done for, and James and Lily were dead (and for > all he might guess at that point, Peter could be on his way to kill > Remus as well). He laughed because it was an impossible reaction > to an impossible situation. > 2.) Relief- Absolute proof that Remus wasn't the traitor, and > laughing at the sheer implausibility that little Peter had pulled > this off. > 3.) (I wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't) Peter > tossed a Cheering Charm at Sirius- an overdone Cheering Charm made > Ron laugh like crazy in fourth year. Nice, simple spell that gets > Sirius laughing uncontrollably... and unable to protest his own > innocence because he's laughing too hard to speak. 4. Mutation of numbah one--not merely grief, but intense self- loathing...bitter laughter filled with hatred at himself for everything that he thinks he has been the cause of. Weeping would be the resort of the 'innocent'. [Not to mention that there's an interesting literary parallel, not that I think it has *anything* to do with the HP incident. Wagner's Kundry, who laughed at Christ on his way to the Cross, is cursed to live forever to seek Him again...and she cannot weep, she can only laugh horrible mocking laughter, in both her pain and her sorrow.] -Nora slinks out of a quiet library corner, blending in smoothly with the row of the New Grove From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 02:58:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:58:23 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112990 Toto > Except, once again, that it is known that Dementor don't obey that well, as Marietta has seen during the Quidditch match in 3rd year. < Fudge's statement about the dementors making people feel safe comes a year and a half after their move on the Quidditch field, so it doesn't appear to have discredited them in the public's estimation at all. Toto: > Plus, a patronus doesn't kill dementors, just drives them away.... Self defence, my friend...< Pippin: Or resisting arrest...it's all in how you look at it, isn't it? My point was, there's no way learning anti-dementor spells has anything to do with trying to pass your OWLs, and there's no way the ministry would think learning anti-dementor spells had anything to do with fighting Voldemort, since they think the dementors are on their side. Toto: > And the risk of expulsion to them, just for a chance of advancement for her mother. She was greedy. < Pippin: Is there canon to tell what Marietta's motives were? She could have been afraid that her mother would make *her* leave Hogwarts. > Toto: Once again, you assume something, that Hermione did that for *punishment*. She didn't. When Malfoy bothers her, she does not punish him, and so on... What Hermione did was a preventive measure: > If there is a betrayer, they would know who it is, and be able to remove that person from the D.A. Hence, she couldn't warn them, as it would have given them a chance to take off the hex.< Pippin: I'm afraid canon disagrees with you: "Someone must have blabbed to [Umbrdige]"said Ron angrily. "They can't have done," said Hermione in a low voice. "You're so naive," said Ron,"you think just because you're all honorable and trustworthy--" "No, they can't have done because I put a jinx on that piece of parchment we all signed," said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." "What'll happen to them?" said Ron eagerly. "Well, put it this way," said Hermione, "it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look like a couple of cute freckles." --OOP ch 17 Hermione knows quite well that her hex won't stop someone blabbing to Umbridge, as it won't come into effect until someone does. She also fully intends it to be disfiguring. Pippin who likes Hermione, and expects her to learn from her mistakes From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 03:13:40 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:13:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112991 > SSSusan again: > "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries that is kept locked > at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful > and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces > of nature. It is also, perhaps the most mysterious of the many > subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within > that room that you possess in such quantitites and which Voldemort > has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That > power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could > not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In > the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was > your heart that saved you." [US hardback, pp. 843-844] > > > I would argue that, while sacrificial love certainly isn't the ONLY > thing which would fit this bill, it *is* a good match for it. > > The references here to both to something "more wonderful *and* more > terrible than death" and to Harry's *heart* having saved him make me > believe this, because in those words are references to love and to > death, that is, the two things which combined could definitely equal > Sacrificial Love. Neri: Yes, I agree that Sacrificial Love fits the bill more than most other similar possibilities. I'm not sure why I don't like it (except that it's "fluffy"). I also don't like Heart, Humanity, Life, Hope and all that kind of stuff. I think JKR is not a symbolist. She writes an adventure story, not an allegory. For example, in the death chamber in the DoM you don't find Death. You find a magical arch that is some kind of a portal to the world of the dead. In the "intelligence" room you don't find Intelligence, you find leaving brains. In the time room you don't find Time. You find time-turners and the bell that makes things younger and older. Therefore, IMO the power-behind-the-locked-door will turn out to be some magical power that JKR invented. She might give it a name with a mystic sound like "ancient magic" or "Avada Kedavra", or she'll keep it so mysterious that it won't have even a name, but I think it will still be a magical power or device, which can be used in certain magical ways and under certain magical rules. It will of course be also a metaphor for Love, Sacrifice, Morality and things like that, but in the plot level in will be device, in the same way that the Mirror of Erised wasn't Desire. It was a magical device that symbolized Desire. Neri From greatelderone at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 03:46:55 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:46:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Death in the HP Universe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112992 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cunning_spirit" wrote: >In OotP, when Harry is suffering from Voldemort's attempt to possess him, > he actually begs Dumbledore to kill him, so that at least he would see Sirius again. This > sounds like Harry certainly believes that death isn't the final chapter. GEO: Yes but that doesn't mean that Voldemort also agrees with this idea. > Why then is Voldemort so afraid of death? Unlike us, he is from a society that is > comfortable dealing with phenomena such as ghosts, beasts you can only see if you've > directly perceived death, and veiled gates into the beyond -- why is he so squeamish as to > consider death the ultimate affront? GEO: Because he doesn't know what happens when you die and also because despite everything you can't be resurrected with magic if you die so it's still a mysterious subject. From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Tue Sep 14 05:11:21 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:11:21 -0000 Subject: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <20040913154125.7171.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112993 > Theotokos: > > This is where you got me, Pippin. I find it hard, if I am being honest with myself, to disagree here. (HELP somebody come up with a good argument so I don't have to feel like I am equating Hermione with Umbridge!) Hermione has always been a bit bold. She butts into the train cabin in PS/SS to tell R and H their business, i.e. put on your robes. She continues this behavior through half the book until R and H save her and they become friends, at which time nothing changes but H and R forgive her more often. Toto: I don't see what she does as "boldness", in fact she just act as a new student afraid of not being able to fit in... And she only "forces" or bother someone, later on, when it is a matter of life and death (sorry but slavery is)... For the D.A, Hermione had more right than Harry to deal with Marietta... Harry can be a teacher, and deals punishment if one trangress a rule over how one behave during the lesson, but Hermione is "the board of governor", and she has the right to decide the fitting punishment for one who trangress the initial agreement over coming in. thokos > > It is true she did not consult with Harry or Ron on the jinx she put on the parchment, just as Delores did not consult Fudge when she sent those Dementors to that alley. She, Umbridge, believed she was taking care of a problem in an effective manner with little to no fuss. She is, however, twisted. I can't say Hermione is twisted. I find the zit jinx humorous like so many of the WW jinxes. What about Ginny's bat-boogie hex (sp?)? And Crabbe and Goyels boils and Ron's slugs. The WW is not for the faint of heart. Toto: Just as Harry did not consult with Hermione about his dreams because he knows she is right, and so on... Hermione has her own life, and the da is her own project, and Harry and Ron did sign after all.... Maybe she wasn't even sure she could trust them? theokos: > Umbridge tried to murder Harry for purporting an idea she disagrees with and fears. Hermione would never permanently disfigure or kill someone--except in self-defense. Hermione, does however, need to reassess her motives and value system. She really must stop with SPEW. She needs a wake-up call. I love her but, you are correct Pippin, she is not always right and she is heading down a slippery slope. Toto: What has she done with spew that is so bad? She is doing it in a bad way as of now, but that is because she doesn't know how to do it. As I have said more than once before, the argument that house elf like it is the same that was used for keeping black slaves... From robkristjansson at hotmail.com Wed Sep 15 02:21:52 2004 From: robkristjansson at hotmail.com (Rob) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:21:52 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Love in HP (was Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > (Noting that Love as in 'he loves her/SHIP love' (romantic love) IS > sparse in JKR because that's not what the books are about - > Harry/Cho for example never even gets going and then is over - I'm not so sure. If the series was strictly a G vs. E epic I don't think you would have such an honest portrayal of teen crushes. But if, as I strongly believe, the series is also a coming of age story, albeit in an extremely fantastic wrapper, then SHIP love is very important. Placing the Harry/Cho SHIP in that contaxt, I think it can be interpreted as Harry's first, unsuccessful, love, which will mature him and allow for a better SHIP later. Rob "Totally for HP & GW" Kristjansson From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 04:03:08 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:03:08 -0000 Subject: Gum Wrappers In-Reply-To: <20040914144018.99187.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112995 Since I started this subject I just wanted to add that I did not mean to imply that Alice was not still insane. Yes she is. And I agree that it was a very touching scene during the visit with Neville. I have seen seriously mentally ill patients try to communicate in bizarre ways that only made sense to them. That is what I was trying to say. Also people who have had strokes sometimes try to get an idea across and it comes out strange. I also remember my mentally ill aunt saying over and over again "the 64 thousand dollar question". No one who cared for her knew what it meant, but I was able to figure it out. So it is that sort of thing that I am wondering about. That if the gum wrappers mean anything, then maybe they only mean something that Neville will figure out. Some clue to something. Tonks_op From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Wed Sep 15 04:23:03 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 04:23:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Man on the Broom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112996 The Man on the Broom (QTA, Chap. 5) To the tune of The Man In The Moon, from Jerry Herman's musical Mame A/N: Re-reading the first two paragraphs of QTA's Fifth Chapter should clear up any possible obscurities in this song The Year: 1419 - With a wordless chorus in the background, the CHIEF OF THE WIZARDS' COUNCIL reminds the community of the penalties that will ensue for playing Quidditch "anywhere near any place where there might be a Muggle watching." Chorus: Oooooh Aaaaaaaaah... COUNCIL CHIEF: We have our wizard secrets we'd like to defend But it seems some have brooms that in daylight descend Those with magic, should stay out of view But there's unseemly gossip and rumors report Of a warlock too careless in playing his sport Just make sure this won't happen to you .. The man on the broom was arrested For playing with Muggles in sight Take care, all you flyers To heed Zacharias And only chase Quaffles at night. 1362, we first gave this decree: "Do not fly near a town Where the Muggles might see." Though his friends all say he didn't plan it We do not really give a fig At no Snitch he'll be lungin' Whilst chained in our dungeon. The man on the broom's in the brig. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 05:00:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:00:56 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > > SSSusan: > > These are very intriguing thoughts, Aura, especially since it has > > been recently speculated that what Voldy used at GH was not AK. > > > > JKR said this August: > > The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been > asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?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? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more > of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. 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. > > Mac now: She (JKR) talks of a killing curse. There's only ever been > one kind so far (AK) and I think that is what was attempted - > remembering that LV's AK might well be MUCH more powerful than any > other wizard's given what Bellatrix has said about having to really > *mean* your unforgiveable curses.I made a post before about why the > Harry AK didn't come out of LV's wand during the GoF priori > incantatem replay but either JKR flinted it or else because no-one > actually died (which is not to say nothing happened) then maybe it > wasn't 'counted'. Carol: I'm pretty sure that I made the same point about JKR referring to the curse used on Harry as the Killing Curse, but I couldn't remember where the quote was. (I looked for it in the Edinburgh article on her site and gave up. Thanks for the quote. I agree with you; there's only one killing curse. As I said earlier, I think the green light Harry remembers was from the curse used on him. Either the door was shut when Lily was killed (JKR says somewhere that he didn't see her die) or it was just a gleam of light viewed sideways, no more spectacular than the light from, say, "Stupefy," whereas the light from the curse that struck him hit him (literally) head on and would have been blinding as it struck. As for why the AK didn't show up in the Priori Incantem sequence, it's probably because the curse failed and there was no ghostly figure to correspond with it. If some other curse had been used that had its own "ghost" (like the shriek that signifies a Crucio), that curse, too, should have shown up, but there was nothing. As you say, it could be a flint, but it's certainly not evidence that the curse used was not an AK. JKR says it was *the* Killing Curse and asks why Voldemort didn't die. But that's a topic for another thread. My point here it that it *was* an AK, and it should have killed Harry. Only his mother's protection (which I am sure involved more than her deliberate self-sacrifice) saved him. Carol, who still thinks that "no countercurse" is not the same as "no protection provided *before* the fact." From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 05:15:45 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:15:45 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112998 > Carol responds: > I would still argue that Snape's hearing isn't common knowledge or the > parents would strenuously object to his teaching at Hogwarts and that > Malfoy, if he knows about it, attributes Snape's ability to get > himself cleared of charges to a remarkable instance of Slytherin > cunning. And again, Sirius didn't know that Snape was a DE. Neri: Carol, you can find a theory of mine that attempts to explain some of these mysteries in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 I think the secret of Snape being a past DE is similar to Lupin's lycanthropy. The parents don't know about it (they are always the last to know about things like that) but the staff do, and those who make it their business to know such things probably also know about it. Fudge implies in GoF that he knew about Lupin's lycanthropy from the beginning and didn't like it one bit, but let DD carry on. This comparison just got me thinking that Snape should really be grateful that Lupin isn't the vindictive sort. Somehow I'm pretty sure that Lupin won't let slip, over breakfast with some parents of Hogwarts students, that Snape was a DE. Neri From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 06:43:51 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:43:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 112999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Discussion Questions:> > > > 3) How does Hermione know Theodore Nott? We know from JKR that > > he is not part of The Usual Gang of Idiots (Malfoy's), though from > > a DE family. > Carol: > Like Harry and Ron, she has at least two classes, Potions and Care of > Magical Creatures, with the Slytherins, and the Potions classes have > been going on for five years. Whether Hagrid has addressed Theo by > name or not (no pun intended), Snape almost certainly has, and > Hermione, being the observant person she is, almost certainly would > have noticed it. And as you say, she may have other classes with > Theo--arithmancy, maybe. I doubt that he'd take Muggle Studies. In > fact, she may have known his name since the Sorting Ceremony in their > first year, but simply not had a reason to mention it before. (As for > Ron and Harry not knowing him, it's amazing that they could be so > unobservant.) Geoff: This suggestion doesn't open another conspiracy theory for me. When I was at school as a teenager, I was in a school of 500 boys. I obviously had a small group of friends with whom I hung around but outside that, there were school societies and you picked up names from other people in conversation, an example along the lines of "Well, X in class 4T is good at.." "Who's X?" "The guy othe there with the blond hair." And so you get to know who quite a number of other pupils are without actually knowing them as acquaintances. I suspect that Harry and Ron might know students by sight or name whom Hermione didn't recognise. Geoff Get to know Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 07:31:59 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:31:59 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113000 Hannah wrote: >>I also believe that Colin Creevy may be a half-blood. Although he is attacked by the Slytherin monster, I think one muggle parent would be enough to justify a basilisk attack in the eyes of the pure- blood fanatics.<< HunterGreen: It wouldn't matter to the basilisk whether or not the person is muggleborn (after all it does attack Harry later on), only to the person commanding the basilisk. And that person is not doing a 'pureblood test' to find out if the person is muggleborn or not, just going with what she has been told. The snake could have just as easily attacked Dean Thomas, since he (and no other students) know he's a half-blood. I have a question now though, how did Ginny know Filch was a squib? Hannah: >>Colin seems to come from a close family, yet he only mentions his Dad, not his Mum. He says he is sending pictures to his Dad, and even volunteers that he is muggle milkman. Why isn't he including his Mum in this? Even the first time I read this, I took it that his Mum was dead/ had left them. And missing parents in Potterverse always flag up warning signs. She could well have been a witch.<< HunterGreen: I like the theory that Colin is a secret half-blood. However though, since JKR intended that Dean Thomas was an unknown half-blood, would she really have two of those? I guess she could have shifted the half- blood from Dean to Colin, but that doesn't seem like her (from all the interviews I've read, major parts of the story were decided a long time ago, so that would include Colin's background. Hannah: >>My supporting evidence for this is the existence of wizard!Dennis. A wizard child born to two muggle parents is fairly unusual. Lily's sister (Petunia) is not magical, neither is Hermione's younger sister (from JKR website/ chats), so it doesn't seem that siblings of muggle born wizards are usually magical too. But here are the Creevys with two wizard sons. This would be (be my reasoning), extremely unusual for two muggles, but normal for a witch and a muggle.<< HunterGreen: I used to wonder this as well. However, if you think of genetics having a 'magical gene' as opposed to it being a fluke of nature, then it makes more sense. Both of Colin's muggle parents could have been carriers for it, but not actually had it themselves. Otherwise, you're right, its too much of a coincidence that both Colin and Dennis are muggleborns. As for Petunia, well, JKR has hinted there might be more to her than meets the eye. From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 07:56:30 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:56:30 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113001 macfotuk wrote: >>Are there any theories out there I haven't seen about why Sirius laughed? [snip] Could Pettigrew have hexed Sirius just before blasting a hole into the sewer by which he escaped as scabbers? (I don't recall a mad laughter spell), but there is a mad/uncontrollable dancing (tarantallegra) spell after all.<< HunterGreen: I think it was a cheering charm. Notice how earlier in PoA cheering charms are mentioned several times (first in class when they learn it, then when Hermione is horrified that she missed that lesson, and I think they show up in the exam too), but never again. I sort of wonder if JKR almost intended to slip in that Peter used a STRONG cheering charm on Sirius to make him appear insane, but it didn't make it into the text. It is interesting that we learn about cheering charms in the same book as all the Sirius/Peter stuff. It could be though, that Sirius was just having a stress-induced laughing fit, meaning that he was a little insane at that moment (after having his two best friends killed, then being framed for murder and watching 12 people die and someone else chop off their finger, I can imagine he was a little emotionally charged). I wonder though, have we seen Sirius react that way (or similarily) other times he's been upset? From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Sep 15 08:01:59 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:59 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113002 Carol: > I think it's much more likely that he found a wand at Grimmauld Place, > either a family member's or the wand he used as a child (see my > earlier post for an slight elaboration of this idea). He must have had > a wand in his hand when he was caught--"evidence" that he had > committed the crime. (Peter's, if it wasn't destroyed in the > explosion, would presumably have been on the other side of the street.) Eloise: Aha! This is where Evil!Fudge started, because, of course, Sirius' wand was not evidence of his guilt, but, if it had been PI'd, evidence of his innocence. It is my contention that Peter's 'guilty' wand was substituted for Sirius'. I don't think Peter's wand would have been destroyed in the explosion. The explosion, remember, was controlled, designed to give the illusion that Peter himself had been blown up, which we know he wasn't. I believe that he planted the robes (in other words, they were nothing to do with the explosion, either) at the scene along with the finger as it seems that animagi's robes transform with them. McGonagall is certainly still robed when she transforms back on Privet Drive! Surely Peter would have taken his wand with him if at all possible. Although Peter's and Sirius' wands could no doubt easily be distinguished from each other, we must remember the climate of the times. Sirius was imprisoned without trial. He was caught apparently red handed. To those who object that he could have proved it wasn't his wand, I counter that he could have proved that his wand didn't commit the crime. But this didn't happen. Why not? I'm going to take the liberty of quoting myself from way, way back in the mists of time (well, Feb 2002, #35393) rather than write it all up again. I've headed this "Weak and Evil!Fudge" as this was always my contention about him and I've had to explain too often that I see him as fundamentally a weak man who thus becomes the tool of evil and isn't strong enough to stand up for good ather than as fundamentally evil. > First the evidence. > We assume that animagi's wands transform with them, along with >their clothes, don't we? But Pettigrew shows no sign of being >armed in the Shrieking Shack and in the graveyard, uses Voldemort's >wand. > No wand is reported as found at the scene of the muggle massacre, >although robes and Pettigrew's finger are. Voldemort is disembodied >and cannot carry a wand. > So there are potentially, between the events surrounding the >Potters' deaths > and GoF, *two* missing wands, one of which doesn't reappear. > Who is one of the first on the scene after Pettigrew's disappearing >trick? Young Cornelius Fudge. > Karkaroff tells us in the Pensieve scene that Rookwood had a >*network* of well-placed wizards , both in the MOM and out. The >only one of these we know of so far (IIRC) is Bagman. > As MOM, Fudge takes a *very* hands-on approach to finding Harry and >capturing Sirius. > He is far too friendly with Lucius Malfoy. > The secret chamber under the Malfoy's living room doesn't appear to >have been searched, despite Harry and Ron finding out about it in >CoS and Ron's determination to tell his father. > He has an elevated view of the superiority of pure-blood and proper >wizarding pride which is uncomfortably close to Voldemort's doctrine. > So... What if Fudge was one of Rookwood's network? He could have >been in on Pettigrew's diappearance, which has all the hallmarks of >being planned (albeit, it must have been arranged rapidly, and was >another of those plans which could so easily have gone wrong) and >could have framed Sirius. > Think for a moment. One of the biggest problems with Pettigrew's >escape plan is the evidence which Sirius' wand could give via *prior >incantato*. Sirius' descent into hysteria and his guilt- >induced 'confession' couldn't be predicted. If he had kept calm and >demanded that his wand be allowed to give its evidence, his >innocence might have been demonstrated instantly. > What if someone (Fudge) substituted the guilty wand for Sirius' >wand. No danger of the verdict (not that it came to trial) being >overturned. No danger of any deranged tale that it was really >Pettigrew who had killed the muggles being believed. > So that could be where Pettigrew's wand ended up. > Now there is also the possibility that Pettigrew *has* rescued >Voldemort's wand from the rubble. Could this too, be passed on to >Fudge, who then could have returned it to Pettigrew after his escape >from Harry et al. Alternatively, Fudge could have passed it on to >Lucius Malfoy to add to his collection of Voldemort memorabilia. > What about this hands-on approach to finding Harry and Sirius? > If Fudge knows that Sirius is innocent, then he might want to get >to Harry first, to find him before Sirius can convince him of his >innocence, which could than be reported straight back to Dumbledore. >He also of course wants to make sure that Sirius is eliminated, so >that his own complicity in the plot doesn't come to light. No wonder >he wants to give Snape the Order of Merlin - he's just saved his >bacon. > > So why his reaction to being told that Voldemort is back? Well, he >hasn't exactly been a faithful servant has he? Basically in this >theory, he is a weak, foolish and self-interested man who has just >swum with the tide, joining whichever side seemed to be in the >ascendency, without the foresight to realise that the Dark Lord >could rise again and without the moral fibre to face up to what he >has done or attempt to make up for it. He doesn't want Voldemort >back because it puts him on the wrong side. But joining Dumbledore > means abandoning all those nice cosy assumptions he has, joining >forces with groups he'd rather ostracise and the running the risk >of being uncovered. > > I admit the evidence is circumstantial, but it *could* >work....couldn't it? ~Eloise From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 08:53:28 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:53:28 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113003 Eloise wrote: >>Aha! This is where Evil!Fudge started, because, of course, Sirius' wand was not evidence of his guilt, but, if it had been PI'd, evidence of his innocence. It is my contention that Peter's 'guilty' wand was substituted for Sirius'. I don't think Peter's wand would have been destroyed in the explosion. The explosion, remember, was controlled, designed to give the illusion that Peter himself had been blown up, which we know he wasn't. I believe that he planted the robes (in other words, they were nothing to do with the explosion, either) at the scene along with the finger as it seems that animagi's robes transform with them. << HunterGreen: Far be it for me to argue with an ESE!Fudge contention, but couldn't Peter have been the one to plant the bloody robes there? How would Fudge know to bring Peter-sized bloody robes with him? Peter, wearing some sort of underclothes, might have taken off his outer-robes before he transformed (perhaps right after the explosion, when Sirius was -- I assume -- disoriented). He might have tossed his wand aside to help further framed!Sirius (he certainly doesn't have it when he's forced to transform in PoA). The authorites would have confiscated Sirius' wand (at the scene most likely) and if it was PI'd, they might have tested Peter's wand thinking that Black switched it, since Peter was "obviously dead" at this point, and therefore wouldn't have done the curse that resulted in his own death (however, would they see an echo of a finger cutting off curse? or did peter perhaps cut it off some other way? (and now *my* finger hurts)). Eloise wrote (in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35393 ) > He is far too friendly with Lucius Malfoy. > The secret chamber under the Malfoy's living room doesn't appear to >have been searched, despite Harry and Ron finding out about it in >CoS and Ron's determination to tell his father. HunterGreen: Ah, I never thought of that one. Why was there no followup on that? Eloise: > So... What if Fudge was one of Rookwood's network? He could have >been in on Pettigrew's diappearance, which has all the hallmarks of >being planned (albeit, it must have been arranged rapidly, and was >another of those plans which could so easily have gone wrong) and >could have framed Sirius. HunterGreen: This implies Peter planning it with someone else, which I have trouble believing. Why would anyone else be interested in framing Sirius? Why not let Peter be caught? Peter isn't very loyal to Voldemort, and has questionable power as a wizard. Framing Sirius was only to save himself, and with Voldemort gone, he has no more usefullness anyway. Eloise: > Think for a moment. One of the biggest problems with Pettigrew's >escape plan is the evidence which Sirius' wand could give via *prior >incantato*. Sirius' descent into hysteria and his guilt- >induced 'confession' couldn't be predicted. If he had kept calm and >demanded that his wand be allowed to give its evidence, his >innocence might have been demonstrated instantly. HunterGreen: Not with Crouch at the helm. He was the one, after all, who ordered Sirius to Azkaban without a trial. Fudge didn't have that much power at this point. Eloise: > Now there is also the possibility that Pettigrew *has* rescued >Voldemort's wand from the rubble. Could this too, be passed on to >Fudge, who then could have returned it to Pettigrew after his escape >from Harry et al. Alternatively, Fudge could have passed it on to >Lucius Malfoy to add to his collection of Voldemort memorabilia. HunterGreen: I love the term 'Voldemort Memorabilia' (o; Peter could have taken Voldemort's wand and hid it somewhere to retrieve later. If Malfoy had it, did he sneak into the Malfoy Manor after the events of PoA to steal it? I think that Malfoy would have some sort of protection on his Voldemort collection (otherwise, I can see Draco bringing friends down there to show off and some of it getting broken). Eloise: > I admit the evidence is circumstantial, but it *could* >work....couldn't it? HunterGreen: I definitely agree there is more to Fudge than what he is thought to be (I can't say more than meets the eye, since his corruption and borderline evilness are on the surface). I have this question: if Fudge isn't involved with DEs or Voldemort, why *didn't* they recruit him? A power-hungry, pure-blood believer who is friends with Malfoy would be an extremely easy recruitment. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Sep 15 08:56:44 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:56:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > ?> > > > I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the > books--sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it. > > > > Kneasy: > > Give me ten examples. > > Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great > difficulty in doing so.< > > Off the top of my head > > James dies to defend Lily and Harry > Lily dies to defend Harry > Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game > Molly takes Harry into the Weasley family > Harry goes to rescue Ginny > Harry defends Dumbledore to Riddle > Sirius offers a home to Harry > Harry rescues Sirius and Buckbeak > Molly's hug (GoF) > Harry thinking of Ron and Hermione as he fights the dementors > Harry thinking of Sirius as he struggles with Voldemort > > That's eleven. I'm sure there are more. > Ginny defending Harry (standing up to Draco). Dumbledore not telling Harry about the prophecy. The second task in the tournament (Krum->Hermione, Cedric->Cho, Fleur- >Gabrielle). Molly, Molly, Molly - the thing that scares her most is the death of members of her family (including Harry!), not anything that would happen to her. Hermione endlessly helping Harry (and Ron and Hagrid) whenever they need her. Hagrid towards his monster pets (particularly Norbert, of course). Hagrid towards Dumbledore and the trio. Petunia towards Dudley AND Vernon towards both Petunia and Dudley. Winkey towards the Crouch family (it's not just the magical bond - she continues to love and want to serve them even after the bond is severed). Sirius risking being caught in order to help Harry (in GoF). Ron facing up to his arachnophobia in order to help save Hermione. Ron joining Harry to go save Ginny. Also just off the top of my head. Naama From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 15 09:05:46 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:05:46 -0400 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands Message-ID: <002c01c49b03$3067e960$57c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113005 macfotuk said: "Are there any theories out there I haven't seen about why Sirius laughed? It certainly seems to have been what damned him, in the mind'seye of the WW, to all those years in Azkhaban (see Ernie Prang and Stan Shunpike's convo on the Knight Bus). Could Pettigrew have hexed Sirius just before blasting a hole into the sewer by which he escaped as scabbers? (I don't recall a mad laughter spell), but there is a mad/uncontrollable dancing (tarantallegra) spell after all." DuffyPoo: Well, there are Cheering Charms. "Professor Flitwick did indeed test them on Cheering Charms. Harry slightly overdid his out of nerves, and Ron, who was partnering him, ended up in fits of hysterical laughter and had to be led away to a quiet room for an hour..." (PoA) I think Sirius was laughing because he realized "weak, talentless" Peter had really got one over on him. Accused him of betraying James and Lily Potter (to a streetfull of Muggles. Why would they care? There is something all too weird about this and Fudge being "Johnny-on-the-spot" as well - showing up while Sirius was still laughing.), then cutting off his own finger, blowing apart the street, transforming into a rat and disappearing all before Sirius had a chance to draw his wand. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 15 09:06:26 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:06:26 -0400 Subject: Harry's protection Message-ID: <003001c49b03$489ad3d0$57c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113006 SSSusan: >>>So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries. <<<< DuffyPoo: The problem, as I see it, is that Lord Voldythingy *does* know it. "His mother died in the attempt to save him -- and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not forseen....[later] His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice .. this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it ... [later again] I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice." (GoF) LV clearly says he "should have remembered" the old magic, the magic of sacrifice. "Your mother died to save you. If there's one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realized that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark..." (PS) You and I don't understand Time Turning ;-). We couldn't "not understand" it if we didn't know about it. "But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows,* which *he despises,* and which he has always, therefore, *underestimated* -- to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." (OotP - all emphasis mine) LV knows the magic, despises it, and underestimates it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Sep 15 09:16:39 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:16:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: <003001c49b03$489ad3d0$57c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > SSSusan: > >>>So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord > Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in > the Dept. of Mysteries. <<<< > > > DuffyPoo: > The problem, as I see it, is that Lord Voldythingy *does* know it. Love is not a (just) a concept you can understand intellectually. It is (like other emotions and sensations - anger, hot, blue, itchy...) impenetrable to the understanding if you haven't experienced it. Voldemort knows *of* love - he knows that people will do things for others because of it, he undertands the mechanics of it. But he doesn't *get* it, because he has never felt it. Like being tone deaf - you can listen to the music, but you can't hear it. Naama, absolutely and completely positive that the mysterious power behing the locked door is Love (which in its pure sense is unselfishness). From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 09:34:16 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:34:16 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" shouts > Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' > James Potter?") and they were particularly good at Transfiguration and > Charms, respectively. Just an interjection - I've always considered that the Hagrid shock/horror wasn't because of any powers the Potters may or may not have had, but because wizards don't use cars. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 09:45:05 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:45:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > > > I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the > > books--sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it. > > > > > > Kneasy: > > > Give me ten examples. > > > Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great > > difficulty in doing so.< > > > > Off the top of my head > > > > James dies to defend Lily and Harry > > Lily dies to defend Harry > > Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game > > Molly takes Harry into the Weasley family > > Harry goes to rescue Ginny > > Harry defends Dumbledore to Riddle > > Sirius offers a home to Harry > > Harry rescues Sirius and Buckbeak > > Molly's hug (GoF) > > Harry thinking of Ron and Hermione as he fights the dementors > > Harry thinking of Sirius as he struggles with Voldemort > > > > That's eleven. I'm sure there are more. > > > > Ginny defending Harry (standing up to Draco). > Dumbledore not telling Harry about the prophecy. > The second task in the tournament (Krum->Hermione, Cedric->Cho, Fleur- > >Gabrielle). > Molly, Molly, Molly - the thing that scares her most is the death of > members of her family (including Harry!), not anything that would > happen to her. > Hermione endlessly helping Harry (and Ron and Hagrid) whenever they > need her. > Hagrid towards his monster pets (particularly Norbert, of course). > Hagrid towards Dumbledore and the trio. > Petunia towards Dudley AND Vernon towards both Petunia and Dudley. > Winkey towards the Crouch family (it's not just the magical bond - > she continues to love and want to serve them even after the bond is > severed). > Sirius risking being caught in order to help Harry (in GoF). > Ron facing up to his arachnophobia in order to help save Hermione. > Ron joining Harry to go save Ginny. > You're cheating - all of you. Just what I expected. Very few of these involve true sacrifice and most of the others can be considered as being motivated by things other than love. Using the above as a guideline I could just as easily put forward Voldy/Nagini, Kreacher/Mrs Black on the wall or Bella/Voldy. To the incurably romantic almost anything can be regarded as an aspect of 'love'; not to a miserable curmudgeon like me though. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 09:56:30 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:56:30 -0000 Subject: Tale of Two Wands - Fawkes as Supplier - When Created? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > SO, to conclude this NEW post - Just WHY did Riddle get such a > special wand in the first place? and Does DD blame himself for the > mistake that a feather from HIS pheonix turned out to be in part the > instrument of such mayhem in the hands of 'the most evil/powerful' > wizard that ever lived'? Very good question that some of us have been wondering about for some time. The most intriguing possibility (and a not uncommon plot device in fantasy tales) is that Tom was intended or thought to be the first 'Harry' but went wrong. The second Harry is being trained as a counter to the first. For plausibility it all depends on when that second feather was given... Kneasy From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Sep 15 09:57:11 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:57:11 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113011 > HunterGreen: > Far be it for me to argue with an ESE!Fudge contention, but couldn't > Peter have been the one to plant the bloody robes there? Eloise: Oops! Whoa! Hold it right there! Sorry about that, when I said "he", I did mean Peter, but I realise now that I wrote it like I meant Fudge. HunterGreen: How would > Fudge know to bring Peter-sized bloody robes with him? Peter, wearing > some sort of underclothes, might have taken off his outer-robes > before he transformed (perhaps right after the explosion, when Sirius > was -- I assume -- disoriented). He might have tossed his wand aside > to help further framed!Sirius (he certainly doesn't have it when he's > forced to transform in PoA). Eloise: Well, what I was trying to say was that just as Peter cut off hist finger before he transformed, he also dropped the robes. I am assuming he transformed *in* his robes, otherwise if he'd needed to resume human form, he presumably would have done so in his underwear (if he wore underwear and there seems to be some doubt as to what wizards do and do not wear under traditional robes) so I assume that he brought an extra set with him. HunterGreen: > The authorites would have confiscated Sirius' wand (at the scene most > likely) and if it was PI'd, they might have tested Peter's wand > thinking that Black switched it, since Peter was "obviously dead" at > this point, and therefore wouldn't have done the curse that resulted > in his own death (however, would they see an echo of a finger cutting > off curse? or did peter perhaps cut it off some other way? (and now > *my* finger hurts)). Eloise: Possibly. I doubt any testing was done whatsoever. <> > Eloise: > > So... What if Fudge was one of Rookwood's network? He could have > >been in on Pettigrew's diappearance, which has all the hallmarks of > >being planned (albeit, it must have been arranged rapidly, and was > >another of those plans which could so easily have gone wrong) and > >could have framed Sirius. > > HunterGreen: > This implies Peter planning it with someone else, which I have > trouble believing. Why would anyone else be interested in framing > Sirius? Why not let Peter be caught? Peter isn't very loyal to > Voldemort, and has questionable power as a wizard. Framing Sirius was > only to save himself, and with Voldemort gone, he has no more > usefullness anyway. Eloise: Well, the only thing I can say is to repeat that Peter's disappearance seems to be *planned* and that it was a plan waiting to go wrong if not aided. If Peter went to Fudge in a panic, told him what had happened (natural allies, those two, I'd say, both morally weak individuals looking out for their own skins) Fudge might have agreed to ensure the blame fell on Sirius to aid Peter's escape (he need not have known about the animagus thing, in fact). Also, if Peter were caught and he *did* have any information on Fudge, then he might have given it. In fact he might have threatened to. The MOM seems to have got to that scene much more quickly than they did to the Potters'. With a team of twenty hit wizards. Prior knowledge that something was going to happen? And I am intrigued by Fudge's later personal interest in the Sirius situation. It just seems *too* personal. > > Eloise: > > Think for a moment. One of the biggest problems with Pettigrew's > >escape plan is the evidence which Sirius' wand could give via *prior > >incantato*. Sirius' descent into hysteria and his guilt- > >induced 'confession' couldn't be predicted. If he had kept calm and > >demanded that his wand be allowed to give its evidence, his > >innocence might have been demonstrated instantly. > > HunterGreen: > Not with Crouch at the helm. He was the one, after all, who ordered > Sirius to Azkaban without a trial. Fudge didn't have that much power > at this point. Eloise: No, but I meant instantly. At the scene. And don't forget that despite there being no trial Dumbledore gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been Secret Keeper, so some evidence gathering was done, but apparently only that which incriminated. It was a matter of great luck that Sirius *didn't* protest his easily demonstrable innocence. As if not only did he feel he deserved to be punished, but he felt that any protest was futile. > > Eloise: > > Now there is also the possibility that Pettigrew *has* rescued > >Voldemort's wand from the rubble. Could this too, be passed on to > >Fudge, who then could have returned it to Pettigrew after his escape > >from Harry et al. Alternatively, Fudge could have passed it on to > >Lucius Malfoy to add to his collection of Voldemort memorabilia. > > HunterGreen: > I love the term 'Voldemort Memorabilia' (o; Thank you. :-) > Peter could have taken Voldemort's wand and hid it somewhere to > retrieve later. Eloise: If Peter took it, then wouldn't he hold onto it in case he needed it? I'm still working on the assumption here that animagi take their wands with them. It's not like he was expecting Voldemort to return. HunterGreen: If Malfoy had it, did he sneak into the Malfoy Manor > after the events of PoA to steal it? I think that Malfoy would have > some sort of protection on his Voldemort collection (otherwise, I can > see Draco bringing friends down there to show off and some of it > getting broken). Eloise: Well, perhaps the enchantments don't work against rats? > > Eloise: > > I admit the evidence is circumstantial, but it *could* > >work....couldn't it? > > HunterGreen: > I definitely agree there is more to Fudge than what he is thought to > be (I can't say more than meets the eye, since his corruption and > borderline evilness are on the surface). I have this question: if > Fudge isn't involved with DEs or Voldemort, why *didn't* they recruit > him? A power-hungry, pure-blood believer who is friends with Malfoy > would be an extremely easy recruitment. Exactly! though I dare say that the reality of Death Eating is a little messy for Fudge's taste. ~Eloise From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 10:32:47 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:32:47 -0000 Subject: Squibs (was Re: Colin Creevy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113012 > HunterGreen: It wouldn't matter to the basilisk whether or not the person is muggleborn (after all it does attack Harry later on), only to the person commanding the basilisk. And that person is not doing a 'pureblood test' to find out if the person is muggleborn or not, just going with what she has been told. The snake could have just as easily attacked Dean Thomas, since he (and no other students) know he's a half-blood. I have a question now though, how did Ginny know Filch was a squib? Kemper now: Ginny didn't know Filch was a Squib. Below is a work in progress. Part of it addresses the scene/chapter you are referring to. It's long, so apologies to the rushed. Squibs: Marginalized by Magical World The idea of a Squib is learned in SS during the feast after the sorting when the talk around the first year Gryffindors turns to their families and Ron asks, "What about you, Neville?" "Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said Neville, "but the family thought I was all-Muggle [a Squib] for ages. My Great Uncle Algie kept trying to catch me off my guard and force some magic out of me?he pushed me off the end of Blackpool pier once, I nearly drowned?but nothing happened until I was eight. Great Uncle Algie came round for dinner, and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced?all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here?they thought I might not be magic enough to come, you see. Great Uncle Algie was so pleased he bought me my toad." (SS 125) Neville says his family thought he was all-Muggle. What is wrong with being non-magical? His family allows Great Uncle Algie unsupervised with Neville even after Neville nearly drowned. Why is that considered ok? It isn't until GUA `accidentally(?)' drops Neville head first from at least two stories where he bounces instead of breaks a vertebrae that Neville is treated without abuse and totally accepted by his family. Though they still believe that he's "not magic enough to come [to Hogwarts]" until he gets his letter when they are even more pleased. GUA, who has terrorized his nephew, is so pleased that he spoils Neville with the lavish gift of a toad. Would GUA have given his nephew such an extravagant gift if Neville were a Squib? Probably not because what Neville does not say but which can be inferred is that magic is valued; the more magic, the more value. If more magic and importance are at one side of a spectrum, then no magic and insignificance are at the other. It is no wonder GUA has put Neville in harms way instead of building a healthy, trustful relationship with him. GUA thought Neville a Squib, an insignificant member on the outskirts of the magical community. The magical community marginalizes Squibs. When a class of people is marginalized, they are usually shamed and ridiculed as well by those that do the marginalizing. This can be seen in the magic community as well. From a sheaf of parchment that was within an envelope from a Kwikspell correspondence course on Argus Filch's desk, Harry reads: Feel out of step in the world of modern magic? Find yourself making excuses not to perform simple spells? Ever been taunted for your woeful wandwork? There is an answer! (CS 127) The first question posed on the parchment addresses a Squib's experience of being treated poorly by the world of modern magic. Feel out of step is code for don't feel accepted. The second question could have been more accurately posed: Are you ashamed of being a Squib? The last question is total emotional manipulation. It preys upon the pain of being ridiculed for the hope of using a wand. But there is no hope there. Only the despairing frustration at continuing to be unable to perform any sort of magic and at losing any Galleons spent on the course. It then claims to have the answer. But the answer for the Squib lies either in social change from the world of modern magic, a difficult solution to find alone, or in changing one's reaction to that world. When Filch catches Harry, a citizen of the world of modern magic, looking over the Kwikspell course, Filch is fearful that Harry now knows him to be a Squib and questions Harry on whether Harry read his personal post. Harry lies, denying having read it. Filch is flustered: "If I thought you'd read my private?not that it's mine?for a friend? " and continues, "Very well?go?and don't breathe a word?not that?however, if you didn't read?go now " (CS 128) Filch denies that the parchment is his and wants Harry to keep his mouth shut about it: to keep his secret from the world of modern magic. A world that has laughed at and humiliated Argus Filch into a closet. It takes the grief of losing Mrs. Norris for Filch to step out of that closet. Harry, Ron and Hermione are the first to discover her after reading the rooster-blood graffiti written by Voldemort with Ginny's hand. As the feast lets out the hall where Harry and friends are begins to fill with students. There is an uneasy quiet as students become more aware of the bloodied wall and the hanging, motionless cat. Then Draco Malfoy shouts, " You'll be next Mudbloods!" The shout, (or is it what's being shouted?), attracts the attention of Filch. Filch is quick to blame Harry for the cruelty: "He did it, he did it!" Filch spat, his pouchy face purpling. "You saw what he wrote on the wall! He found ? in my office ? he knows I'm a ? I'm a ?" Filch's face worked horribly. "He knows I'm a Squib!" he finished. (CS 142) Filch comes out of the closet admitting he is a Squib in front of three students. Harry honestly denies knowing what a Squib is. But Filch claims Harry's denial is "rubbish" because of Harry having seen his Kwikspell letter. Apparently in the past, Filch has experienced witches and wizards willing to torment him for being a Squib. It is not only poor, petrified Mrs. Norris that has the enraged Filch accusing Harry of a hate crime; it is also what Filch believes Harry wrote on the wall: THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS HAS BEEN OPENED. ENEMIES OF THE HEIR, BEWARE. (CS 138) As a Hogwarts' staff member, Filch is sure to know the circumstances 50 years earlier surrounding the Chamber of Secrets. It is curious and interesting to note that he identifies with those considered `enemies of the heir.' We learn later that the `enemies of the heir' have Muggle, non-magical, blood ties. Could the `enemies of the heir' entail Squibs as well? If so, then the enemy of the heir either has a non-magical background or is non- magical. Squibs, abhorred by Slytherin's heir and aggrieved by the magical world. Through Ron, Harry's interpreter in the magical world, the definition of Squib is learned: "Well -- it's not funny really -- but as it's Filch," he said. "A Squib is someone who was born into a wizarding family but hasn't got any magic powers. Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards, but Squibs are quite unusual. If Filch's trying to learn magic from a Kwikspell course, I reckon he must be a Squib. It would explain a lot. Like why he hates students so much." Ron gave a satisfied smile. "He's bitter." (CS 145) Filch does act as though he holds a resentment or two. The other Squib in the books does as well; however, it comes out as righteous indignation. And though she is still disregarded by the modern magical world, she is neither reluctant nor ashamed to declare herself a Squib. This is evident when Arabella Figg is in Courtroom 10 to testify at Harry's hearing. She sits in front of the entire Wizengamot, states her name, and is then asked by the Minister of Magic as to her relevance in the hearing to which she answers: "I'm a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter lives" (OP 143) Madam Bones: "We have no record of any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging other than Harry Potter. That situation has always been closely monitored given given past events." (OP 143) Madame Bones, head of Magical Law Enforcement, is acutely aware of the security/intelligence reports of Harry Potter's neighborhood. She is sure not the one going out to Little Whinging and running survelence on the residents there, but it sounds as though someone is monitoring the area. That person or agency does not even consider muggles a threat or take into consideration the possibility that a Squib dwells nearby. So Squibs must not be considered a threat, or maybe they just aren't considered. This seems to be Mrs. Figg's impression: "I'm a Squib. So you wouldn't have me registered, would you?" (OP 143) Here, Mrs. Figg could be addressing Madame Bones but she may be using the plural `you' as in `you, witches and wizards, leaders of the modern world of magic.' She questions the silent consent that allows Squibs to be marginalized by their family, community, and government. Madame Bones seems more impressed by Harry's power and magic in producing a corporeal Patronus then by the presence of Dementors in a Muggle neighborhood away from MoM tabs. She shows the subtle elitist attitude which is the status quo of the system. Where the status is esteemed if magical and disregarded if non-magical. Returning to the above quote; Fudge, the Minister of Magic, the most politically influential position within Magic Britton, looks left and right at the witches and wizards sitting near him and asks them instead of the Squib sitting in front of him `incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?' Mrs. Figg replies `indignantly' that they can. Is Mrs. Figg's indignant response due to not being addressed directly or due to the question even being posed? Either way, it is a slight on her person. I'm magical, therefore I am. You're not magical, therefore you aren't. Fudge looks down and acknowledges her response `coolly' and asks for her story of the events of the night Dudley and Harry were attacked. She states that she saw `dementors running' and later described them as `big and wearing cloaks.' This is not the most accurate description of dementors and, right after listening to it, a wizard in the Wizengamot leans to a witch next to him and whispers something in her ear. She smirks and nods at what is sure to be degrading remark of Mrs. Figg, or of Squibs. Even Madam Bones, a fair Judge according to Tonks, repeats back Mrs. Figg's descriptions `coolly.' There is judgment in one's voice when speaking `coolly.' The judgment Madame Bones seems to hold is `I don't believe you, Mrs. Figg, you're Squibiness is showing.' Arguably, Mrs. Figg has had the most important role within the magical community: assuring Harry Potter's physical safety. She, as an original member of the Order, knew the danger involved with her assignment; Death Eaters, especially the crazy, fanatical kind. Mrs. Figg would do anything in her non-magical power to protect Harry knowing that it could come to being murdered like the Potters or to being tortured like the Longbottoms. She knows the law. She anticipates and articulates the consequences of Harry's actions in the alley. She is a forceful presence against a wizard who was not following his assignment. She is not the meek Squib at Harry's hearing. Rather, she's playing to a prejudiced, magical crowd. From laurens at leroc.net Wed Sep 15 10:36:31 2004 From: laurens at leroc.net (lauren_silverwolf) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:36:31 -0000 Subject: Bella's accent (was Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > 'Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung > himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed "Crucio!" > > Bellatrix screamed: the spell had kncoked her off her feet but she > did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had...... > > "Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?" she yelled. > she had abandoned her baby voice now. "You need to mean them, Potter! > You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger > won't hurt me for long....."' > > [OT: Why does Bellatrix's use of "boy" make me think she's Welsh, he > ponders] > > (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" p,.715 UK edition) If Bellatrix were Welsh, surely she would have used "Boyo"? I hear her more in a clipped upper class English accent. This would suit the the position in WW society the Black family occupies. To me, the term "boy" is used in an almost derogatory way, or at least to challenge and denigrate Harry's attempt at an Unforgivable Curse. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 10:40:39 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:40:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Yes, I agree that Sacrificial Love fits the bill more than most > other similar possibilities. I'm not sure why I don't like it > (except that it's "fluffy"). > > I also don't like Heart, Humanity, Life, Hope and all that kind of > stuff. I think JKR is not a symbolist. She writes an adventure > story, not an allegory. > > For example, in the death chamber in the DoM you don't find Death. > You find a magical arch that is some kind of a portal to the world > of the dead. In the "intelligence" room you don't find Intelligence, > you find leaving brains. In the time room you don't find Time. You > find time-turners and the bell that makes things younger and older. > > Therefore, IMO the power-behind-the-locked-door will turn out to be > some magical power that JKR invented. She might give it a name with > a mystic sound like "ancient magic" or "Avada Kedavra", or she'll > keep it so mysterious that it won't have even a name, but I think it > will still be a magical power or device, which can be used in > certain magical ways and under certain magical rules. It will of > course be also a metaphor for Love, Sacrifice, Morality and things > like that, but in the plot level in will be device, in the same way > that the Mirror of Erised wasn't Desire. It was a magical device > that symbolized Desire. > Interesting reasoning, and I can see it as just the sort of thing JKR would do. If it does turn out so, I might just be able to bear it, depending on how it's presented in the story. But if, by my standards, a tidal wave of yuck sloshes through the plot-line, then I shall feel compelled to inflict an alternative offering on the members - something incorporating the traditional stiff upper-lip, manly fortitude and the old-fashioned English abhorence of emoting all over the place like an attention-seeking, emotionally incontinent, narcissistic exhibitionist. Nothing wrong with emotions of course - everybody has 'em. But I see them as *personal* and not to be flaunted like the local flasher working overtime. I'm probably in the minority - again. Kneasy From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 15 09:59:16 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:59:16 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113015 > > Antosha: > Here's my question: HOW THE HECK DOES LUCIUS KNOW THE WEASLEYS > > ARE GOING TO BE IN DIAGON ALLEY THAT DAY???" Zoe C. wrote: > I've never been sure whether L Malfoy knew the exact power of the > Diary. In Cos ch 2 Dobby's Warning, Dobby says "If Harry Potter goes back to Hogwarts, he will be in mortal danger" .... "there is a > plot...to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts..." > > I've always felt that Malfoy was just looking for a way to give it > to any Hogwarts student he came across, because whoever he gave it > to, the outcome - that of taking over someone's soul and eventually using their mind and body to set the Basilisk on to the muggle borns and mudbloods, is what Malfoy was hoping would happen. > > This would obviously put Harry in mortal danger as he is a half > blood, but later in COS ch 17 The Heir of Slytherin, Tom says "so > Ginny poured out her soul to me and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted..." He wasn't looking for Harry Potter, he had preserved himself in the diary to "finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work" > > He also tells Harry "Haven't I already told you,...killing > mudbloods doesn't matter to me any more? For many months now, my > new target has been - you." This suggests that his original > target (and by assumption Malfoy's) was just to kill mudbloods. > Finding out about Harry through Ginny was just an added bonus! > Hannah now: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way. If 1 or 2 were his ultimate aims, it wouldn't have mattered which student he used. If 3 was his goal, he had to use Ginny (none of the boys would have written in a diary). I doubt that 1 was his aim. Lucius doesn't seem to be suffering from LV's absence, and if he really wanted him back, he could go and find vapour!mort in Albania or wherever he is (Pettigew manages it, so I'm sure Lucius could). 2 is a possibility; death's of non-purebloods, removal of Dumbledore, chance to get his way and have Draco sent to Durmstrang. OTOH, I doubt that shutting Hogwarts would really have meant no school for British wizards ever again - it was really the castle that was the problem. All they need do is set up another school elsewhere. Inconvenient, and might take a year or two, but sooner or later, muggle-borns would be setting off to another school, without the fear of a monster, and maybe with DD as head again. I think he was motivated by a combination of 2 and 3. The timing suuggests that killing off muggle-borns was not his only aim - why not do it beforehand if so? But at the start of CoS he has a problem; Arthur Weasley's muggle protection act, and this is going to affect the one thing that Lucius *really* cares about - himself. He realises he has an ideal opportunity to prevent the muggle protection act, remove DD, and maybe even kill off some children (you can see why it was so appealing). Also, he couldn't give the diary to just anyone. It needed to be someone who would be likely to write in a diary (probably female), and someone young and vulnerable enough to pour out their heart and not be suspicious of the diary, at least until it was too late. This did restrict him somewhat. He either always intended it for Ginny, or at least had her on a shortlist of possible candidates to be slipped the diary. DD's comments at the end of CoS suggest that he believes discrediting Arthur Weasley to have been Lucius' aim. The problem with motivation 3 is how he intended to let the WW know it was Ginny. Was he planning to set her up, perhaps by tipping off a student (probably not Draco), or his favourite staff member, Severus Snape? He was leaving it a bit late, since there'd already been 4 attacks by the time Ginny was taken, and they were already threatening to shut the school. Maybe Lucius was waiting for DD to get thrown out, or for there to actually be a death. And then Tom Riddle spoilt everything by taking matters into his own hands, and making Ginny a victim. I reckon if Riddle hadn't acted unpredictably, and Ginny opened the chamber again to attack another student, someone would have caught her in the act, or suddenly found some evidence to prove it was her. I've no idea how or what, though. Hannah From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 11:53:42 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:53:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113016 > Geoff: > I suspect that Harry and Ron might know students by sight or name > whom Hermione didn't recognise. > >Potioncat: In support of that idea, IRRC, there have been students in other houses that Harry hasn't known either. But, stepping out of the story a bit, is there a reason that JKR has Hermione tell Harry the name? It would be as easy to have Harry know his name, "and Harry recognised Theodore Nott reading the Quibbler." From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 12:33:12 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:33:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113017 > Alla: > > Maybe we should or maybe we should not. Yesterday I was worrying > that I went into defending Snape mode for too long. :o) Potioncat: Yes, I was worrying about you too! ;-) > >snip>> >>Alla: > I am having a lot of trouble calling such person a "good one" > > Hmmm. Which examples to choose?. > > > 1. The first Potions lesson inn PS/SS was cited so many times, that > I really don't want to do it again today. > I may even agree with you that Potions, which Snape mentions > especially putting "stopper in death" will become important at the > end, but you are not saying that Snape KNEW that in PS/SS? > I mean, it would be a nice foreshadowing, but what Snape got to do > with it? How it makes his absolutely undeserved attack at Harry, who just been thrown out in the world unknown , looks less asdistic? > >Potioncat: It won't make him less sarcastic/sadistic but I think Snape believes Harry -- particularly Harry -- needs to know certain things about potions. snip> Alla: Since GoF is the book I reread most recently, I will quote couple > scenes from there. Potioncat: Not GoF!!! It's really hard to defend Snape in GoF. > 3. >snip > I would even be able to let it pass, if Snape say took points and > let it be, but he decides to read the magasine out loud. > snip Potioncat: It used to be expected that notes passed to another student would be read out loud if the teacher caught you. Nice teachers of course didn't do that. So reading this out loud was mean, but not entirely out of range... I think at this time Snape believes Harry tricked the Goblet of Fire, believes the trio are stealing from his office, knows LV is getting stronger and may be calling Snape soon...and he's taking it out on Harry. Snape should go into research. Alla: > 4. > Harry trying to warn Dumbledore about Crouch Sr. was recently > discussed and even though I don't consider it to be the example of > ESE! Snape I definitely think of it as one of the best examples of > Snape's sadistic nature. > Here is the quote: > snip >> > I am willing to assume that Snape knew that Dumbledore is in his > office. What exactly stopped him from telling Harry to wait a minute and Headmaster will be here? I think nothing except Snape being Snape. > > Potioncat: Yeah, that one had me puzzled for quite a while. He was stalling Harry until DD could come down, and doing it in character. Why? This reminds me that the movies often show Snape being neutral or almost friendly. I don't think the books ever do. Remind me, Alla, was I agreeing with you or arguing with you in this post? > > >Alla: snip > But, I think I posted earlier that Snape does manage to make Harry afraid of himself in OOP (to his delight, I am sure :o)). > > > "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold > voice came out of the corner. > "Shut the door behind you, Potter." > Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was > imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 > > > "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and > Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his > temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, > paperback, p.533. Potioncat: Harry does a good job of standing up to Snape. I've only realised that lately. He is pretty mouthy at times. But you show good examples of Harry's discomfort as well. I don't read it as Snape purposely making him afraid in that situation. Rather, with their history, the whole process makes him nervous. Not to mention that Black even suggested Snape might be particularly mean to Harry in these classes. So, why has JKR made this very nasty person someone who is important to DD, protective of Harry, and a teacher? Does anyone know what ever became of the chemistry teacher who inspired Snape? Potioncat From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 12:45:07 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:45:07 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113018 Eloise: >>Well, what I was trying to say was that just as Peter cut off hist finger before he transformed, he also dropped the robes. I am assuming he transformed *in* his robes, otherwise if he'd needed to resume human form, he presumably would have done so in his underwear (if he wore underwear and there seems to be some doubt as to what wizards do and do not wear under traditional robes) so I assume that he brought an extra set with him.<< HunterGreen: Perhaps he had a cloak on or something (it was October), and that's what Fudge meant when he said 'robes'? He could have took his cloak off and let his bleeding finger drip over it. Eloise (on Sirius' wand): >>I doubt any testing was done whatsoever.<< HunterGreen: I agree. Especially if Sirius was being quiet as you say and not demanding that they do any tests, the wand was probably snapped in half before there was any chance of an investigation. Eloise: >>Well, the only thing I can say is to repeat that Peter's disappearance seems to be *planned* and that it was a plan waiting to go wrong if not aided. If Peter went to Fudge in a panic, told him what had happened (natural allies, those two, I'd say, both morally weak individuals looking out for their own skins) Fudge might have agreed to ensure the blame fell on Sirius to aid Peter's escape (he need not have known about the animagus thing, in fact). Also, if Peter were caught and he *did* have any information on Fudge, then he might have given it. In fact he might have threatened to.<< HunterGreen: Yes, I can see that. The Potters died the night of Halloween and Peter disappeared the next day, that gives him a chance to contact Fudge in between. I realize you probably mean that it was planned ahead of time (in that week between the secret-keeper charm and Voldemort showing up in Godric's Hollow, I assume), but it makes more sense to me if it was more of a spur of the moment thing. Eloise: >>The MOM seems to have got to that scene much more quickly than they did to the Potters'. With a team of twenty hit wizards. Prior knowledge that something was going to happen?<< HunterGreen: And it wasn't one of those hit wizards or an auror (am I right in assuming Fudge wasn't an auror?), it was *Fudge* who was first on the scene. Alone, no less. There quick enough that Sirius hadn't left yet (which had to be fairly quick, I can't see why Sirius would hang around there. Emotionally stunned or not, standing in the middle of the street surrounded by bodies is not a bright thing to do). Eloise: >>And I am intrigued by Fudge's later personal interest in the Sirius situation. It just seems *too* personal.<< HunterGreen: He certainly seems to be nearby with a lot of the big Sirius events. Personally, I think that he (without Sirius knowing it) helped Sirius escape Azkaban so he (Fudge) could have a reason to send the Dementors to Hogwarts to kill Harry. Sirius' escape is a little too easy (IMO), and the dementors are strangely interested in Harry, even when their target (Sirius) is a few feet away. HunterGreen previously: > Peter could have taken Voldemort's wand and hid it somewhere to > retrieve later. Eloise: If Peter took it, then wouldn't he hold onto it in case he needed it? I'm still working on the assumption here that animagi take their wands with them. It's not like he was expecting Voldemort to return. HunterGreen: But where is it then in PoA? Perhaps he was worried that if someone forced him to transform that it would be evidence that he was in league with Voldemort. I agree that Animagi probably can take their wands with them, but it appears that Peter didn't. Eloise: >>I dare say that the reality of Death Eating is a little messy for Fudge's taste.<< HunterGreen: I agree with you. I see Fudge more as a Death Eater sympathetizer. After all, its said that Voldemort had lots of followers (the original order was outnumbered 2 to 1, and we know that there were at least 10-20 in the first Order), and there aren't THAT many spots in DE circle, so perhaps not everyone serves him directly? There must be people who help out Death Eaters (either directly or indirectly) without ever seeing or speaking with Voldemort themself. I can see good ol' Pure-Blood enthusiast Fudge doing certain favors for Malfoy in exchange for some of that Malfoy money (either directly, or to charitable causes). Its hard to trust someone who seems so comfortable with Dementors. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 12:55:42 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:55:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113019 I, not Naama, said: I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books--sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it. Kneasy: Give me ten examples. Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great difficulty in doing so.< Kneasy: > You're cheating - all of you. > Just what I expected. > Very few of these involve true sacrifice and most of the others can be considered as being motivated by things other than love. Using the above as a guideline I could just as easily put forward Voldy/Nagini, Kreacher/Mrs Black on the wall or Bella/Voldy.< We have JKR's word that Voldemort has never loved anyone, so Voldy/Nagini is ruled out altogether. It would be difficult to claim that the other two instances are unselfish to any significant degree. But perhaps Rowling would agree that no human love is unselfish. In fact Dumbledore says that his love for Harry led him to do things he now believes were wrong and foolish, because he cared more about Harry than other people. He implies that this is the great weakness of human love, that it cannot help but be selfish to some extent--presumably the power behind the door transcends this, and Harry is powerful because his love/sacrifice/heroism benefits even his enemies. Pippin who really hopes Kneasy's old heart is not as flinty as he makes out From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 13:18:14 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:18:14 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113020 > > Neri: > Carol, you can find a theory of mine that attempts to explain some > of these mysteries in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 > > I think the secret of Snape being a past DE is similar to Lupin's > lycanthropy. The parents don't know about it (they are always the last to know about things like that) but the staff do, and those who make it their business to know such things probably also know about it. < If the staff knew, then Lupin would know. If Lupin knew, he would have told Sirius. ("You are not Sirius's only correspondent") The whole premise of the books is that secrets can be kept against quite improbable odds. Much irony would be lost if this only applied to secrets that wizards keep from Muggles. In your Hog's Head post, you ask why Dumbledore would have refrained from punishing Lucius Malfoy if he didn't have some ulterior motive for making sure Malfoy walked free. But Dumbledore believes that he should not punish people until they have been proven guilty. That has to apply to people he suspects are guilty, or it doesn't apply to anyone. Without the Diary, there was no proof that Malfoy had acted of his own will--he could have been bewitched just as Ginny was. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 13:35:07 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > So, why has JKR made this very nasty person someone who is important to DD, protective of Harry, and a teacher? < Because making him nice would be totally Mary Sue (the fan fiction character who can do no wrong.) I have thought of a defense for Snape's "I see no difference" remark, by the way. We see in OOP that he has a habit of ignoring Slytherin hexes unless they're life-threatening. I think it's Angelina's eyebrows that are hexed in that book and he insists she must have done it herself despite the testimony of eyewitnesses. All of which is to say that Snape needn't have meant it as a personal remark about Hermione's teeth. He'd have said the same thing if it were her eyebrows -- or her earlobes. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 13:59:01 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:59:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: <003001c49b03$489ad3d0$57c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113022 SSSusan: >>>So I'm going with Sacrificial Love as the Power that Lord Voldythingy Knows Not *and* which is somehow studied in that room in the Dept. of Mysteries. <<< DuffyPoo: >> The problem, as I see it, is that Lord Voldythingy *does* know it. "His mother died in the attempt to save him -- and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not forseen....[later] His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice .. this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it ... [later again] I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice." (GoF) LV clearly says he "should have remembered" the old magic, the magic of sacrifice. "Your mother died to save you. If there's one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark..." (PS) You and I don't understand Time Turning ;-). We couldn't "not understand" it if we didn't know about it. "But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which *he knows,* which *he despises,* and which he has always, therefore, *underestimated* -- to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you." (OotP - all emphasis mine) LV knows the magic, despises it, and underestimates it.<< SSSusan: Yep, you & I don't understand TT. :-) But I think Naama answered you well concerning intellectually "knowing" something vs. experiencing/believing in something. I think this is the key, frankly - that while Voldy knows about it, he doesn't understand it nor buy into it. He doesn't *want* to understand it, either. He isn't willing to consider it, would never be willing to utilize it, because he doesn't ever think about anyone else, only his own goals. Harry is more HUMAN than Voldy. I think his willingness to sacrifice himself comes out of that humanness. Voldy knows no compassion, knows no love, really isn't very human at all. I'd like that to be his downfall, and I can see Harry bringing it about by making the greatest of human sacrifices. (I'm not saying I necessarily want to see this happen, but I can see it happening.) Siriusly Snapey Susan From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 14:09:09 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:09:09 -0000 Subject: Bella's accent (was Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113023 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lauren_silverwolf" wrote: lauren_silverwolf: > If Bellatrix were Welsh, surely she would have used "Boyo"? I hear > her more in a clipped upper class English accent. This would suit the > the position in WW society the Black family occupies. To me, the > term "boy" is used in an almost derogatory way, or at least to > challenge and denigrate Harry's attempt at an Unforgivable Curse. Geoff: Ah - No-good Boyo in "Under Milk Wood" for example..... I know what you mean. But, oddly, ever from the first moment I read that sentence, I "heard" Bellatrix speaking with a Welsh accent. The words used just seem to fit a Welsh lilt. I also used to work with a number of Welsh teachers who used "boy" rather than "boyo". Don't worry, it'll sort itself out when the tablets take effect. :-) I'm not sufficient of a fan of her or Voldemort to spend time speculating on their accents however. We have discussed possible accents before on the group but I think they were influenced by the "medium that dare not speak its name". Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 14:18:26 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:18:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113024 Pippin: >>>> I'd say there is loads of unselfish love in the books-- sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of it.<<<< Kneasy: >>> Give me ten examples. Should be easy if there's 'loads', but I think you'll have great difficulty in doing so.<<< Pippin: > > Off the top of my head > > James dies to defend Lily and Harry > > Lily dies to defend Harry > > Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game > > Molly takes Harry into the Weasley family > > Harry goes to rescue Ginny > > Harry defends Dumbledore to Riddle > > Sirius offers a home to Harry > > Harry rescues Sirius and Buckbeak > > Molly's hug (GoF) > > Harry thinking of Ron and Hermione as he fights the dementors > > Harry thinking of Sirius as he struggles with Voldemort > > That's eleven. I'm sure there are more. Naama: > > Ginny defending Harry (standing up to Draco). > > Dumbledore not telling Harry about the prophecy. > > The second task in the tournament (Krum->Hermione, Cedric->Cho, > > Fleur-Gabrielle). > > Molly, Molly, Molly - the thing that scares her most is the death > > of members of her family (including Harry!), not anything that > > would happen to her. > > Hermione endlessly helping Harry (and Ron and Hagrid) whenever > > they need her. > > Hagrid towards his monster pets (particularly Norbert, of course). > > Hagrid towards Dumbledore and the trio. > > Petunia towards Dudley AND Vernon towards both Petunia and Dudley. > > Winkey towards the Crouch family (it's not just the magical bond - > > she continues to love and want to serve them even after the bond > > is severed). > > Sirius risking being caught in order to help Harry (in GoF). > > Ron facing up to his arachnophobia in order to help save Hermione. > > Ron joining Harry to go save Ginny. Kneasy: > You're cheating - all of you. > Just what I expected. > Very few of these involve true sacrifice and most of the others > can be considered as being motivated by things other than love. > > Using the above as a guideline I could just as easily put forward > Voldy/Nagini, Kreacher/Mrs Black on the wall or Bella/Voldy. > > To the incurably romantic almost anything can be regarded as an > aspect of 'love'; not to a miserable curmudgeon like me though. > > Kneasy SSSusan: *I'M* not cheating! I told you I think it's quite rare, at least the kind of unselfish love which actually leads to self-sacrifice. But I do think there ARE some real examples of unselfish love here. And Pippin's got a point, in another post, that we know Voldy/Nagini *isn't* one of them since Voldy has never loved. I would agree that some of the examples--esp. the ones which came along after Pippin's & Naama's lists--don't necessarily fit as unselfish LOVE. Some of them are perhaps motivated by loyalty, friendship, duty, honor, or maybe even fear & guilt. BUT some of the things on these two lists I'd say do fit the bill. James' & Lily's deaths, Molly's GoF hug, DD not telling Harry about the prophecy [well, maybe that one *is* selfish], the Hagrid examples. Heck, Bella for Voldy may fit, too. In my opinion, these are pretty defendable as being unselfish love. Siriusly Snapey Susan...who loves Pippin's phrase "sacrificial love is only the most spectacular example of [unselfish love]". From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 14:41:09 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:41:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113025 Pippin wrote: > I have thought of a defense for Snape's "I see no difference" > remark, by the way. We see in OOP that he has a habit of > ignoring Slytherin hexes unless they're life-threatening. I think > it's Angelina's eyebrows that are hexed in that book and he > insists she must have done it herself despite the testimony of > eyewitnesses. > > All of which is to say that Snape needn't have meant it as a > personal remark about Hermione's teeth. He'd have said the > same thing if it were her eyebrows -- or her earlobes. > Potioncat: Have we seen any life-threatening hexes? Or are you saying he ignores the hexes we've seen because they aren't serious? Snape certainly hasn't noticed his own teeth, so it's likely he never knew Hermione's teeth were large or that she was bothered by them. I never thought of that. From greatelderone at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 14:47:01 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:47:01 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Carol responds: > > Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" shouts > > Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' > > James Potter?") and they were particularly good at Transfiguration and > > Charms, respectively. > > Just an interjection - I've always considered that the Hagrid shock/horror > wasn't because of any powers the Potters may or may not have had, > but because wizards don't use cars. > GEO: But they do. We know Weasley bought one and charmed his and that the Ministry of Magic even have their own fleet of cars, which they lend out. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 14:48:47 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:48:47 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113027 Hannah: > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way. > > If 1 or 2 were his ultimate aims, it wouldn't have mattered which > student he used. If 3 was his goal, he had to use Ginny (none of > the boys would have written in a diary). > > I doubt that 1 was his aim. Lucius doesn't seem to be suffering > from LV's absence, and if he really wanted him back, he could go > and find vapour!mort in Albania or wherever he is (Pettigew manages > it, so I'm sure Lucius could). > > 2 is a possibility; death's of non-purebloods, removal of > Dumbledore, chance to get his way and have Draco sent to > Durmstrang. OTOH, I doubt that shutting Hogwarts would really have > meant no school for British wizards ever again - it was really the > castle that was the problem. All they need do is set up another > school elsewhere. Inconvenient, and might take a year or two, but > sooner or later, muggle-borns would be setting off to another > school, without the fear of a monster, and maybe with DD as head > again. > > I think he was motivated by a combination of 2 and 3. The timing > suuggests that killing off muggle-borns was not his only aim - why > not do it beforehand if so? But at the start of CoS he has a > problem; Arthur Weasley's muggle protection act, and this is going > to affect the one thing that Lucius *really* cares about - > himself. He realises he has an ideal opportunity to prevent the > muggle protection act, remove DD, and maybe even kill off some > children (you can see why it was so appealing). > > Also, he couldn't give the diary to just anyone. It needed to be > someone who would be likely to write in a diary (probably female), > and someone young and vulnerable enough to pour out their heart and > not be suspicious of the diary, at least until it was too late. > This did restrict him somewhat. He either always intended it for > Ginny, or at least had her on a shortlist of possible candidates to > be slipped the diary. DD's comments at the end of CoS suggest that > he believes discrediting Arthur Weasley to have been Lucius' aim. > > The problem with motivation 3 is how he intended to let the WW know > it was Ginny. Was he planning to set her up, perhaps by tipping > off a student (probably not Draco), or his favourite staff member, > Severus Snape? He was leaving it a bit late, since there'd already > been 4 attacks by the time Ginny was taken, and they were already > threatening to shut the school. Maybe Lucius was waiting for DD to > get thrown out, or for there to actually be a death. And then Tom > Riddle spoilt everything by taking matters into his own hands, and > making Ginny a victim. I reckon if Riddle hadn't acted > unpredictably, and Ginny opened the chamber again to attack another > student, someone would have caught her in the act, or suddenly > found some evidence to prove it was her. I've no idea how or what, > though. SSSusan: Ooooh, one of my favorite topics! I am convinced that #1 is not what was going on with Lucius. I don't believe that he understood the mechanism of the diary well enough to have anticipated its ability to bring Tom back. As support for this, I point to the graveyard scene of GoF, when Voldy was chastising his DEs for the little they did to help him in the previous years. Lucius was one of the ones chastised. Yet he did NOT speak up and say anything along the lines of, "But, Master, remember what I did for you two years ago, when I tried to bring you back via the diary!" The fact that he DIDN'T defend himself in this way makes me believe that his goal or goals were something other than restoring Voldy to power. Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. I'm not sure that he really wanted to shut down Hogwarts, at least not beyond the time it would take to get DD kicked out. Then he probably hoped that HE [or someone he hand-picked] would be called upon to take over at Hogwarts My gut reaction is that he did intend to try to set up Ginny. Perhaps to discredit Arthur, perhaps because of the Weasley ties to Harry, perhaps because she was, as you say, young & impressionable. But I certainly can't prove it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 14:49:33 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:49:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > Siriusly Snapey Susan...who loves Pippin's phrase "sacrificial love > is only the most spectacular example of [unselfish love]". Depends who or what is being sacrificed. Depends on how you define 'spectacular'. Percy has 'sacrificed' his family for love of his job; DD could well have 'sacrificed' James and Lily to produce Weapon!Harry; Mrs Crouch sacrificed herself to set free an eventual patricide. Nothing, not even love, is without a downside. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 14:53:51 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:53:51 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113029 HunterGreen: > And it wasn't one of those hit wizards or an auror (am I right in > assuming Fudge wasn't an auror?), it was *Fudge* who was first on > the scene. Alone, no less. There quick enough that Sirius hadn't > left yet (which had to be fairly quick, I can't see why Sirius > would hang around there. SSSusan: Just one little nitpick, HunterGreen. Fudge *wasn't* alone. He was "one of the first" to arrive on the scene. I agree about Evil!Fudge/DE-sympathizer!Fudge *and* that the law enforcement squad got there incredibly quickly, so I'm not arguing the basic premise at all; just wanted to point this out. Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 14:54:24 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:54:24 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greatelderone" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > > Carol responds: > > > Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" > shouts > > > Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' > > > James Potter?") and they were particularly good at > Transfiguration and > > > Charms, respectively. > > > > Just an interjection - I've always considered that the Hagrid > shock/horror > > wasn't because of any powers the Potters may or may not have had, > > but because wizards don't use cars. > > > > GEO: But they do. We know Weasley bought one and charmed his and > that the Ministry of Magic even have their own fleet of cars, which > they lend out. And so your contention is that the Ministry cars which, like the Knight Bus avoid all obstacles, can be involved in crashes? How interesting. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 15:12:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:12:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113031 > > Siriusly Snapey Susan...who loves Pippin's phrase "sacrificial > > love is only the most spectacular example of [unselfish love]". Kneasy: > Depends who or what is being sacrificed. > Depends on how you define 'spectacular'. > > Percy has 'sacrificed' his family for love of his job; > DD could well have 'sacrificed' James and Lily to produce > Weapon!Harry; > Mrs Crouch sacrificed herself to set free an eventual patricide. > > Nothing, not even love, is without a downside. SSSusan: The first two, imho, have nothing to do with love. The Mrs. Crouch example is interesting, because it likely was done out of love, but she didn't anticipate the patricide, it wasn't the PURPOSE of the sacrifice. The way I'm envisioning the Harry Sacrifice denouement, it wouldn't work that way. So humor me. Let's set the final scenario this way. (And forgive the lack of creativity & grace in what's to follow--no time or ability to even attempt to make it pretty.) Harry, after two torturous years of wondering what he must do, why he must do it, how can he get out of it, blah blah blah, finds himself and all his fellows IN the final showdown. He has suspected the possibility that he might have to die in order to end it all, but damn it, he really doesn't want to. In this moment, however, he glances around him, sees all these fellows fighting alongside him, considers all these people whom he loves deeply. And then, NOT out of sense of duty or obligation, but out of deep, sheer love for who they are, for their goodness and humanity, he chooses to step up and sacrifice himself. He splats, Voldy get annihilated, end of VW2 and Voldy. What, exactly, is the downside of that kind of love? Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 16:33:17 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:33:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113032 > Potioncat: > Have we seen any life-threatening hexes? Or are you saying he ignores the hexes we've seen because they aren't serious?< > The hex on Harry's broom in Book One was life-threatening, according to Quirrell and Snape certainly interfered with that. It wasn't done by a student though. But there are indications that Snape does intervene when things are serious. Harry got hit with the bludger after the whistle and knocked off his broom in OOP and *somebody* made Crabbe do lines--I sincerely doubt it was Umbridge. Snape also went to investigate what happened to Montague, and stopped Crabbe from strangling Neville. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 16:34:18 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:34:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Pippin wrote: > > I have thought of a defense for Snape's "I see no difference" > > remark, by the way. We see in OOP that he has a habit of > > ignoring Slytherin hexes unless they're life-threatening. I think > > it's Angelina's eyebrows that are hexed in that book and he > > insists she must have done it herself despite the testimony of > > eyewitnesses. > > > > All of which is to say that Snape needn't have meant it as a > > personal remark about Hermione's teeth. He'd have said the > > same thing if it were her eyebrows -- or her earlobes. > > Potioncat: > Have we seen any life-threatening hexes? Or are you saying he > ignores the hexes we've seen because they aren't serious? > > Snape certainly hasn't noticed his own teeth, so it's likely he > never knew Hermione's teeth were large or that she was bothered by > them. I never thought of that. I can almost buy this line of thought--that it's not a deliberate attack on Hermione in the sense that 'I know she hates her teeth, and therefore I'm going to be nasty particularly about that'. But, then again...it's such a deliberate statement, "I see no difference", and it does imply "Well, I see that your teeth are horribly large now, but they really were before too, now, weren't they?" The phrasing makes it a little different--not quite the same as asserting that she did it to herself. It's a nasty statement whether it's meant as a personal remark or not, because it *is* meant as some sort of mocking comment. (As a statement, if you want to abstract it out, it sums up much of the worst of Severus Snape in one little capsule, too.) Now, we may well factor in that Snape continually ignores *all* injuries done by his Slytherins, but then that simply elevates the remark from a personal attack on Hermione to a case of Snape being enough of a git that he'll ignore any damage done to a certain group of people. Whichever one is worse depends on the ethical system you're playing in. :) [And, I've always wondered, if Snape does that out of some perverse sense of 'equalizing the playing field', or 'defending his poor Slytherins who the rest of the school and teachers hate', does he not see how it can, ummm, backfire?] Let me piggyback a question onto this. Trolling around the fandom, I do often see the assertions: 'Dumbledore has written off all the Slytherins; everyone at school hates them, including their teachers; the world is set against them'. Is there any solid support for this, canonically, or is it a mixture of some possiblity and a lot of projection? -Nora ponders trying to hide out in a dark corner of the stacks From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 16:41:48 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:41:48 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113034 I snipped it, but we were discussing who knew that Snape was a DE. > Pippin wrote: > If the staff knew, then Lupin would know. If Lupin knew, he would > have told Sirius. ("You are not Sirius's only correspondent") Neri: When DD said that he meant himself. We don't know that Sirius was in correspondence with Lupin also. Even if he was, I can easily imagine Lupin "forgetting" to mention this little detail, so Sirius won't be too worried about Harry and do something rush. I somehow think of Lupin as similar to Hermione in this regard. He'd keep secrets from his best friends if he thinks it wouldn't be for their own good to know them at the moment. It is also possible that the regular stuff didn't tell Lupin for similar reasons, or that some of the stuff really didn't know (I'm pretty sure McGonagall did) but that doesn't change the fact that at least 200 wizards (and everybody they told) did know about it. Also, note that after the Pensieve scene in GoF, DD asked Harry not to tell about Neville's parents (probably only out of consideration for Neville's feelings, as this "secret" also wasn't much of secret) BUT he never told him not to mention that Snape is an ex-DE who changed sides and spied after LV. DD doesn't even look bothered when he finds that Harry learned it. It really doesn't look like it is that much of a secret. > Pippin: > The > whole premise of the books is that secrets can be kept against > quite improbable odds. Much irony would be lost if this only > applied to secrets that wizards keep from Muggles. Neri: This premise works for the relations between wizards and muggles but not within the WW. I don't remember any clear example of a secret that is kept against improbable odds within the WW. Yes, there are many secrets, for example the Marauders keeping being Animagi a secret from DD and everyone else. But the Marauders didn't tell 200 other wizards about it and then expected to continue keeping it a secret from DD and the rest of the WW. > Pippin: > In your Hog's Head post, you ask why Dumbledore would have > refrained from punishing Lucius Malfoy if he didn't have some > ulterior motive for making sure Malfoy walked free. But > Dumbledore believes that he should not punish people until they > have been proven guilty. That has to apply to people he suspects > are guilty, or it doesn't apply to anyone. Without the Diary, there > was no proof that Malfoy had acted of his own will--he could have > been bewitched just as Ginny was. Neri: DD looked into Kreacher's mind to find the truth, and probably consider it proof enough for himself, if not for any official court. He knew enough about Lucius to continue the investigation in other ways. If Lucius is bewitched it is certainly important to know how and by whom. Lucius was clearly the head of the pro-Voldemort faction and he was working against DD. Other governors told DD that Lucius had threatened them and their families. It just seems odd that DD does nothing about Lucius Malfoy. You can explain it away, I'm sure, but when you connect it with much more circumstantial evidence I mentioned in that post, it strongly suggests that DD was investing in a Snape-Malfoy connection. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 16:48:49 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:48:49 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > HunterGreen: > > And it wasn't one of those hit wizards or an auror (am I right in assuming Fudge wasn't an auror?), it was *Fudge* who was first on the scene. Alone, no less. There quick enough that Sirius hadn't left yet (which had to be fairly quick, I can't see why Sirius would hang around there. << > > > SSSusan: > Just one little nitpick, HunterGreen. Fudge *wasn't* alone. He > was "one of the first" to arrive on the scene. Fudge was in the department of magical catastrophes, so he had a legitimate reason for being there. I agree that the department must have been tipped off, but that doesn't mean that Fudge did it. It was probably part of the elaborate plan to frame Sirius, which as you've agreed, must have been developed prior to Voldemort's downfall. If Wormtail didn't do it alone, his partner(s) must have been involved not only in the betrayal of the Potters, but in the espionage. That would provide a reason to frame Sirius that would outlast the downfall. If Sirius implicates Wormtail, then Wormtail will rat out the other spies. Voldemort's plan would have been to eliminate both Sirius and Peter, leaving any other agents to continue their work. That would be much to his advantage, since eliminating the Potters would not have neutralized the Order. Voldie would still have Dumbledore and that pesky other prophecy child to contend with. Pippin on a posting spree today who doesn't believe Fudge would say he had nightmares about the Muggle bodies if he wanted Voldemort in power From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 16:53:50 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:53:50 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > HunterGreen previously: > > Peter could have taken Voldemort's wand and hid it somewhere to > > retrieve later. > > Eloise: > If Peter took it, then wouldn't he hold onto it in case he needed it? > I'm still working on the assumption here that animagi take their > wands with them. It's not like he was expecting Voldemort to return. > > HunterGreen: > But where is it then in PoA? Perhaps he was worried that if someone > forced him to transform that it would be evidence that he was in > league with Voldemort. I agree that Animagi probably can take their > wands with them, but it appears that Peter didn't. > Carolyn: A footnote to this discussion - you two know that JKR has confirmed that Peter did take Voldie's wand, and apparently hid it? See posts 111434, 111437 and 111473 for speculation on how and what happened. It would appear Peter was not only wearing his own robes when he transformed, but was also carrying Voldie's *and* a spare, bloody robe to leave on the ground. It also seems he transformed holding his own wand and Voldie's. Suppose it can be done..unless he did leave all the gear with accomplice!Fudge. I've always questioned how he could simultaneously blow a huge hole in the ground and cut his finger off with his hands behind his back. Mad Eye wasn't joking when he said to Harry: 'Better wizards than you have lost buttocks, you know!' Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 17:12:07 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:12:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > The first two, imho, have nothing to do with love. The Mrs. Crouch > example is interesting, because it likely was done out of love, but > she didn't anticipate the patricide, it wasn't the PURPOSE of the > sacrifice. Kneasy: Maybe so. But you've got to admit, there was a downside to her loving sacrifice whether intended or not. > SSS > The way I'm envisioning the Harry Sacrifice denouement, it wouldn't > work that way. > > So humor me. Let's set the final scenario this way. (And forgive > the lack of creativity & grace in what's to follow--no time or > ability to even attempt to make it pretty.) Harry, after two > torturous years of wondering what he must do, why he must do it, how > can he get out of it, blah blah blah, finds himself and all his > fellows IN the final showdown. He has suspected the possibility that > he might have to die in order to end it all, but damn it, he really > doesn't want to. In this moment, however, he glances around him, > sees all these fellows fighting alongside him, considers all these > people whom he loves deeply. And then, NOT out of sense of duty or > obligation, but out of deep, sheer love for who they are, for their > goodness and humanity, he chooses to step up and sacrifice himself. > He splats, Voldy get annihilated, end of VW2 and Voldy. > > What, exactly, is the downside of that kind of love? > Kneasy The problem is that you have already decided that love is the motive and the driving force. It could be duty, courage or sheer bloody-mindedness. Or even hate. He may be seeking revenge for James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius and a whole list of casualties that may accrue in books 6 & 7. Which is more likely; that or saying "I love you Ron," before going out to face the enemy? Ugh. That'd upset a lot of SHIPpers. IMO Harry will not have a choice in what he does, though he may have a choice in 'when'. Voldy is hell bent on killing him in any event, so Harry is just hanging around for the inevitable showdown. Unless Harry goes ESE he is going to cop it in the neck. Since he's going to get killed anyway I can see the up-side of making it count by taking out Voldy, but I don't see it as a sacrifice. It's the old soldiers maxim of "Since I'm going anyway, I'll take as many of you with me as I can." I tend to subscribe to the attitude of Gen. Patton:- "Your job is not to die for your country but to make some other poor bastard die for his." Go for it, Harry! Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 17:12:44 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:12:44 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape was Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113038 > Alex: snip Being able to laugh at oneself *can* be a trait of a weak-willed person colluding with his/her oppressors, but more usually a person who can laugh at him/herself is confident and secure in his/her identity. Someone who works with teenagers really *ought* to be able to take a certain amount of mockery--it's par for > the course (have I mentioned that I'm a teacher?)--but Snape is far > too insecure to do so. Potioncat: Snape set himself up for the situation in the Boggart class. Once upon a time we discussed this and offered a challenge to come up with a better solution for Neville to use on Boggart!Snape. I thought of a few worse ones, but no one came up with anything better. You have to laugh to defeat a Boggart. But, we're told Snape was even worse to the students after that. And it seems reasonable...he's bent out of shape at being laughed at. But, what if there was something else going on that made him uspset and Harry thought it was the Boggart class? Ideas, anyone? Potioncat (who agrees, Snape is insecure in many ways...wait, have Alla and I switched sides again?) From doliesl at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 17:21:45 2004 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:21:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113039 Potioncat asked: > Does anyone know what > ever became of the chemistry teacher who inspired Snape? I think he lived a normal retired life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1731602.stm I read elsewhere where he recalled "Her (young JKR) attitude in the science lessons was more like Harry's in the potions class rather than Hermione's." JKR's mother used worked as his lab assistance. D. From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 17:31:26 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:31:26 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113040 Carolyn wrote: > It would appear Peter was not only wearing his own robes when he > transformed, but was also carrying Voldie's *and* a spare, bloody > robe to leave on the ground. It also seems he transformed holding his > own wand and Voldie's. Suppose it can be done..unless he did leave > all the gear with accomplice!Fudge. KathyK: Isn't it possible that Pettigrew made a quick stop somewhere and stashed Voldemort's robes and wand before Sirius found him "next day?" So that the only extra stuff he could conceivebley have on him is his own wand and maybe one extra set of bloody robes? That's the first thing I thought when JKR said Pettigrew had taken LV's things. I have not and will not ever concede Fudge a DE or DE sympathizer. In his own way he's evil and in OoP he winds up helping a resurrected Voldemort remain hidden for almost a year. Something I haven't given a lot of thought to but might consider is that in the beginning, much like the Black family, Fudge thought Voldemort had the right idea so far as issues of Wizarding blood go. But he worked for the Ministry. I think he saw firsthand what Voldemort and his Death Eaters were up to and concluded he ought to stay on the Ministry's side, despite his prejudices. Carolyn: > I've always questioned how he could simultaneously blow a huge hole > in the ground and cut his finger off with his hands behind his back. > Mad Eye wasn't joking when he said to Harry: 'Better wizards than you > have lost buttocks, you know!' KathyK: Hmm...Do you think it's possible he had time to blow up the street and *then* cut off his finger before he transformed? I mean, I always pictured him chopping the finger off as he was yelling about Sirius' betrayal. But maybe it happened the other way around. I'd think he'd have to blow up the street pretty quickly before Sirius killed him. Either way, he had to cut off his finger pretty quickly to make sure his plan worked the way it was intended--*Without* help from Fudge. ;-) KathyK, whose copy of PoA is beginning to fall apart :-( From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 17:32:46 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:32:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113041 Pippin: > But there are indications that Snape does intervene when things > are serious. Harry got hit with the bludger after the whistle and > knocked off his broom in OOP and *somebody* made Crabbe > do lines--I sincerely doubt it was Umbridge. Snape also went to > investigate what happened to Montague, and stopped Crabbe > from strangling Neville. > Potioncat: I never thought of the possibility that Snape made Crabbe do lines. That's an interesting thought. And if he did, it was probably in the line of it costing the team points, chance to win, etc. I have wondered, if Crabbe wrote lines with The Quill, but kept quiet..in the code of the schoolboy tradition. But I like your idea better. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 17:41:35 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:41:35 -0000 Subject: Writing off Slytherins was Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113042 Nora wrote: > Let me piggyback a question onto this. Trolling around the fandom, I > do often see the assertions: 'Dumbledore has written off all the > Slytherins; everyone at school hates them, including their teachers; > the world is set against them'. Is there any solid support for this, > canonically, or is it a mixture of some possiblity and a lot of > projection? > > Potioncat: To be honest, I don't think DD has even written off LV/Tom Riddle (Even if JKR has.) I think there is an overwhelming opinion among Hogwarts students and some adults that Slytherin House is a dangerous house, because Dark Wizards come from there. I don't think everyone has written them off. McGonagall hasn't and I don't think Flitwick has. I can't remember if we've seen an interaction with Sprout. Even Hagrid's comment to Nott(?) in class seemed friendly or at least neutral. So far, we've only seen Slytherins behaving badly or appearing to behave badly. It seems to me that some fans think bad!Slytherins are cool. Some think we've been misled and they aren't all bad. And others have written them off...and I guess everything in between. Potioncat who thinks we've met some nasty Slytherins but is hoping for improvement. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 17:46:59 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:46:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113043 Kneasy: > > I tend to subscribe to the attitude of Gen. Patton:- > "Your job is not to die for your country but to make some other > poor bastard die for his." > > Go for it, Harry! > > Potioncat: And when you tell the soldiers, 1/3 of you won't be coming back, everyone of them looks around and thinks, "I'm going to miss those guys." But, Big But, going in not intending to die, but willing to take the risk and knowing it might happen, is still sacrificial. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 15 17:51:48 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:51:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doliesl" wrote: > Potioncat asked: > > Does anyone know what > > ever became of the chemistry teacher who inspired Snape? > Doliesl wrote: > I think he lived a normal retired life: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1731602.stm > I read elsewhere where he recalled "Her (young JKR) attitude in the > science lessons was more like Harry's in the potions class rather than > Hermione's." JKR's mother used worked as his lab assistance. > Potioncat: Now we know who could love Snape... Shirley! Nettleship...I'm surprised that didn't become a name in this series. Everyone has to read the link. It is just too funny! From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 17:53:23 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040915175323.84452.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113045 > SSSusan said: > > Harry might be able to live in the WW as the > equivalent of a Squib > (although > > it would be inconvenient; he couldn't, for > example, travel very > easily since > > he couldn't use the Floo Network > > Meri: Why not? If he lost his powers he'd still > technically be a > wizard, wouldn't he? So why couldn't he use the > Floo? I think that > would still work as long as his fireplace was > properly hooked up. > > SSSusan said:> -- do Portkeys work on Squbs? What about > > Muggles?). > > Meri: I think they do. The reason most Portkeys are > made to be so > disgusting looking is to keep Muggles from picking > them up at the > wrong times (see Mr. Weasley's explanation of the > portkey in GoF). > *scissors are shiny...snipsnipsnip* bamf chiming in: I would think that Floo and Port Keys, and maybe even brooms would work for Muggles. After all, we have evidence that many in the WW are in mixed marrages and they would have to have a way for their non-magical spouse, and possibly children, to go places in the WW. We have no evidence that Floo powed requires anything magical to activate it (other than a leap of faith, IMHO), and the same with Port Keys. One would think that a magical broom (not a normal ordinary one) is enchanted/built to fly, and does not depend on a person of magical abilities to fly it. In fact, the only thing that seems to be needed to fly a broom is a good bit of confidence. ;) thoughts? 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 is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 17:54:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:54:16 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart was Boggart Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113046 Potioncat: > But, we're told Snape was even worse to the students after that. And it seems reasonable...he's bent out of shape at being laughed at. But, what if there was something else going on that made him upset and Harry thought it was the Boggart class? Ideas, anyone? > Well, I've been sitting on this, but you've given me too grand an opportunity. Snape is upset because everybody is saying what a great teacher Lupin is and...wait for it...Lupin can't *do* the riddikulus spell -- not successfully any way. PoA -- ch 7 Lupin turns the silvery orb into a cockroach. For years we've been asking ourselves what's funny about a cockroach. The answer is, nothing. It's something else horrid. IMO, like Molly, Lupin can't manage the spell. ch 7 -- Neville uses Riddikulus to burst the boggart in pieces ch 12 -- Lupin says Riddikulus and the boggart changes into a silvery orb. Lupin forces it back into the packing case by threatening it with his wand GoF ch 31Harry uses Riddikulus to explode a boggart in a wisp of smoke OOP ch 9 Lupin says Riddikulus "very firmly and clearly" The boggart turns into "a silvery orb" . He then waves his wand again and the orb "vanishes in a puff of smoke." Lupin never manages to turn the orb into something funny, and he never uses Riddikulus to make the boggart explode. Pippin wondering if this is the clue that was going to really annoy JKR if somebody caught it From greatelderone at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 17:59:40 2004 From: greatelderone at yahoo.com (greatelderone) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:59:40 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > GEO: But they do. We know Weasley bought one and charmed his and > > that the Ministry of Magic even have their own fleet of cars, which > > they lend out. > > And so your contention is that the Ministry cars which, like the Knight > Bus avoid all obstacles, can be involved in crashes? > How interesting. GEO: And how did you come to flawed conclusion that all wizard cars are like the Knight Bus or the Ministry Cars? Weasley's car for one didn't seem to possesse the same characteristics. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 18:18:46 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:18:46 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: <20040915175323.84452.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113048 SSSusan said: > > > Harry might be able to live in the WW as the equivalent of a > > > Squib (although it would be inconvenient; he couldn't, for > > > example, travel very easily since he couldn't use the Floo > > > Network SSSusan now: Whoops--NOT my quote above! I was the one who said, before this poster, that I thought Harry would do just fine living as a magic- power-less member of the WW. SSSusan said: > > > -- do Portkeys work on Squbs? What about Muggles?). SSSusan now: Nope--again not mine! I hadn't even thought about Portkeys (though I do have an opinion--that they *would* work). bamf chiming in: > I would think that Floo and Port Keys, and maybe even > brooms would work for Muggles. After all, we have > evidence that many in the WW are in mixed marrages and > they would have to have a way for their non-magical > spouse, and possibly children, to go places in the WW. > We have no evidence that Floo powed requires anything > magical to activate it (other than a leap of faith, > IMHO), and the same with Port Keys. One would think > that a magical broom (not a normal ordinary one) is > enchanted/built to fly, and does not depend on a > person of magical abilities to fly it. In fact, the > only thing that seems to be needed to fly a broom is a > good bit of confidence. ;) > > thoughts? SSSusan: Now that I've cleared up the snippage, I can say that I think the point you raise is important. I mean, how DOES Seamus' dad get around when the family wants to go somewhere? There must be a means of transport for partially-magic families. This thought reinforces my belief that Harry would be fine living as a magic-power-less person in the WW. Of course, in another thread, I'm arguing about why/how he might die, so maybe I'd better make up my mind, eh? bamf: > Cub fans are not normal. SSSusan: HEY NOW!!! I am now Siriusly OFFENDED Snapey Susan! (Suppose you're a Reds fan? White Sox fan?) Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 18:34:35 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:34:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113049 SSS earlier: >>> The way I'm envisioning the Harry Sacrifice denouement, it wouldn't work that way. So humor me. Let's set the final scenario this way. (And forgive the lack of creativity & grace in what's to follow--no time or ability to even attempt to make it pretty.) Harry, after two torturous years of wondering what he must do, why he must do it, how can he get out of it, blah blah blah, finds himself and all his fellows IN the final showdown. He has suspected the possibility that he might have to die in order to end it all, but damn it, he really doesn't want to. In this moment, however, he glances around him, sees all these fellows fighting alongside him, considers all these people whom he loves deeply. And then, NOT out of sense of duty or obligation, but out of deep, sheer love for who they are, for their goodness and humanity, he chooses to step up and sacrifice himself. He splats, Voldy get annihilated, end of VW2 and Voldy. What, exactly, is the downside of that kind of love?<<< Kneasy replied: >>The problem is that you have already decided that love is the motive and the driving force. It could be duty, courage or sheer bloody- mindedness. Or even hate. He may be seeking revenge for James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius and a whole list of casualties that may accrue in books 6 & 7. Which is more likely; that or saying "I love you Ron," before going out to face the enemy? Ugh. That'd upset a lot of SHIPpers.<< SSSusan: Right. It *could* be any one ? or multiple ones ? of those motivations. But I am saying, in my picture of what COULD happen, that it *could* also be out of love, period. I'm not saying it WILL be the way it plays out - heck, I'm not even convinced he will have to die, though I *am* convinced he will have to be willing to die ? but I'm saying this IS one fairly reasonable possibility, based upon what we know about that power/force that Harry has and that Voldy has not and that Voldy underestimates. *IF* it turns out to be sacrificial love, then this is one way it might play out. Though [giggle] no, I did not envision Harry saying, "I love you, Ron." In fact, I envisioned JKR putting us inside Harry's head, knowing his final thoughts, but with him possibly not saying anything at all. Kneasy: >>IMO Harry will not have a choice in what he does, though he may have a choice in 'when'. Voldy is hell bent on killing him in any event, so Harry is just hanging around for the inevitable showdown. Unless Harry goes ESE he is going to cop it in the neck. Since he's going to get killed anyway I can see the up-side of making it count by taking out Voldy, but I don't see it as a sacrifice. It's the old soldiers maxim of "Since I'm going anyway, I'll take as many of you with me as I can."<< SSSusan: We're back to seeing choice differently - a longstanding difference between us, I do believe. I see that Harry does always have a choice (even if it is limited to a degree). He could choose to run away, reject his burden, go into hiding and be a hermit. Yes, Voldy might still hunt him down & kill him, but in that scenario I DON'T think killing Harry would WORK to kill Voldy, too. I think the way Harry's dying would work is ONLY if it's voluntary sacrifice, not simply yielding to the inevitable. Kneasy: >> I tend to subscribe to the attitude of Gen. Patton:- "Your job is not to die for your country but to make some other poor bastard die for his."<< Potioncat: > But, Big But, going in not intending to die, but willing to take the > risk and knowing it might happen, is still sacrificial. SSSusan: Precisely, Potioncat. And I am willing to wager a bet that I'm right about sacrifice, even if I'm NOT positive whether it will definitely lead to Harry's death. That is, he will EITHER die via loving sacrifice, or he will be WILLING to do so - and BELIEVE he is going to do so ? but "something" will prevent him from actually dying. That's my story, anyway. For now. Siriusly Snapey Susan From kelleythompson at gbronline.com Wed Sep 15 18:45:02 2004 From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:45:02 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Help Wanted Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113050 IT technical help wanted for interesting HPfGU project. Basic skills required: PHP, Python or Java. Need to be able to create SQL queries and handle text processing. Project will probably take 6 months, possibly longer. Alas, for legal reasons, we can only work with US-based developers, and involvement is on strictly voluntary basis. However, unlimited butterbeer and chocolate frogs to the chosen few. If you are interested in helping, please contact us at: developerapp@ hpfgu.org.uk Thanks, everyone! --Kelley, on behalf of the elves From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 15 18:46:27 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:46:27 -0000 Subject: HP's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greatelderone" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > > GEO: But they do. We know Weasley bought one and charmed his and > > > that the Ministry of Magic even have their own fleet of cars, > which > > > they lend out. > > > > And so your contention is that the Ministry cars which, like the > Knight > > Bus avoid all obstacles, can be involved in crashes? > > How interesting. > > GEO: And how did you come to flawed conclusion that all wizard cars > are like the Knight Bus or the Ministry Cars? Weasley's car for one > didn't seem to possesse the same characteristics. Flawed conclusion? IMO the flawed conclusion is assuming that the WW abounds with Arthur Weasleys cobbling together enchanted Muggle artifacts. Almost certainly it's a one-off. Even Arthur had never flown in it:- "There's a loophole in the law, you'll find....as long as he wasn't intending to fly the car, the fact that the car could fly wouldn't..." And later he's most interested to find out if it went all right. Only someone as Muggle-fixated as Arthur would bother taking a 'real' car to bits and enchanting it. Kneasy From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Wed Sep 15 19:27:06 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:27:06 +0200 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency Message-ID: <3B0F8D26-074D-11D9-8F18-000A95665DE8@m4x.org> No: HPFGUIDX 113052 Snape is upset because everybody is saying what a > great teacher Lupin is and...wait for it...Lupin can't *do* the > riddikulus spell -- not successfully any way. > > Lupin never manages to turn the orb into something funny, > and he never uses Riddikulus to make the boggart explode. > > Pippin > wondering if this is the clue that was going to really annoy JKR if > somebody caught it Olivier Ah Pippin, I know you always suspect Lupin whenever something fishy happens, but here, isn't it a bit too far fetched? Lupin does take care of Molly's boggart, does teach the spell very properly (which implies that he has at least some knowledge of it). He also seems quite knowledgeable as a student (reading in the pensieve scene, apparently not inferior to James and Sirius and a prefect). Wouldn't it be quite astonishing that someone mastering the Patronus charm (he does banish the Dementor in the Express) would not master a third-year spell? It is true that in PoA he never destroys the Boggart. Why would he destroy it when it is such a nice practical test for students? As a side note, I have a question for you. In PoA, flight of a the fat lady, when Lupin and Harry have tea, it is suggested (in the light of OoP) that Lupin reads Harry's mind. "Harry looked at him. Lupin's eyes were twinkling. "How did you know about that?" Harry asked. "Professor McGonagall told me," said Lupin, passing Harry a chipped mug of tea. "You're not worried, are you?" "No," said Harry. He thought 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 alreadv seemed to think he couldn't cope with a boggart. Something of Harry's thoughts seemed to have shown on his face, because Lupin said, "Anything worrying you, Harry?" If we accept that idea, it is fair to surmise that Lupin knows Sirius has met Harry. Now, with my pro-Lupin mind, you guess what I make of that, but I was wondering if you had already considered it. Olivier From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 15 11:13:21 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:13:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113053 Neri wrote: > I also don't like Heart, Humanity, Life, Hope and all that kind of > > stuff. I think JKR is not a symbolist. She writes an adventure > > story, not an allegory. > > Therefore, IMO the power-behind-the-locked-door will turn out to > > be some magical power that JKR invented. Kneasy wrote: > Interesting reasoning, and I can see it as just the sort of thing > JKR would do. If it does turn out so, I might just be able to bear > it, depending on how it's presented in the story. > > But if, by my standards, a tidal wave of yuck sloshes through the > plot-line, then I shall feel compelled to inflict an alternative > offering on the members Hannah now: I don't think there will be a 'tidal wave of yuck' (what a great turn of phrase :-) ). JKR has never resorted to this before, even when dealing with very emotional topics (deaths of Lily, James, Cedric and Sirius, for instance). The emotional stuff in Harry Potter is much more effective because it is portrayed in a subtle, understated way. JKR never lets it descend into mush. Take that very powerful scene in GoF, where Molly hugs traumatised!Harry. Just as Harry is about to burst into tears, Hermione swats Rita and the emotional bit ends abruptly. It would have been all to easy for JKR to allow us to wallow for a few pages in misery, with tears, recriminations, Harry sobbing into his pillow, Sirius howling at the ceiling, Molly covering him with kisses and assuring him that she loves him etc, etc. But she doesn't. And it's more realistic and effective for that. Another example is PoA. In the forbidden media version, the ending (and parts of the middle) descends into mawkish sentiment, with Sirius and Harry gazing into each other's eyes and delivering pretty yucky lines. JKR could have written exactly the same thing in the book. But she didn't, instead producing a much tighter, more exciting ending, which doesn't lack emotional impact, but doesn't make you want to throw up either. JKR deals with difficult issues and painful topics, but her cleverness lies in mixing these with the mundane, and plenty of humour. It's one of things that make them fantastic books. Even if love is the redemptive power that will overcome LV, it's going to be combined with some exciting battles, good jokes, and hopefully not too many vomit-inducing scenes. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 15 11:38:49 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:38:49 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy/The basilisk attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113054 > > Hannah originally wrote: > > >>I also believe that Colin Creevy may be a half-blood. Although he is attacked by the Slytherin monster, I think one muggle parent would be enough to justify a basilisk attack in the eyes of the pure-blood fanatics.<< > DuffyPoo replied: You may be right. > However, Draco Malfoy believes Colin is Muggle-born. The pure-blood- prejudiced kids seem to 'know' everyone else's blood status. In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one setting the basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns and who were not (On a side note, since Sir Nicholas was also kind of petrified by the basilisk, does that prove that he was Muggle-born as well?) Hannah now replies: I don't know if Ginny or Draco would have *known* that Colin had two muggle parents. They would have assumed he was by the way he acts, his obvious lack of knowledge about the WW, his milkman father. I doubt either would have even thought twice about the possibility of an absent witch mother. Malfoy would despise Colin even if his mother had been a witch, because of Colin's father and his behaviour. Anyway, I think being a half- blood would still be considered enough to warrant an attack. I don't know about Nick's parentage (it's a good question) - but he wasn't the target of the attack, so wouldn't have to have been muggle born. Also Riddle refers to 4 mudbloods (Colin, Hermione, Justin and Penny.) > > HunterGreen: > > It wouldn't matter to the basilisk whether or not the person is > > muggleborn (after all it does attack Harry later on), only to the > > person commanding the basilisk. And that person is not doing > > a 'pureblood test' to find out if the person is muggleborn or not, just going with what she has been told. The snake could have just as > easily attacked Dean Thomas, since he (and no other students) know he's a half-blood. I have a question now though, how did Ginny know Filch was a squib?< Hannah again: That's a good question. And it makes me wonder what the actual mechanism of the basilisk attack is. To release the basilisk, presumably possessed!Ginny has to go down into the Chamber. The basilisk then slithers off through the plumbing. But how does she know where to send it? It takes a long time to get to the chamber, release the snake, and for the basilisk to then travel to the site of attack - so how does she know where the victim will be? All victims were attacked while moving through the castle. This suggests possessed!Ginny released the basilisk and had it lie in wait. But how did it know who to lie in wait for? How did Ginny communicate with it once it was inside the pipes? The only way I can see it working would be for Ginny to go to the chamber and release the basilisk. She tells it who to attack, maybe gives it something with their smell on it, so it can find them. The snake then goes and lies in wait somewhere. When it smells out the person alone, it attacks them. Ginny herself simply returns to her dormitory (no mean feat since it seems quite tricky to get out of the chamber). This would also explain why none of the basilisk victims seem to realise Ginny was there when they were attacked - she wasn't. One more thing - how is the basilisk getting into and out of the pipes? It seems to be getting all around the castle inside them, so there must be places it can emerge from and return to them. If it could only get in and out in Myrtle's bathroom, why hasn't someone seen it moving from there to the attack sites? >Hannah originally: "My supporting evidence for this is the existence of wizard! Dennis. A wizard child born to two muggle parents is fairly unusual.Lily's sister (Petunia) is not magical, neither is Hermione's younger sister (from JKR website/ chats), so it doesn't seem that siblings of muggle born wizards are usually magical too. > > > > DuffyPoo:I, personally, don't think this is enough evidence. Not enough to prove anything. We only have the Creeveys and the Evans'. For our purposes Hermione doesn't have a sister. "JK Rowling replies - I always planned that Hermione would have a younger sister but she's never made an appearance and somehow it feels like it might be too late now." She doesn't give any indication, that I can see, whether the sister would magical or not. Hannah replies: The JKR quote you give is correct, but I was thinking of another one, made at the Edinburgh Book Festival. She says; 'When I first made up Hermione I gave her a younger sister, but she was very hard to work in. She wasn't supposed to go to Hogwarts, she was supposed to remain a muggle.' So Granger sister is/ was intended to be a muggle. But I agree that even so, that is only 2 families (with the Evans as well) and that's not enough for definite evidence. It's just what I think, which is a different matter! Hannah From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 15:50:20 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:50:20 -0000 Subject: Three Defiances and Uncle Algie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113055 > Yonna: > "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 to Dumbledore ter want > anythin' ter do with the Dark Side." Hagrid's been JKR's source of misinformation before. Think about the way she phrases it: "myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side", given that the books are as much mystery as fantasy, and the way she quietly foreshadows things. >From what we've seen and heard of the Marauders Hogwarts behavior, Voldemort had to consider them prime candidates for recruitment--and of course one of them was. The flipping of Snape in the pensieve scene mirrors the DEs with the muggles at the quidditch cup, and pretty much equates Marauders to DEs. But something changed James. I think he really did hate the dark arts, and being approached by Voldemort was a wake-up call. "frugalarugala" From amgolden22 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 15:15:22 2004 From: amgolden22 at yahoo.com (amgolden22) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:15:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113056 Pippin said: > But perhaps Rowling would agree that no human love is > unselfish. In fact Dumbledore says that his love for Harry led > him to do things he now believes were wrong and foolish, > because he cared more about Harry than other people. Phabala: Yes, exactly! I don't believe love can ever be completely unselfish, because in the end you're always getting something from it. Not to bring up someone many people despise, but in The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand says pretty much the same thing in regards to altruism. No one can ever be completely altruistic because they're always getting something out of it, whether it's actually physical somethings or simply the feeling that they've done something good. Love, like altruism, is always selfishly motivated because it always comes out of a desire for something. I think Dumbledore, at the end of OotP, is attempting to tell Harry that Voldemort's greatest weakness is that he can't feel love and thus, can't understand it. Without love there can't be true loyalty, and without that Voldemort's going to have a very difficult time ruling the world. -Phabala From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Sep 15 19:36:14 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:14 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wormtail, not Snape, at Godric's Hollow References: <1095213713.17850.74249.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001a01c49b5b$5002b360$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 113057 Carol counterspeculated: >Setting aside his presence or absence at Godric's Hollow, my question >is, if Wormtail had disappeared from his own house, as Sirius states >(and I'm not doubting Sirius's word here), how did Sirius know where >to find him after GH (on a street in Muggle London?)? It doesn't make >sense to me. Unless, maybe, Peter's mother lived nearby and that's >where Sirius expected to confront him. I wonder if Snuffles had amplified powers to track someone. Sirius arrives to find his worst fears have happened, and decides to pursue Peter in animagus form. It would also explain the comment about not needing the motorbike when he passed it on to Hagrid. Cheers Ffred (having a sudden mental picture of a large, motorbike-riding dog!) O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 15:32:47 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:32:47 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's reaction (was Re: HP's powers_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113058 > justcarol67 wrote: > > Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" > > shouts Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill > > Lily an' James Potter?") and they were particularly good at > > Transfiguration and Charms, respectively. >Kneasy wrote: > Just an interjection - I've always considered that the Hagrid > shock/horror wasn't because of any powers the Potters may or > may not have had, but because wizards don't use cars. Sandy thinks: To Hagrid, James and Lily were heroes who had died trying to save the wizarding world, fighting against the The Evil Ome. I think his reaction to the car crash story is a) horror and disgust that their heroics would be ignored and covered up as something so mundane as a car crash b) horror and indignation that Harry has absolutely no idea how his parents died and that they died as heroes, not simply roadkill. Obviously, wizards do use cars in some forms (the ministry of Magic has a fleet) and they do crash -- Harry and Ron crash in CoS, for instance. From lady_galadriel14 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 18:24:37 2004 From: lady_galadriel14 at yahoo.com (lady_galadriel14) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:24:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113059 I was re-reading PoA and noticed an inconsistency. At the end of PoA, Dumbledore says something to Harry about the unusual form his Patronus took when it charged down Malfoy at the Quidditch match, and made the comment that Prongs rode again. Obviously this means Harry's Patronus was clearly a stag. Why then, at the end of the book, did Hermione seem so surprised and impressed to find out that Harry could produce a Patronus? Also, in the meeting at the Hog's Head in OotP, everyone present is shocked that Harry can produce a corporeal Patronus. Wouldn't most, if not all, of these people have been at that Quidditch match and seen what happened? It's hard to believe no one would have noticed, even if they didn't happen to be watching Harry at that moment. I think a gigantic bright silver shape charging someone down would catch your eye. "lady_galadriel14" From cquinn at mn.rr.com Wed Sep 15 18:39:17 2004 From: cquinn at mn.rr.com (twobeaglegirl) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:39:17 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart was Boggart Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113060 Pippin wrote: > Lupin can't *do* the riddikulus spell -- not successfully > any way. > > PoA -- ch 7 Lupin turns the silvery orb into a cockroach. > > ch 7 -- Neville uses Riddikulus to burst the boggart in pieces > > ch 12 -- Lupin says Riddikulus and the boggart changes into a > silvery orb. Lupin forces it back into the packing case by > threatening it with his wand. > > GoF ch 31 -- Harry uses Riddikulus to explode a boggart in a wisp > of smoke > > OOP ch 9 -- Lupin says Riddikulus "very firmly and clearly." The > boggart turns into "a silvery orb". He then waves his wand again > and the orb "vanishes in a puff of smoke." > > Lupin never manages to turn the orb into something funny, and he > never uses Riddikulus to make the boggart explode. In Ootp, isn't it Lupin who makes the boggart explode and disappear (with the Riddikulus hex) at Grimmauld place (when Mrs. Weasley keeps seeing her dead family)? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have my book with me. --2beagles From irishwynch at aol.com Wed Sep 15 19:07:03 2004 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:07:03 EDT Subject: Wolfbane potion (Re: Book Two Discoveries! [Parselmouth!Harry]) Message-ID: <80.16241aea.2e79ecd7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113061 justcarol67 at y... writes: > As for Snape not being "that great of a wizard," I think Lupin, > for one, would disagree. He calls Snape a *superb* Occlumens and > he points out that Snape can make the very tricky Wolfbane potion, > as Lupin himself can't do. That's always made me wonder what did Lupin do before and after PoA to get his Wolfbane potion? You would think that learning to mix the potion, something so vital to his well being, would be upper most on his list of things to do. Is it written somewhere in OoP that he is still taking it? Or do we see Snape still making it for him? Marla From emrsing at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 19:14:08 2004 From: emrsing at yahoo.com (emrsing) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:14:08 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113062 I have just finished re-reading the whole HP series for the 4th time. And now that I have discovered HP4GU, the HP Lexicon, etc., am starting again with a more "critical" reading. One question that comes up for me that I haven't seen addressed anywhere is, what is the significance of Hagrid's title being "Keeper of the Keys" and Grounds at Hogwarts. The only KEY we have seen him carry (to the best of my memory) is the key to Harry's vault at Gringott's. And he certainly held several key pieces of information that Harry, Hermione, and Ron used in solving the mysteries in SS. But, is there some significance beyond this? After all, Dumbledore did say that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Does he perhaps hold the key to the whole mystery? Any thoughts or theories out there? "emrsing" From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 14:06:41 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:06:41 -0000 Subject: Speculations on the Boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113063 Hi, I've been thinking about the Boggart ever since I read the concept in PoA; so this question came up in my mind when I was reading OotP for the second time. In the third book, Professor Lupin tells the students in their first class that nobody knows what a Boggart looks like in the dark. In OotP, in Number 12, Grimmauld's Place, when Mrs.Weasley asks Mad- Eye Moody to confirm whether the drawer in the upper floor has a Boggart in it and he looks through the ceiling, what exactly does he see? Does he see the real form of a Boggart? If he does, then why doesn't he make it known to others? If he sees what he fears most, how does the Boggart then supposed to know he's watching? Does it feel his glare? Neha S. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 19:56:09 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:56:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lady_galadriel14" wrote: > I was re-reading PoA and noticed an inconsistency. At the end of > PoA, Dumbledore says something to Harry about the unusual form his > Patronus took when it charged down Malfoy at the Quidditch match, > and made the comment that Prongs rode again. Obviously this means > Harry's Patronus was clearly a stag. Why then, at the end of the > book, did Hermione seem so surprised and impressed to find out that > Harry could produce a Patronus? Also, in the meeting at the Hog's > Head in OotP, everyone present is shocked that Harry can produce a > corporeal Patronus. Wouldn't most, if not all, of these people have > been at that Quidditch match and seen what happened? It's hard to > believe no one would have noticed, even if they didn't happen to be > watching Harry at that moment. I think a gigantic bright silver > shape charging someone down would catch your eye. > > "lady_galadriel14" Its possible that noone recognized the Patronus for what it was on the day of the Quidditch match, mostly because as soon as Harry conjured it he went into a dive to catch the snitch and win the match. Also it is possible that some of the students at the Hog's Head weren't present at the match for one reason or another. Just a couple of thoughts. And as to Hermione being impressed, the Patronus conjured at the match was not done in real conditions, ie there were no actual dementors present. That Harry, in the face of a hundred of the soul sucking fiends, managed to produce a Patronus when it was much more difficult, is a very impressive feat indead. Meri From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 19:58:53 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:58:53 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy/The basilisk attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113065 Hannah: > It makes me wonder what the actual mechanism of the basilisk attack > is. To release the basilisk, presumably possessed!Ginny has to go > down into the Chamber. The basilisk then slithers off through the > plumbing. > But how does she know where to send it? It takes a long time to > get to the chamber, release the snake, and for the basilisk to then > travel to the site of attack - so how does she know where the > victim will be? All victims were attacked while moving through the > castle. This suggests possessed!Ginny released the basilisk and > had it lie in wait. But how did it know who to lie in wait for? How > did Ginny communicate with it once it was inside the pipes? > > The only way I can see it working would be for Ginny to go to the > chamber and release the basilisk. She tells it who to attack, > maybe gives it something with their smell on it, so it can find > them. > The snake then goes and lies in wait somewhere. When it smells out > the person alone, it attacks them. Ginny herself simply returns to > her dormitory (no mean feat since it seems quite tricky to get out > of the chamber). This would also explain why none of the basilisk > victims seem to realise Ginny was there when they were attacked - > she wasn't. > > One more thing - how is the basilisk getting into and out of the > pipes? It seems to be getting all around the castle inside them, > so there must be places it can emerge from and return to them. If > it > could only get in and out in Myrtle's bathroom, why hasn't someone > seen it moving from there to the attack sites? SSSusan: These questions *are* troublesome. For one thing, presumably the Basilisk no-speaka-de-English. I thought one had to speak Parseltongue for it to respond. (Or is that movie contam.?) But whether that's a requirement or not, still, the logistics of a giant creature like that moving around--getting up from the pipes , quickly locating the intended target [bec. I *do* believe there were intendended targets--that it wasn't accidental they were all Muggle- born] without being seen, getting back down into the Chamber, etc. How was all this done?? And how could Ginny have actually been descending into the Chamber each time? Remember how far down it was? How Harry/Ron/GL got back up by being flown by Fawkes? Wouldn't Ginny be constantly filthy? And if it took Harry speaking Parseltongue to get the sink to "step aside," then how would Ginny do the same? It almost seems there must be another way in/out than just Myrtle's bathroom's sink. I think perhaps Ginny was communicating with Diary!Tom and that he either did the calling or gave her instructions (and taught her Parseltongue????) in order to actually call & direct the Basilisk. But even if the Basilisk isn't smart enough to seek out an intendend target - even if it only "knows" to attack the person who's right there when it arrives - there's still all this logistical stuff to be explained. Frankly, it's one of the weakest parts of the books for me as a reader. I wonder if JKR will ever even explain? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 15 20:05:05 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:05:05 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113066 Pippin said: > > But perhaps Rowling would agree that no human love is > > unselfish. In fact Dumbledore says that his love for Harry led > > him to do things he now believes were wrong and foolish, > > because he cared more about Harry than other people. Phabala: > Yes, exactly! I don't believe love can ever be completely > unselfish, because in the end you're always getting something from > it. SSSusan: And THAT'S why I've been arguing that Sacrificial Love really IS very, very rare. Posters have been trying to come up with examples from canon of truly unselfish love, and there aren't all that many. But consider that you would have to go one step FURTHER, even, than unselfish love to find Sacrificial Love. Maybe SL really *is* the only purely unselfish kind of love? I mean, Harry sacrificing himself & dying out of love *would* be unselfish, wouldn't it? What could he possibly get from it?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From hannah at readysolve.com Wed Sep 15 20:10:36 2004 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:10:36 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113067 But IIRC > the only indication that he might be able to perform *Legilimency*-- as > opposed to Occlumency--without a Legilimency spell is Harry's feeling > in CoS (after the flying car incident) that Snape can read minds. And > we know that Harry's perception of Snape is seldom a reliable > indicator of what Snape can do or intends to do. > > Carol I think that in GoF when Snape accuses Harry of stealing boomslang skin he is at least partly using legilimency. Harry believes he has stolen the boomslang skin (he thinks Snape is refering to in second year when Hermione made the polyjuice potion) so he responds by feeling guilty. Snape then assumes Harry has done it and so does not follow up the matter of who else might have taken it or why. In this case he presumably only got feelings and not much else or he would have realised Harry was thinking of an incident two years ago. Just my opinion. Khilari. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 20:29:57 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Apologies to SSSusan, cub fans and powerless Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040915202957.3095.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113068 > SSSusan now: > Whoops--NOT my quote above! I was the one who said, > before this > poster, that I thought Harry would do just fine > living as a magic- > power-less member of the WW. > SSSusan now: > Nope--again not mine! I hadn't even thought about > Portkeys (though I > do have an opinion--that they *would* work). > bamf, a follwer of the boys in blue: Oops! Sorry about that! My apologies, I got mixed up. This is what happens when I do too many things at work. > SSSusan: > Now that I've cleared up the snippage, I can say > that I think the > point you raise is important. I mean, how DOES > Seamus' dad get > around when the family wants to go somewhere? There > must be a means > of transport for partially-magic families. bamf: Didn't we also hear about flying carpets being banned, but there might be a market for them as 'family vehicals'? (I want to say book 4, but I'm sure someone will be able to correct me if I'm wrong) My take on that would be that it reinforces the need for transport for everyone in the family, regardless of magical ability. > SSSusan, Cubs fan did say this, though: > This thought reinforces my belief that Harry would > be fine living as > a magic-power-less person in the WW. Of course, in > another thread, > I'm arguing about why/how he might die, so maybe I'd > better make up > my mind, eh? bamf here: Hadn't Jo said that there would be no reconcilliation between the WW and the MW? Can someone point me to where I might have read that? As for making up your mind - isn't it more fun not to? After all, we are doing a lot of speculation on a story that's mid-telling. And istn't that part of the charm of the story? You really want Harry to live to see the end of the series, but there is a big concern that he won't. If from the begining you know he'd survive, it would take a lot of the suspence out of the series. > bamf: > > Cub fans are not normal. > > SSSusan: > HEY NOW!!! I am now Siriusly OFFENDED Snapey Susan! > (Suppose you're a Reds fan? White Sox fan?) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bamf of the Cubbie blue here who is offended at being called a SOX fan: I'm a long time Cubs fan, born to a Cubs fan, but you have to admit, the Cubs fans have a lot of oddities. Blowing up a ball (after giving it a massage and last meal), sending a goat to an opposing team's stadium to transfer a curse, bringing a goat to their own stadium to break a bad luck streak, Harry Carey... Need I say more? ;) Hmm... Maybe we should hold an HP book signing there? Something's gotta break the curse, and Jo can cast a magical spell with just words, maybe she can help some 'hometown heros' that are 'loveable losers' most seasons... If you want to talk more about the Cubs, contact me off-list. ;) GO CUBS GO! bamf! ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 15 20:29:43 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:29:43 -0000 Subject: Homorphus charm & Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113069 Hope this han't been discussed before, but I did not see any reference to it in the archives. In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his students including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga Werewolf which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the village from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. In POA Lupin tells the trio about his becoming a werewolf, and that in those days there was no cure and that Wolfsbane potion is a recent discovery which allows him to become a harmless wolf. While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or Dumbledore helped their friend more. I'm sure the reason must be that the storyline requires Lupin to be a werewolf for some upcoming event or possibly his own demise. Anyone have any thoughts on this? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 20:32:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:32:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113070 I (Carol) wrote: > > Like Harry and Ron, she has at least two classes, Potions and Care of Magical Creatures, with the Slytherins, and the Potions classes have been going on for five years. Whether Hagrid has addressed Theo by name or not (no pun intended), Snape almost certainly has, and Hermione, being the observant person she is, almost certainly would have noticed it. And as you say, she may have other classes with Theo--arithmancy, maybe. I doubt that he'd take Muggle Studies. In fact, she may have known his name since the Sorting Ceremony in their first year, but simply not had a reason to mention it before. (As for Ron and Harry not knowing him, it's amazing that they could be so unobservant.) > > Geoff responded, somewhat mysteriously: > This suggestion doesn't open another conspiracy theory for me. When I was at school as a teenager, I was in a school of 500 boys. I > obviously had a small group of friends with whom I hung around but > outside that, there were school societies and you picked up names > from other people in conversation, an example along the lines > of "Well, X in class 4T is good at.." "Who's X?" "The guy othe > there with the blond hair." And so you get to know who quite a number > of other pupils are without actually knowing them as acquaintances. > > I suspect that Harry and Ron might know students by sight or name > whom Hermione didn't recognise. Carol again: It doesn't open any conspiracy theory for me, either. I just think that it's odd that Harry and Ron, however limited their contact with non-Gryffindors outside of class, would not know the name of a student they've had Potions with for almost five years and Care of Magical Creatures with for almost three. (It's not at all odd that Hermione would know. She pays attention to everything and has an excellent memory.) It's particularly odd, if you believe as I do that each House in Harry's year has only five boys and five girls in it, forty students in all, that Harry wouldn't be able to identify the two Slytherin fifth-year boys not in Draco's immediate circle as Theodore Nott and Blaise Zabini. (Or maybe he does know Blaise's name, since it's given in full during the Sorting Ceremony, but we really have no other evidence that Harry can identify him.) For any newbies on the list, the evidence for the small class numbers is in SS/PS (flying lessons with twenty brooms total for the Gryffindors and the Slytherins), CoS (about twenty earmuffs total for the Gryffindors and the Hufflepuffs), and PoA, eight boggarts in all (not counting Lupin's), with Harry's and Hermione's not revealed, which would make ten students in the class. It's no mystery at all why Hermione would know Theodore Nott's name in those circumstances. I suppose Harry is too preoccupied with other matters to pay attention to the quieter students, and maybe Ron is just oblivious to matters that don't immediately concern him. But I knew the names of every kid in all my classes after roll call on the first day in elementary school and junior high. (High school doesn't count because I knew them all already and in college, I confess, my mind, too, was on other things. But twenty students total in Snape's Potions class? Surely he's called on Theo Nott or mentioned him as either succeeding or failing to get the potion ingredients right at some point in the five years that Harry and Theo have been in class together. No conspiracy theory here. Just wondering how he could not know Theo's name. Carol, with apologies for going into detail here, but I was mystified by Geoff's response From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 20:45:39 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Boggart Snape was Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040915204539.66501.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113071 > Potioncat: > > Snape set himself up for the situation in the Boggart class. Once > upon a time we discussed this and offered a challenge to come up > with a better solution for Neville to use on Boggart!Snape. I > thought of a few worse ones, but no one came up with anything > better. You have to laugh to defeat a Boggart. > > But, we're told Snape was even worse to the students after that. > And it seems reasonable...he's bent out of shape at being laughed > at. But, what if there was something else going on that made him > uspset and Harry thought it was the Boggart class? Ideas, anyone? > I don't know if it's insecurity but if I were Snape I'd be a little miffed that Lupin was yanking my chain when: 1. I was making the Wolfsbane Potion that allowed Lupin to transform safely and with a minimum of stress once a month; 2. I was unwillingly keeping the fact of Lupin's lycanthropy from my students and my students' parents; 3. I had good reason (backed up by personal experience) to doubt that Lupin was mature enough to handle responsibility (i.e., the do-nothing prefect from the OOTP Pensieve scene). Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 20:54:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:54:09 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113072 > HunterGreen: > I think it was a cheering charm. Notice how earlier in PoA cheering > charms are mentioned several times (first in class when they learn > it, then when Hermione is horrified that she missed that lesson, and > I think they show up in the exam too), but never again. I sort of > wonder if JKR almost intended to slip in that Peter used a STRONG > cheering charm on Sirius to make him appear insane, but it didn't > make it into the text. It is interesting that we learn about cheering > charms in the same book as all the Sirius/Peter stuff. > > It could be though, that Sirius was just having a stress-induced > laughing fit, meaning that he was a little insane at that moment > (after having his two best friends killed, then being framed for > murder and watching 12 people die and someone else chop off their > finger, I can imagine he was a little emotionally charged). I wonder > though, have we seen Sirius react that way (or similarily) other > times he's been upset? Carol: I don't think Pettigrew had time to add a Cheering Charm to the curse he used to blow off his finger and blow up the street. He was in pain and bleeding. He was also concerned to disappear as soon as possible, presumably leaving his wand behind (if it wasn't destroyed in the explosion). At any rate, he doesn't have his wand with him when he's forced to take human form (though he does have his clothes, except for the tattered cloak he leaves behind as evidence of his "murder"). Nope. Too preoccupied to cast a Cheering Charm, IMO. As for Black, he certainly was under stress (you forgot to mention being deprived by Dumbledore via Hagrid of the chance to care for his godchild). Being arrested for thirteen murders he didn't commit (though, given his recklessness and the fury of the moment, he may actually have intended to kill Peter) would have been the last straw. We see Sirius behaving as if he were insane throughout PoA; I think that, yes, he was temporarily insane when he was arrested, and the laugh reflected his mental state. As a sidenote, his normal laugh sounds like a dog's bark. If his manic laugh also sounded doglike, that would have added to the impression that he was completely out of his mind. Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 15 21:20:33 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:20:33 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency In-Reply-To: <3B0F8D26-074D-11D9-8F18-000A95665DE8@m4x.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113073 Pippin: > > Lupin never manages to turn the orb into something funny, and he never uses Riddikulus to make the boggart explode.<< > > Olivier > > Ah Pippin, I know you always suspect Lupin whenever something fishy happens, but here, isn't it a bit too far fetched? > > Lupin does take care of Molly's boggart, does teach the spell very properly (which implies that he has at least some knowledge of it).< Pippin: It's very fishy how he does it though: --- Lupin looked from Mrs. Weasley to the dead Harry on the floor and seemed to understand in an instant. Pulling out his own wand, he said, very firmly and clearly, "Riddikulus." Harry's body vanished. A silvery orb hung in the air over the spot where it had lain. Lupin waved his wand once more and the orb vanished in a puff of smoke. ----- The spell, though properly spoken, quite clearly fails, since the boggart assumes the silvery orb form which Lupin fears. Lupin then waves his wand, doesn't say the magic words, and the boggart vanishes with no mention of an explosion. He can't have done the riddikulus spell silently, because we know that a silent spell is weaker than a spoken one, and the spoken one didn't work. Also, there's no explosion, just a vanishing--which could be the result of a vanishing spell. Granted vanishing is more complex magic than riddikulus, but you have to be able to laugh to do riddikulus, and I can't remember Lupin laughing at all. I know the teachers on the list are tired of this old quote, but as George Bernard Shaw said, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." Olivier: > It is true that in PoA he never destroys the Boggart. Why would he destroy it when it is such a nice practical test for students?< Pippin: But he does allow Neville to destroy a Boggart. "Forward Neville, and finish him off.'" Oliver: > As a side note, I have a question for you. In PoA, flight of a the fat lady, when Lupin and Harry have tea, it is suggested (in the light of OoP) that Lupin reads Harry's mind. > > > If we accept that idea, it is fair to surmise that Lupin knows Sirius has met Harry.< > Now, with my pro-Lupin mind, you guess what I make of that, but I was wondering if you had already considered it.< Pippin: If Lupin was not really asleep in the train compartment, he already knew that Sirius was coming to Hogwarts. But it is interesting that soon after the episode you quote, Sirius is spotted in the stands by Harry, and possibly by transformed!Lupin as well. Of course the dementors just happen to pick that moment for a light snack. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 22:23:29 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:23:29 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape was Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: <20040915204539.66501.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > I don't know if it's insecurity but if I were Snape I'd be a little > miffed that Lupin was yanking my chain when: > > 1. I was making the Wolfsbane Potion that allowed Lupin to > transform safely and with a minimum of stress once a month; > > 2. I was unwillingly keeping the fact of Lupin's lycanthropy from > my students and my students' parents; > > 3. I had good reason (backed up by personal experience) to doubt > that Lupin was mature enough to handle responsibility (i.e., the > do-nothing prefect from the OOTP Pensieve scene). I had this argument recently, elsewhere, and it didn't go anywhere, but... At least as I see it, Snape has the right to be truly annoyed if'fn only if'fn Lupin deliberately set it up so that Snape was going to get mocked. I went back and read through the scene, and the text seems to point to a sequence of events: 1. Students and Lupin enter staffroom where boggart is, to see Snape sitting there. 2. Snape starts to leave, with a disparaging comment made about Neville's abilities. 3. (Here's my interpretation) Lupin, regardless of what else he might have been planning, then states that he intends to use Neville, and he expects Neville to do perfectly well. This is, of course, a kind of 'screw you, leave my students alone' to Snape, being as it's really much more polite to disparage students to their other teachers in private. 4. Lupin explains the theory behind boggarts. 5. Lupin asks Neville what his worst fear is--and it turns out to be Snape. I respectfully submit that there's no reason Lupin would already have known this; it's pretty early in the year, and it's not the sort of thing that Neville is going to talk about. 6. Lupin now has the option of either standing up for a kid who needs some help and letting him take on something scary, or not giving him a chance (and really screwing with his head and confidence worse than it already has been), out of respect for the possible 'injury' done to Snape. I know what I'd choose, as a teacher. Sure, Lupin gets a chuckle out of it, as does everyone else, but I don't think he went into the situation intending to do that. It's more like a fringe benefit--and the less touchy would shrug it off, anyways. But I don't think even his strongest partisans have ever argued that Snape isn't touchy... -Nora notes that badmouthing a colleague in front of your students is a big no-no, as McGonagall lets us all know as well From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 22:32:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:32:55 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113075 > HunterGreen wrote: > Peter, wearing some sort of underclothes, might have taken off his outer-robes before he transformed (perhaps right after the explosion, when Sirius was -- I assume -- disoriented). He might have tossed his wand aside to help further framed!Sirius (he certainly doesn't have it when he's forced to transform in PoA). Carol responds: Maybe he was wearing Muggle clothes or a second robe. (Was it a robe or a cloak that Fudge discovered?) I'm guessing that he reappeared in the Shrieking Shack in PoA wearing the same clothes he wore on the day he disappeared. Unfortunately, JKR doesn't describe his clothes when Lupin and Black force him to resume his human form (PoA Am. ed. 366), but I'm sure she would have said something if he'd showed up in his underwear. (I don't think he had a chance to obtain other clothes during the twelve years he was in hiding.) I've noticed that JKR always writes "robes," plural, so maybe there's an inner and an outer robe, or maybe "robes" means robe plus cloak. (?) Carol, picturing a still fat Peter scurrying around in his underwear searching for clothes From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Sep 15 22:51:31 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:51:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113076 Lissa: >> > > > 1.) Sirius's mind just broke with grief at that point- he knew he > > was framed, he was done for, and James and Lily were dead (and for > > all he might guess at that point, Peter could be on his way to kill > > Remus as well). He laughed because it was an impossible reaction > > to an impossible situation. > > 2.) Relief- Absolute proof that Remus wasn't the traitor, and > > laughing at the sheer implausibility that little Peter had pulled > > this off. > > 3.) (I wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't) Peter > > tossed a Cheering Charm at Sirius- an overdone Cheering Charm made > > Ron laugh like crazy in fourth year. Nice, simple spell that gets > > Sirius laughing uncontrollably... and unable to protest his own > > innocence because he's laughing too hard to speak. Nora replied: > 4. Mutation of numbah one--not merely grief, but intense self- > loathing...bitter laughter filled with hatred at himself for > everything that he thinks he has been the cause of. Weeping would be > the resort of the 'innocent'. > > [Not to mention that there's an interesting literary parallel, not > that I think it has *anything* to do with the HP incident. Wagner's > Kundry, who laughed at Christ on his way to the Cross, is cursed to > live forever to seek Him again...and she cannot weep, she can only > laugh horrible mocking laughter, in both her pain and her sorrow.] Marianne: 5. Gross exaggeration of what happened at the time, which has grown into Wizard legend. Maybe Sirius was not laughing all that madly. We've only heard about this from people like Fudge, who might have built up the story of the capture of Voldy's Pure Evil Right-Hand Man because it makes him, Fudge, look brave and daring. Or, to give Fudge the benefit of the doubt, maybe Sirius did vent with a few howls of disbelief, grief, or whatever, and, through the passage of time, that has been enlarged into great gales of insane cackling. Marianne From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 15 22:54:46 2004 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:54:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4148C836.70502@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113077 pippin_999 wrote: > > He must be faking, or rather making hollow threats, since Snape > doesn't actually have the power to expel Harry himself and > knows that Dumbledore won't expel anybody on a first offense, > and will require solid proof in any case. > > Once the situation has altered and Umbridge, not Dumbledore, > is in charge, the E-word never passes Snape's lips, even when > he is provoked to the point of physical violence. And when he really wanted to scare Harry, he didn't do the "Expel!" show in front of the usual audience. Snape threatened Harry with Veritaserum very quietly, and managed to scare him all right. So I'd think he fakes it. Irene From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 22:54:55 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:54:55 -0000 Subject: Writing off Slytherins was Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113078 Nora wrote: >>[And, I've always wondered, if Snape does that out of some perverse sense of 'equalizing the playing field', or 'defending his poor Slytherins who the rest of the school and teachers hate', does he not see how it can, ummm, backfire?] Let me piggyback a question onto this. Trolling around the fandom, I do often see the assertions: 'Dumbledore has written off all the Slytherins; everyone at school hates them, including their teachers; the world is set against them'. Is there any solid support for this, canonically, or is it a mixture of some possiblity and a lot of projection?<< Potioncat replied: >>I don't think everyone has written them off. McGonagall hasn't and I don't think Flitwick has. I can't remember if we've seen an interaction with Sprout. Even Hagrid's comment to Nott(?) in class seemed friendly or at least neutral.<< HunterGreen: I agree that the teachers haven't written them off and certainly not ALL the students have done so. But sometimes, if you look at it from the perspective of Slytherin not being a house full of Dracos, its not hard to feel a little bad for them. When it comes to the house competition and Quidditch competitions all three other houses are rooting against them. And there's Dumbledore's last-second points giving in PS/SS too. I think his goal there was to build up Harry's self-confidence (since he did, after all, subtly encourage Harry to go after the stone), but did he have to do it AFTER the points had been tallied? I had never really thought about Snape favoring the Slytherins to 'equal' out things. Could it be that he remembers how things were whne *he* was a Slytherin (and everyone used to favor those *Gryffindors* Sirius and James)? From sad1199 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 23:00:17 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:00:17 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113079 sad1199 here: I am now reading GoF, again and, of course, have questions and opinions. 1. I know this has been discussed to some degree before but I only found one post on this area (if wrong I am sorry): Trelawney thinks that Harry was born in mid-winter. GoF (Amer. paperback, page 200) "I was saying, my dear, that you were clearly born under the baleful influence of Saturn," said Professor Trelawney... ...I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in mid- winter?" It was posted before (by Snow, I think) that Trelawney was mixing up Harry and Voldemort. BUT! Trelawney made the prophecy! Wouldn't she of all people know when Harry Potter's birthday was? If the whole wizarding world knows about The-Boy-Who-Lived and she MADE the prophecy she should know when his birthday is! 2. Polyjuice Potion. How does Barty Jr.'s mom take the drink every hour. Did Sr. leave a batch of hair behind for her? And, after taking the potion for some time does a person begin to take on attributes of the person they are cloning? I am just amazed when Barty Jr. turns Malfoy into a ferret. It made me think that that was really Moody but, of course, it wasn't. One more thing, does Snape have some idea that Moody is Barty Jr.? He knew something was amiss with Quirrell. 3. If house elves are so low on the social chain, how come the two elves in our story are so powerful? Winky (a mere house elf) persuades her Master to let his son that he has protected under an Imperious Curse for years to go in public to the biggest event in about 100 years where there are over 100,000 wizards and witches and other creatures. She uses her own brand of magic to bind Jr. to her but it is broken when she is stunned. Barty Sr. must have a LOT of trust in the power of his unworthy house elf to even allow Barty out of the house. 4. I still think Fudge is a bad guy. He always seems to do the wrong thing at the right time for the bad guys. For instance, WHY, WHY, WHY would he bring the dementor in to give the Soul Kiss to Barty Jr.? So no one would hear the TRUTH, of course! Again, the truth is only known by a select few because of Fudge. There was something I didn't like about Fudge in PoA but, I don't have that book in front of me now. It was something about why is he so nice to Harry when Sirius is loose and then doesn't believe Harry later, or something like that. Anyway, my point is I believe Fudge is a.) one of the evil ones or b.) under an Imperious Curse or some other curse (by whom?). Thank you for all responses. Have a Happy Love Filled Day. sad1199 From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 23:24:37 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:24:37 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113080 HunterGreen previously: >>And it wasn't one of those hit wizards or an auror (am I right in assuming Fudge wasn't an auror?), it was *Fudge* who was first on the scene. Alone, no less. There quick enough that Sirius hadn't left yet (which had to be fairly quick, I can't see why Sirius would hang around there. << SSSusan: > Just one little nitpick, HunterGreen. Fudge *wasn't* alone. He > was "one of the first" to arrive on the scene. HunterGreen: You're right, that's what happens when I go from memory. The word 'the' didn't appear in the version in my head. Thank you for pointing that out SSSusan. Pippin wrote: >>Fudge was in the department of magical catastrophes, so he had a legitimate reason for being there. I agree that the department must have been tipped off, but that doesn't mean that Fudge did it.<< HunterGreen: Indeed he was, which would have made him a good person for Wormtail to go to if he needed help disappearing (and framing Sirius). However, you are correct that it didn't have to be Fudge that was helping Wormtail, and that same person could have tipped off the Ministry. Pippin: >>who doesn't believe Fudge would say he had nightmares about the Muggle bodies if he wanted Voldemort in power<< HunterGreen: Well, he doesn't specifically say 'nightmares' but that he 'still dreams about it sometimes', which would make sense. Evil or not, its not something anyone could easily forget. From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 23:32:33 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:32:33 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113081 sad1199 wrote: >>1. I know this has been discussed to some degree before but I only found one post on this area (if wrong I am sorry): Trelawney thinks that Harry was born in mid-winter. [snip quote] It was posted before (by Snow, I think) that Trelawney was mixing up Harry and Voldemort. BUT! Trelawney made the prophecy! Wouldn't she of all people know when Harry Potter's birthday was? If the whole wizarding world knows about The-Boy-Who-Lived and she MADE the prophecy she should know when his birthday is!<< HunterGreen: Well, she was in a trance when she made the prophecy, so she might not even know she made it. I don't know if Dumbledore told her or not, but I'd guess that he didn't. sad1199: >>2. Polyjuice Potion. [snip] And, after taking the potion for some time does a person begin to take on attributes of the person they are cloning? I am just amazed when Barty Jr. turns Malfoy into a ferret. It made me think that that was really Moody but, of course, it wasn't.<< HunterGreen: I wonder though, would Moody really turn a student into a traitor? I see that scene as more Barty Jr. not liking Draco because he is the son of "DE traitor" Lucius Malfoy. sad1199 >>4. I still think Fudge is a bad guy. He always seems to do the wrong thing at the right time for the bad guys. For instance, WHY, WHY, WHY would he bring the dementor in to give the Soul Kiss to Barty Jr.? So no one would hear the TRUTH, of course! Again, the truth is only known by a select few because of Fudge. << HunterGreen: And where did he get a Dementor so fast? Or did he bring a Dementor with him to a school competition? From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 23:40:26 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:40:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" wrote: > Lissa: > >> > > > > 1.) Sirius's mind just broke with grief at that point- he knew he > > > was framed, he was done for, and James and Lily were dead (and > for > > > all he might guess at that point, Peter could be on his way to > kill > > > Remus as well). He laughed because it was an impossible reaction > > > to an impossible situation. > > > 2.) Relief- Absolute proof that Remus wasn't the traitor, and > > > laughing at the sheer implausibility that little Peter had pulled > > > this off. > > > 3.) (I wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't) Peter > > > tossed a Cheering Charm at Sirius- an overdone Cheering Charm > made > > > Ron laugh like crazy in fourth year. Nice, simple spell that > gets > > > Sirius laughing uncontrollably... and unable to protest his own > > > innocence because he's laughing too hard to speak. > > Nora replied: > > > 4. Mutation of numbah one--not merely grief, but intense self- > > loathing...bitter laughter filled with hatred at himself for > > everything that he thinks he has been the cause of. Weeping would > be > > the resort of the 'innocent'. > > > > [Not to mention that there's an interesting literary parallel, not > > that I think it has *anything* to do with the HP incident. > Wagner's > > Kundry, who laughed at Christ on his way to the Cross, is cursed to > > live forever to seek Him again...and she cannot weep, she can only > > laugh horrible mocking laughter, in both her pain and her sorrow.] > > Marianne: > > 5. Gross exaggeration of what happened at the time, which has grown > into Wizard legend. Maybe Sirius was not laughing all that madly. > We've only heard about this from people like Fudge, who might have > built up the story of the capture of Voldy's Pure Evil Right-Hand Man > because it makes him, Fudge, look brave and daring. Or, to give > Fudge the benefit of the doubt, maybe Sirius did vent with a few > howls of disbelief, grief, or whatever, and, through the passage of > time, that has been enlarged into great gales of insane cackling. > > Marianne Aha! I have just thought of a MUCH more satisfying answer to my own question than ALL of these except perhaps the cheering charm (which however requires Pettigrew to do a lot of fancy simultaneous magic - cause explosion, cheer Sirius, sever his own finger, prevent Sirius killing him and transform to rat - and everyone knows he's not a very capable wizard): [6] Pettigrew somehow fools Sirius into thinking that he has blown himself up (through ineptitude) either just as Sirius was about to kill him, or worse as a feigned attack on Sirius just as Sirius is asking him to explain himself. Sirius would laugh for three reasons (a) the bad guy's attack has backfired (b) the traitor is dead and James is avenged, and (c) it would be a typically stupid thing for the weakest of the MPW&P axis to do to himself. Sirius never explains the laughter, suggesting it wasn't a (malicious) spell, otherwise it would be yet another thing for him to list in accusing Wormtail in the shrieking shack. The only thing Sirius might need to explain might be why he'd laughed when 13 muggles were dead (is the number 13 significant btw?). It strikes me that Sirius goes off with the ministry men not so much willingly because he feels guilty but because the good guys have turned up and he can now explain himself. Of course, he is never given the opportunity. Also, he considers himself guilty of Pettigrew's murder (but in his mind entirely justifiably) and to take the rap. He also considers himself innocent we *know*, but I would read it as meaning innocent of being a death eater (why the ministry wants him locked up) and innocent of betraying the Potter's secret whereabouts to LV (why even the good guys/OotP want him locked up). Why else does he not escape (nor anyone help him) until he learns of evidence that Pettigrew is not, after all, dead and so the one crime he *IS* guilty of didn't in fact happen and, moreover, there's a way to prove his innocence in all three respects. So, he's compliant in Azkhaban because while he thinks they got it wrong on this and that he has his hands up on Wormtail - " Fair cop! (but the rat deserved to die). I'd do it again." And of course this is what he attempts to do. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 23:43:00 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:43:00 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Oliver: > > As a side note, I have a question for you. In PoA, flight of a the > fat lady, when Lupin and Harry have tea, it is suggested (in the > light of OoP) that Lupin reads Harry's mind. > > > > > > If we accept that idea, it is fair to surmise that Lupin knows > Sirius has met Harry.< > > Now, with my pro-Lupin mind, you guess what I make of that, > but I was wondering if you had already considered it.< > > Pippin: > If Lupin was not really asleep in the train compartment, he > already knew that Sirius was coming to Hogwarts. But it is > interesting that soon after the episode you quote, Sirius is > spotted in the stands by Harry, and possibly by > transformed!Lupin as well. Of course the dementors just happen > to pick that moment for a light snack. > > Pippin mhbobbin writes: Pippin, you are usually so correct that I pause (or is that paws) before mentioning the vision of Sirius/Padfoot in the stands in the wonderfully named Chapter "Grim Defeat" of PoA, is during Lupin's time of the month. In the following chapter, on the Monday following the game, Lupin inquires about the match but had only heard about it. And if it was at the full moon, I wonder if Sirius was pretty confident that Lupin wouldn't be there to recognize him in Padfoot form. If he even knew that Lupin was teaching at Hogwarts. mhbobbin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 15 23:49:31 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:49:31 -0000 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113084 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat2001" > wrote: > > Lissa:snip snip > > > > 3.) (I wish I could claim credit for this, but I can't) Peter tossed a Cheering Charm at Sirius- an overdone Cheering Charm > > made > > > > Ron laugh like crazy in fourth year. Nice, simple spell that > > gets > > > > Sirius laughing uncontrollably... and unable to protest his > own > > > > innocence because he's laughing too hard to speak. > > > > Nora replied: > > >> > Marianne > > Aha! I have just thought of a MUCH more satisfying answer to my own > question than ALL of these except perhaps the cheering charm (which > however requires Pettigrew to do a lot of fancy simultaneous magic - > cause explosion, cheer Sirius, sever his own finger, prevent Sirius > killing him and transform to rat - and everyone knows he's not a > very capable wizard): > > [6] Pettigrew somehow fools Sirius into thinking that he has blown > himself up (through ineptitude) either just as Sirius was about to > kill him, or worse as a feigned attack on Sirius just as Sirius is > asking him to explain himself. Sirius would laugh for three reasons > (a) the bad guy's attack has backfired (b) the traitor is dead and > James is avenged, and (c) it would be a typically stupid thing for > the weakest of the MPW&P axis to do to himself. Sirius never > explains the laughter, suggesting it wasn't a (malicious) spell, > otherwise it would be yet another thing for him to list in accusing > Wormtail in the shrieking shack. The only thing Sirius might need to > explain might be why he'd laughed when 13 muggles were dead (is the > number 13 significant btw?). > > It strikes me that Sirius goes off with the ministry men not so much > willingly because he feels guilty but because the good guys have > turned up and he can now explain himself. Of course, he is never > given the opportunity. Also, he considers himself guilty of > Pettigrew's murder (but in his mind entirely justifiably) and to > take the rap. He also considers himself innocent we *know*, but I > would read it as meaning innocent of being a death eater (why the > ministry wants him locked up) and innocent of betraying the Potter's > secret whereabouts to LV (why even the good guys/OotP want him > locked up). Why else does he not escape (nor anyone help him) until > he learns of evidence that Pettigrew is not, after all, dead and so > the one crime he *IS* guilty of didn't in fact happen and, moreover, > there's a way to prove his innocence in all three respects. So, he's > compliant in Azkhaban because while he thinks they got it wrong on > this and that he has his hands up on Wormtail - " Fair cop! (but the > rat deserved to die). I'd do it again." And of course this is what > he attempts to do. mhbobbin: Lissa--ARe you saying that Sirius did not know that Peter got the better of him. In the Shrieking Shack exposition, it certainly sounds like Sirius knew all along that Peter escaped. As for the Cheering Charm--I believe that it was a cheering charm. One of the most suspicious factors is that the Cheering Charm is in PoA--and is never seen again. Yet. And JKR wants us to notice it. Not only does the cheering charm on Ron go overboard, but Ron and Harry worry about Hermione's stress, thinking a cheering charm would be very useful to her. Mhbobbin From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 15 23:54:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:54:08 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Hannah: > > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school > > shut down. > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods > > along the way. > SSSusan: > Ooooh, one of my favorite topics! > Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that > Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. I'm > not sure that he really wanted to shut down Hogwarts, at least not > beyond the time it would take to get DD kicked out. Then he > probably hoped that HE [or someone he hand-picked] would be called > upon to take over at Hogwarts Geoff: My take on it would perhaps be a version of 2. I believe that Lucius was out for power - to try to get to be the top dog in the Wizarding World, especially while Voldemort was not in a position (at that time) to do anything about getting back. So I think all his actions were directed to unseating Dumbledore who is probably the most difficult obstacle for Malfoy to deal with. The other possibilities would be merely spin-offs from the main game - helpful no doubt - but not the major aim. In fact, I'm not totally sure that he would try very hard to restore Voldemort..... Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 00:18:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:18:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113086 I (Carol) wrote: > > > > > Just because Harry dislikes Snape and he's presented *from Harry's POV* as a "greasy git" who is sarcastic to his students doesn't mean > that he's evil. Dumbledore trusts him. Maybe we should, too. > > Alla responded: >> Maybe we should or maybe we should not. Yesterday I was worrying> that I went into defending Snape mode for too long. :o) > Carol: No, no! I love seeing you in Snape defense mode. Great job! Alla: > I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is absolutely NO canon > whatsoever to indicate what exactly Snape did while being a DE, but > just because we saw certain DE committing certain crimes, does not mean, IMO, that Snape was given a free pass and allowed not to commit > crimes (what crimes - we don't know). Personally I am hoping that he > did a lot of bad things, otherwise,as I said earlier, it cheapens > his redemption in my eyes. Carol: True. We don't know what he did. I suspect, though, that Voldemort put him to the best use he could--meaning potion-making. I know Snape was very young, but talent will out, and Voldy is not going to waste someone who can help him with his quest for immortality on work that can be done by any old DE. I don't know about "cheapening the redemption." I personally hope he didn't perform any Unforgiveable Curses, otherwise the concept of "unforgiveable" is cheapened! So, to each her own on this one. I was just objecting, as you also did, to another poster's assumption that we know what Snape must have done. We don't. JKR could have had Karkaroff reveal what he knew about Snape's deeds at his hearing (or whatever it was), but she didn't. Interestingly, Snape is *not* mentioned in connection with the named murderers, Cruciatus experts, and Imperio specialists, which suggests (but of course does not prove) that his specialty was something different. (Maybe he concocted some of the poisons that Lucius Malfoy still keeps in the hidden chamber. We just don't know. Quite possibly Karkaroff didn't know, either.) > Alla: > Snape is sarcastic to his students? If you put "sadistic" instead, I > would probably agree with you. Nope, Snape is not evil, but he is > not a good person either. Person with honor? Yes, I hope so, though > we don't know for sure yet. Good person? I doubt it. > Yes, I would say the fact that Harry views him as "greasy git" > is not a reason for dislike of said character. > > I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although > very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that > Snape enjoys to cause another human beings emotional pain comes back > over and over again. > Carol: I never said he was a good person; only that I'm sure he's on the side of good. But he does have admirable qualities: loyalty to Dumbledore, impressive powers of deduction (when he doesn't let his assumptions get in the way), and remarkable courage for a Slytherin. As for "sadistic" vs. "sarcastic," I still go with sarcastic. Sarcasm involves the caustic and often ironic use of words as ridicule. Sadism, as I'm sure you know means taking pleasure in inflicting pain, usually physical pain. (I'm ignoring any sexual connotations; this is the HP series, after all.) At least two qualify as sadists in my view: Umbridge and Bellatrix. Based on their treatment of Dobby, the Malfoys may also fit this category. (Imagine making the poor creature iron his hands!) Snape, however, uses *words* to ridicule students who perform poorly or otherwise annoy him. I don't think it causes them any real or lasting emotional pain. (His unfairness, which I grant you, does make *Harry* come up with some pretty sadistic fantasies. But, of course, he would never carry them out. I hope! And even Neville, though he's afraid of Snape, isn't suffering lasting emotional pain because of him. Crouch!Moody's prolonged crucioing of the spider in front of him, OTOH, was genuinely cruel.) Even what I think is Snape's meanest moment as a teacher, "I see no difference" in reaction to Hermione's elongated teeth, caused her no lasting harm. These kids are tough. Even Neville is stronger than we think. And they live in a very harsh world, where students hex each other and step on their fallen bodies and great uncles dangle children out of windows. Being able to deal with Snape, to silently accept criticism and learn from their mistakes, is an important lesson. He would never succeed as a teacher in our politically correct modern Muggle world. But what he does works well in the WW, where there's no place for weakness--or so we can assume from the apparent success rate of his students. (We'll see how accurate his prediction of their success is in the next book. We can safely assume that he will have weeded out the dunderheads, Crabbe and Goyle. Maybe we'll see Snape interact with Nott and Zabini in their place. Sorry to go off topic here!) Alla (citing examples to prove that Snape isn't "good," a point I've already answered): > 1. The first Potions lesson inn PS/SS was cited so many times, that > I really don't want to do it again today. > I may even agree with you that Potions, which Snape mentions > especially putting "stopper in death" will become important at the > end, but you are not saying that Snape KNEW that in PS/SS? > I mean, it would be a nice foreshadowing, but what Snape got to do > with it? How it makes his absolutely undeserved attack at Harry, who > just been thrown out in the world unknown , looks less asdistic? Carol: I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, though of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic (caustic, ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that there's a valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* know anything about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his celebrity status. It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. It's very important that Harry recognize and remedy his ignorance before Voldemort returns. (Yes, I do think that Snape has been briefed by Dumbledore regarding Harry's special role in the war to come even though Snape doesn't yet know that Voldemort is under Quirrell's turban.) Also, though he probably doesn't intend to do so, he's doing Harry a favor by reducing the number of adoring fans following him around (think of the girls who hound Cedric and Krum for autographs in GoF). One Colin Creevey (who missed out on this lesson, being ten at the time) is more than plenty. No, I don't credit Snape with altruism in publicly exposing Harry's ignorance, but I do think he has a reason for what he's doing and believes it's a good one. (He also, no doubt, enjoys doing it.) And I think it's most unlikely that Harry will forget what he learned in this lesson about aconite, bezoars, or what happens when you add asphodel to wormwood. Maybe these lessons will never come up in the war against Voldemort (though it wouldn't be a bad idea to carry a bezoar around if he can find one!), but if they come up on the OWLS or NEWTS, Harry has it made. a bunch of good examples that show an antipathy to Harry and friends which I don't think anyone denies--but note that Harry in recent books has not helped matters and Snape had good reason to suspect him of stealing potion ingredients in GoF. Also note that Snape has never yet given *Hermione* a detention or an unfair mark, and he really treats Ron no differently from his other students, punishing him only when he gets out of line (except for making him cut up Draco's roots when Draco's arm was supposedly injured). As for Neville, Snape loathes incompetence and probably thinks he's forcing Neville to learn. And he may be right, though I won't argue that the end justifies the means. Alla: > Many argued that Harry is able to handle what Snape throws at him. > yes, I said many times that Harry is not Neville, but why shoud it > matter? I think Snape's intentions should matter, not Harry's strength. Carol: Maybe Snape's intention *is* to make Harry stronger. That's what I think, anyway. Competence without arrogance or anger, and the ability to concentrate under pressure. I think that's what he's after. And it's a lesson Harry really needs to learn. Alla: > But, I think I posted earlier that Snape does manage to make Harry > afraid of himself in OOP (to his delight, I am sure :o)). Carol: Make Harry afraid of *himself*? Harry afraid of Harry? Not sure what you mean here. If you mean "make Harry afraid of *him* (Snape)," I'm not sure I agree. Sure, Harry may be nervous about Snape's reaction in certain cases, but he shows a similar reaction to Dumbledore or McGonagall on occasion. No, I don't think that's what Snape is after. He wants Harry to fear *Voldemort*. I don't mean that he wants him to be a coward, but he wants him to fully understand what Voldemort can do to him if he tries to confront him before he's ready. (Suppose that the wands hadn't been "brothers" and there had been no Phoenix song in GoF. Harry got lucky--again. And of course, he'd have been finished off in OoP if Dumbledore hadn't shown up when he did. I think that's what Snape is trying to get Harry to understand. He's still not ready for the ultimate confrontation with Voldemort. And I hope Harry understands that now.) > Alla (quoting): > "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold > voice came out of the corner. > "Shut the door behind you, Potter." > Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was > imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 Carol: Snape is doing nothing terrible here, and nothing terrible happens. You're only citing Harry's reaction, which, as it turns out, is unjustified. Reminds me of all the times he "knows" he's going to die. > Alla (quoting again): > "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and > Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his > temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, > paperback, p.533. Carol: This example I don't get at all. All Snape is doing is removing thoughts from his own head, demonstrating a key element of Occlumency that Harry may never learn (and attempting to protect his own memories against intrusion). If you're just trying to show that Harry is afraid, okay. But I think he's merely nervous and there's certainly no need for fear--as long as he keeps his head out of that Pensieve! (Maybe Harry is remembering Sirius's warning, which I think was very ill-advised. Sirius ought have advised him to pay attention and learn occlumency regardless of who the teacher was. Instead he badly misleads Harry and helps doom the Occlumency lessons to failure.) Anyway, you evidently see sadism, a la Umbridge, where I see a combination of antipathy (which Snape is fighting to overcome in the Occlumency lessons until Harry's invasion of the Pensieve causes him to lose the battle) and (motivated) sarcasm. I guess we'll never agree on this one. I think it's admirable that Snape repeatedly tries to help Harry despite his antipathy and against his natural Slytherin inclinations, out of loyalty to Dumbledore and opposition to Voldemort. In his own way, he's doing what is right rather than what is easy. (Contrast the coward Karkaroff.) And I hope he continues to do it till the end of the series. Carol, who will be very, very disappointed if Snape rejoins Voldemort and very sad if he dies From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 16 00:22:54 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:22:54 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Pippin said: > > > But perhaps Rowling would agree that no human love is > > > unselfish. In fact Dumbledore says that his love for Harry > > > led him to do things he now believes were wrong and foolish, > > > because he cared more about Harry than other people. > > Phabala: > > Yes, exactly! I don't believe love can ever be completely > > unselfish, because in the end you're always getting something > > from it. > > > SSSusan: > And THAT'S why I've been arguing that Sacrificial Love really IS > very, very rare. Posters have been trying to come up with examples > from canon of truly unselfish love, and there aren't all that many. > But consider that you would have to go one step FURTHER, even, than > unselfish love to find Sacrificial Love. > > Maybe SL really *is* the only purely unselfish kind of love? I mean, > Harry sacrificing himself & dying out of love *would* be unselfish, > wouldn't it? What could he possibly get from it?? Geoff: We're back to the old problem that "love" is a catch-all word meaning anything from "I love ice-cream" to the sacrificial love we are talking about. This is where the four loves mentioned by C.S.Lewis come in - eros, philia, storge and agape. We are really looking at agape. I agree with other posters that it is very difficult to love absolutely altruistically because our self- interest and our reflex instinct for self-preservation get in the way. However, speaking personally as a Christian, it is a love I would aspire to because it is a reflection of the love God has for us. I think under those circumstances, selfless love and sacrificial love can come very close to being the same. We don't see God very openly in HP but Harry does have this "saving people" urge and, on occasions, has acted first and not considered the potential dangers until afterwards. Setting out to save other people from danger, from death, wanting others to have a better experience than he has had really has no comeback for him. Does this constitute an example of agape? Yes, I believe it does. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 16 00:32:39 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:32:39 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113088 > > Pippin: > > If Lupin was not really asleep in the train compartment, he already knew that Sirius was coming to Hogwarts. But it is interesting that soon after the episode you quote, Sirius is spotted in the stands by Harry, and possibly by transformed!Lupin as well. Of course the dementors just happen to pick that moment for a light snack. <<< > mhbobbin writes: > > Pippin, you are usually so correct that I pause (or is that paws) > before mentioning the vision of Sirius/Padfoot in the stands in the wonderfully named Chapter "Grim Defeat" of PoA, is during Lupin's time of the month. < So it is indeed. But you underestimate the cunning of ESE!Lupin. He was indeed transformed, but thanks to the potion he had a human mind and, as we learn in OOP, a convenient view of the Quidditch pitch from the DADA office. It's interesting that despite people summoning dementors hither and yon through the last three books, we have no idea how it's done. If it's a mind trick, then transformed Lupin could do it, provided he's had his potion. It's interesting that the other time dementors invade the grounds in PoA, Lupin is also transformed. Of course he's supposed to have forgotten to take his potion then, but Snape's been wrong before. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 01:07:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:07:17 -0000 Subject: Sirius smells a rat (Was: Wormtail, not Snape, at Godric's Hollow) In-Reply-To: <001a01c49b5b$5002b360$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113089 > Carol counterspeculated: > >Setting aside his presence or absence at Godric's Hollow, my question is, if Wormtail had disappeared from his own house, as Sirius states (and I'm not doubting Sirius's word here), how did Sirius know where to find him after GH (on a street in Muggle London?)? It doesn't make sense to me. Unless, maybe, Peter's mother lived nearby and that's where Sirius expected to confront him. > Ffred suggested: > I wonder if Snuffles had amplified powers to track someone. Sirius arrives [at GH] to find his worst fears have happened, and decides to pursue Peter in animagus form. > > It would also explain the comment about not needing the motorbike when he passed it on to Hagrid. Carol again: Oh, very good! I think this is the first time I've asked a question here and been completely satisfied with the answer. Padfoot would have known Scabbers's smell, and Peter's, too, so he could track him whether he transformed or not. It makes a lot more sense than reckless, hot-headed Sirius somehow figuring out where Pettigrew had gone. Of course, he'd have to transform himself when Hagrid wasn't looking and transform back to human form somewhere out of Muggle view before confronting Peter, but I imagine he's had a lot of practice with that sort of thing. I'm still not sure of the sequence of events (Fudge says he arrived after Pettigrew had been blown to fragments and Black was laughing; if Fudge isn't lying then he's assuming, and we don't know whether Sirius pulled a wand on Peter or not) but at least I can account now for Sirius knowing where to find Peter. Thanks, Ffred! Carol, who notes that Stan Shunpike's version of events doesn't match Fudge's, but Stan isn't a reliable source, either From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 01:14:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:14:26 -0000 Subject: Boggart Snape was Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: snip. > I know what I'd choose, as a teacher. Sure, Lupin gets a chuckle out > of it, as does everyone else, but I don't think he went into the > situation intending to do that. It's more like a fringe benefit-- and > the less touchy would shrug it off, anyways. But I don't think even > his strongest partisans have ever argued that Snape isn't touchy... > > -Nora notes that badmouthing a colleague in front of your students is > a big no-no, as McGonagall lets us all know as well. Alla: Absolutely. I agree with your sequence of event and that is precisely how I interpret this scene. I don't see a reason to assume that Remus already knew what Neville's biggest fear is. He may have heard about it from somebody else in school, of course, but I doubt it. Even when Remus himself asks Neville about his biggest fear, Neville is answering VERY QUIETLY. I see no reason to assume that Neville was running around and telling everybody what his biggest fear is. Remus first of all wanted to help Neville, if an extra benefit was letting Snape had what was due to him, I don't see why not. I said it earlier, but I want to reiterate - the main reason I love this scene is not because of Snape's embarassement PER SE, but because of Remus kind of lets Snape have it on behalf of Neville and any other kids he bullied, but who were too scared to stand up to him and it was nice to see Neville to have his moment. From KAROOZOO at aol.com Wed Sep 15 14:35:13 2004 From: KAROOZOO at aol.com (lilyepotter) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:35:13 -0000 Subject: Some Questions about the Scar and CoS In-Reply-To: <96773c8804090512264c703ba8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113091 James: > I always assume that Ginny filled him in on what he didn't know. I > would expect it went something like this: Ginny starts writing about > all the little things going on in her life with going to Hogwarts, and > mentions Harry. Diary!Tom nonchalantly asks about Harry as part of > gaining Ginny's trust and mentions that Harry is famous for being the > Boy Who Lived etc etc. Diary!Tom is of course fascinated, learning > that his future self was defeated and asks for more information, and > Ginny tells him what she knows. That would amount to that LV was a > terrible dark wizard who's name is even feared to be spoken and was > the cause of many tragedies up until the year before she was born, and > that after being defeated by Harry he was still lurking around trying > to come back to power, able to posess Quirrel, etc. (Although come to > think of it, we don't actually know if anyone besides the Order and > H/R/Hr knows that Voldemort was posessing Quirrel). I've always assumed that Tom Riddle/ LV discovered the truth about Harry from Ginny. IIRC, TR makes the comment that killing muggles is no longer his goal, but for the past few months (the amount of time that Ginny has had the diary) rather meeting HP to find out how a mere baby defeated the greatest wizard... TR refers to Ginny as a silly girl. We know that this "silly girl" has a MAD crush on HP-talked about him all summer, freezes up when she comes in contact with him, and panics when she learns that HP has the diary...what if it exposes what she has said about him? Having been a "silly girl" once upon a time (we don't need to delve into THAT timeline), I know that whomever my crush was on at the time had numerous pages dedicated to them. GW: Draco Malfoy made fun of Harry today. Just because he has that scar....I think the scar is sexy Diary/ TR: Scar?? What kind of scar? Where did it come from? GW: The scar he recieved as a baby when he defeated HWSNBN. What a man! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 01:25:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:25:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113092 > SSSusan (quoting): > > "There is a room in the Department of Mysteries that is kept locked > at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful > and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces > of nature. It is also, perhaps the most mysterious of the many > subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within > that room that you possess in such quantitites and which Voldemort > has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That > power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could > not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In > the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was > your heart that saved you." [US hardback, pp. 843-844] > >SSS commenting: > I would argue that, while sacrificial love certainly isn't the ONLY > thing which would fit this bill, it *is* a good match for it. > > The references here to both to something "more wonderful *and* more > terrible than death" and to Harry's *heart* having saved him make me > believe this, because in those words are references to love and to > death, that is, the two things which combined could definitely equal > Sacrificial Love. Carol asks: I wonder if "wonderful" means what we American usually use it to mean, something really, really good ("absolutely fabulous" as opposed to "wondrous"?). There's an older sense of the word that used to be common in British English, "causing wonder" (just as "awful" and "awesome," two thoroughly ruined words, meant "awe-inspiring"). Can any British readers tell me whether "wonderful" is still used in that older sense, or at least carries that connotation along with the usual meaning? If so, then maybe we're slightly mistaking the meaning of the quoted passage. Carol, who doesn't want the trait to be ordinary love but is afraid she's wrong From KAROOZOO at aol.com Wed Sep 15 19:49:01 2004 From: KAROOZOO at aol.com (lilyepotter) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:49:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 26: Seen and Unforeseen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sunnylove0 at a... wrote: 2) Why is Harry's interview so convincing, when Dumbledore's speeches are not? I think the Quibbler is the WW version of the muggles' National Enquirer. AS crazy as some of the stories are, a lot of people are willing to believe them. Furthermore, there are a lot of people who never pick up a newspaper or watch the news on TV (in the muggle world :) ), but heaven forbid they not get their Enquirer!! Rhonda- headed to store to pick up her tabloids. PS- Sorry...this was an introductory post. I am currently re-reading the entire series for the 3rd time so I can be ready for H-BP! From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 00:31:55 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:31:55 -0000 Subject: Writing off Slytherins was Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113094 Hntergreen wrote: > I had never really thought about Snape favoring the Slytherins > to 'equal' out things. Could it be that he remembers how things were > whne *he* was a Slytherin (and everyone used to favor those > *Gryffindors* Sirius and James)? I find this interpretation very plausible (although, since we never get any direct insight into Snape's thoughts, there's no actual evidence). It seems likely that if trouble is made in other classes, Slytherins are disporportionately likely to be held responsible. And even if they aren't, it still seems likely that Snape would *think* that's what usually happens, and react by giving the Slytherins a free pass to make up for unjust punishments obtained from other teachers. All of the evidence we *do* have about Snape's state of mind suggests that he's influenced more by his own unpleasant school experiences than is really healthy for a grown man. Alex From tinainfay at msn.com Thu Sep 16 01:01:35 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:01:35 -0000 Subject: Old Question (probably already answered) about Black and wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113095 Carol was saying: (snip) > As for Black, he certainly was under stress (you forgot to mention > being deprived by Dumbledore via Hagrid of the chance to care for his > godchild). Being arrested for thirteen murders he didn't commit > (though, given his recklessness and the fury of the moment, he may > actually have intended to kill Peter) would have been the last straw. > We see Sirius behaving as if he were insane throughout PoA; I think > that, yes, he was temporarily insane when he was arrested, and the > laugh reflected his mental state. I'm so glad you mentioned his not getting Harry. Although I understand the protection DD invoked because of Lily's sacrifice (or however you want to put it) I've often been saddened at the 'what might have been.' If Sirius had reared Harry (assuming Harry wasn't killed, of course). No Azkaban for Sirius, no unloving home with the Dursleys for Harry... Just think of the difference in their lives. Even if they spent time on the run or in hiding, they would have had one another. I think their personalities could have developed so beautifully. Harry is coming along but has some bitterness to overcome. Sirius was cut short - very sad. Well, I'm rambling at this point so I'll quit while I'm behind. ~tina From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 01:37:18 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:37:18 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113096 Hannah now: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way. If 1 or 2 were his ultimate aims, it wouldn't have mattered which student he used. If 3 was his goal, he had to use Ginny (none of the boys would have written in a diary). Also, he couldn't give the diary to just anyone. It needed to be someone who would be likely to write in a diary (probably female), and someone young and vulnerable enough to pour out their heart and not be suspicious of the diary, at least until it was too late. SSSusan: Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. My gut reaction is that he did intend to try to set up Ginny. Perhaps to discredit Arthur, perhaps because of the Weasley ties to Harry, perhaps because she was, as you say, young & impressionable. Geoff: So I think all his actions were directed to unseating Dumbledore who is probably the most difficult obstacle for Malfoy to deal with. The other possibilities would be merely spin-offs from the main game - helpful no doubt - but not the major aim. In fact, I'm not totally sure that he would try very hard to restore Voldemort..... Bookworm: In general, I think he was trying to stir up trouble. If it would bring back Voldemort, great. If he gets rid of Dumbledore and/or Arthur Weasley, even better. Geoff makes a good point. Is Malfoy a loyal DE or just using Voldemrot to gain his own power? Either giving the diary to Ginny was a bonus, or Malfoy was spying on the Weasleys. He probably is now (post OoP) but it doesn't seem likely back in CoS. Someone pointed out that Malfoy wouldn't necessarily have know the Weasleys were in Diagon Alley that day, but he did know that Gilderoy Lockhart would be. IMO, Lockhart is someone who would write in a diary. He's not young, but my pop-psychology says he was very insecure (vulnerable) and definitely would not have been suspicious of the diary. All Tom would have to do was stroke his ego. :-) Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 01:48:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:48:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113097 > Carol: No, no! I love seeing you in Snape defense mode. Great job! Alla: LOL! Thanks. It may return soon, since I do see SOME good points of Snape character :o). > Carol: > I never said he was a good person; only that I'm sure he's on the side > of good. But he does have admirable qualities: loyalty to Dumbledore, > impressive powers of deduction (when he doesn't let his assumptions > get in the way), and remarkable courage for a Slytherin. Alla: I want to believe that he will turn out indeed to have those qualities. As I said - I don't want to believe in ESE!Snape either. Sadist? Yes. ESE! Not really. Carol: snip. At least two qualify as sadists in my view: > Umbridge and Bellatrix. Based on their treatment of Dobby, the Malfoys > may also fit this category. (Imagine making the poor creature iron his > hands!) Alla: Hmmm. True. Bella and Umbridge are definitely sadists, but with Snape as I believe Rowling definitely shows the smaller degree of sadism. > Carol: > I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, though > of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic (caustic, > ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that there's a > valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* know anything > about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his celebrity status. > It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who > Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to > know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second > James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. It's very important > that Harry recognize and remedy his ignorance before Voldemort > returns. (Yes, I do think that Snape has been briefed by Dumbledore > regarding Harry's special role in the war to come even though Snape > doesn't yet know that Voldemort is under Quirrell's turban.) Alla: Sorry, sorry, sorry. We definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no justification whatsoever to what Snape did. Preventive attack on eleven year old? To knock him down from imaginary pedestal? If you ask me, Dumbledore already did more than enough to make sure that Harry does not grew up arrogant. He left him with Dursleys and as he admitted to Harry at the end of OOP, he watched the boy closely. So, he surely knew that arrogance is not one of his virtues. True, Harry does not know anything about WW yet. This "anything" includes Harry not knowing that he is a celebrity. Well, actually, no, Hagrid already told him that he is famous, but surely, Harry does not know what this means. What good the public humiliation served, I don't know. > Carol: > Maybe Snape's intention *is* to make Harry stronger. That's what I > think, anyway. Competence without arrogance or anger, and the ability > to concentrate under pressure. I think that's what he's after. And > it's a lesson Harry really needs to learn. Alla: If Snape's intention to make Harry stronger, he did not do a very good job , IMO, which Occlumency failure shows. Actually, I think this disaster showed that Snape's cause of actions towards Harry during last five years was completely wrong. Harry was forced to learn the branch of magic which had to keep him alive and away from Voldie from the teacher whom he does not trust. >> Carol: > Make Harry afraid of *himself*? Harry afraid of Harry? Not sure what > you mean here. If you mean "make Harry afraid of *him* (Snape)," I'm > not sure I agree. Alla: Yes, sorry. Of course I meant Harry afraid of Snape. The reasons I cited these examples was to show that Snape did cause Harry some emotional harm ,even if it is not as bad as for Neville. Carol: Anyway, you evidently see sadism, a la Umbridge, where I see a > combination of antipathy (which Snape is fighting to overcome in the > Occlumency lessons until Harry's invasion of the Pensieve causes him > to lose the battle) and (motivated) sarcasm. I guess we'll never agree > on this one. Alla: Yes, I do see sadism, even though of lesser degree than Umbridge and that is the part of Snape's personality, which I will continue to bash with pleasure. :o) Yes, we have to agree to disagree on this one. >> Carol, who will be very, very disappointed if Snape rejoins Voldemort > and very sad if he dies. Alla: Believe it or not, this part I absolutely agree with. I just want Snape away from chidren , especially from Harry at the end. And he lived happily ever after. :o) From navarro198 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 01:54:02 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:54:02 -0000 Subject: Basilisk (WAS: Colin Creevy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113098 HunterGreen: It wouldn't matter to the basilisk whether or not the person is muggleborn (after all it does attack Harry later on), only to the person commanding the basilisk. Bookworm: Was Tom/Ginny really controlling the basilisk? Or was it just coincidence that the first person/people the basilisk encountered and petrified when it left the pipes were muggle-born? What would have happened if the first person it saw was a full-blood wizard? Wouldn't it be ironic if Draco were petrified? (Although I'm sure he would have been ? figuratively, coward that he is.) Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:08:15 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:08:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > Maybe we should or maybe we should not. Yesterday I was worrying > > that I went into defending Snape mode for too long. :o) > > > Potioncat: > Yes, I was worrying about you too! ;-) Alla: LOL! Am I doing a good job of recovering? > >Potioncat: > It won't make him less sarcastic/sadistic but I think Snape believes > Harry -- particularly Harry -- needs to know certain things about > potions. > snip> Alla: Too true, but since I just talked about this scene in my reply to Carol, I will only ask you one question, same as I asked Carol earlier and the one, which I really want to know. Do you think that if in this scene Rowling indeed foreshadows something, which may come up during final battle, Snape has some knowledge about it? I mean, if "stopper in death" for example will help to save Harry's life, I just don't see how Snape may know about it, unless of course he is another Trelawny in disguise and makes predictions during his leisure time. :o) > Potioncat: > It used to be expected that notes passed to another student would be > read out loud if the teacher caught you. Nice teachers of course > didn't do that. So reading this out loud was mean, but not entirely > out of range... > I think at this time Snape believes Harry tricked the Goblet of > Fire, believes the trio are stealing from his office, knows LV is > getting stronger and may be calling Snape soon...and he's taking it > out on Harry. > > Snape should go into research. Alla: Really? I am trying to remember my school years, which was a little more than decade ago and if teacher took something from you in class, she usually gave it back at the end, even if it was a note, book or magazine. I don't recall teachers ever reading our notes in class, or maybe my memory is bad. I guess it is american or british thing, but you are correct this is not out of range for Snape at all. I was just trying to show his range. And yeah, he should go into research. :) Potioncat: > Yeah, that one had me puzzled for quite a while. He was stalling > Harry until DD could come down, and doing it in character. Why? > This reminds me that the movies often show Snape being neutral or > almost friendly. I don't think the books ever do. > > Remind me, Alla, was I agreeing with you or arguing with you in this > post? Alla: I view the fact that movie, especially POA showed Snape in more friendly way towards Harry and Co than books do in a positive way. I do hope that it was foreshadowing approved by JKR, but I am not keeping my hopes up. You know - prepare for the worst and then the better outcome will be a wonderful surprise. :) > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:08:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:08:20 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113100 "arienastera" wrote: > > Could Snape have given Sirius a potion to make him more reckless > > than normal? I know anyone would get bored cooped up that long, > but surely even he knows when to draw the line? JKR seems to > emphasize that Potions Text bit, so maybe we're supposed to look at it more than just "Harry's tired, he's allowed to be distracted this late". > > Alla: > > Hi, yep, I think it was discussed, but what stops us from doing it > again? :o) > > I think more or less general consensus was that Kreacher MAY have > slipped the Potion to Sirius, although even that is not clear yet. > > I am hoping that Snape did not do it, because that would mean that > he is really partially to blame for Sirius' death and I don't want > to think that Snape revenge can go THAT FAR. > > Although, you never know with JKR, of course. :) Carol: There's also the view, in which I don't think I'm alone, that Sirius doesn't need a potion to make him reckless and hot-headed. Note that his behavior is perfectly in keeping with slashing the portrait and bedcurtains in PoA. Even though he seems more reasonable and normal in GoF, he's also free (even though he's in dog form and eating rats part of the time). In OoP, he's confined in the house he hates, incapable of helping the Order, stuck with his mother's portrait and Kreacher for company. No wonder he drinks and no wonder he disregards Snape's advice to stay put and wait for Dumbledore rather than going to the MoM. Even if Snape, who never eats at GP or stays after a meeting, had the opportunity to give him such a potion and could do so without his knowing it, there's no need for a potion to explain Sirius's behavior. That house plus the memory of Azkaban plus Sirius's natural temperament equals clinical depression or something very like it. You can add to that being deprived of Harry's company just as he's getting to know him. What Sirius needs is to go back to that tropical island and wait till the Order calls him, but he'd probably be anxious and depressed even there. As for Kreacher, how could he find the recipe for that obscure potion, not to mention the necessary ingredients and a cauldron? And a potion has to be watched and timed and stirred exactly the right number of times--with a wand, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure that anyone other than a wizard can brew a potion, especially a complicated one, and there's no way he could do so without Sirius catching him in any case. Again, it seems to me, people are searching for an explanation when none is needed beyond the character and the situation. As for that potion being detailed, maybe it will come up in Snape's class and Harry or Hermione will find a use for it. But I think it's needlessly complicating matters to infer its presence in this instance. Carol, who would not want to spend so much as a minute alone in the Black mansion From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:12:54 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113101 Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? I can see Petunia being estranged from her parents, but I can't see James or Lily's parents not attempting to take care of Harry if they were alive. I know Dumbledore says somethin in OOP about the fact that there were wizard families who would have taken him in. I assume from all of that we are to assume Harry has NO other family alive. I guess that would be a good thing, possibly, because if Harry has other family, LV could use them against him, as he did with Sirius. Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:19:04 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:19:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's Medical Condition the Night His Parents Were Killed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113102 It just occurred to me that if you pull an infant, even a wizard infant,from a house that has been nearly destroyed and who has a cut on his forehead (and perhaps other injuries), that you would seek medical attention. To me, this suggests that Harry must have been examined by Madame Pomfrey at Hogwarts (assuming she was there then) or else have been taken to St. Mungos. He was either unharmed, except for the scar, or whatever injuries he had healed quickly. Someone has probably already thought of this, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway as a possible explanation of where Harry was for some of that mysterious period b/w the time his parents were killed and the time Hagrid returned him to DD at the Dursleys. Angie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:19:42 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:19:42 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113103 > Carol: > There's also the view, in which I don't think I'm alone, that Sirius > doesn't need a potion to make him reckless and hot-headed. Note that > his behavior is perfectly in keeping with slashing the portrait and > bedcurtains in PoA. Even though he seems more reasonable and normal in > GoF, he's also free (even though he's in dog form and eating rats part > of the time). In OoP, he's confined in the house he hates, incapable > of helping the Order, stuck with his mother's portrait and Kreacher > for company. No wonder he drinks and no wonder he disregards Snape's > advice to stay put and wait for Dumbledore rather than going to the > MoM. Alla: Oh, Carol, unsurprisingly, I don't share such view. Sirius' behaviour in POA, IMO, closely parallels the victim of PTSD, driven by guilt and revenge. He can be reckless and hot-headed? Sure, absolutely. But he was showing signs of recovery in GoF and even though I tend to agree that him stuck in the house, where he escaped from as a teen, did not help him much, I think that "befuddlement draught" may appear in the book for a reason ( I hope it is not another Mark Evans, though ) Sirius WAS depressed in OOP. Not letting him do at least some useful things for the Order was, as I argued many times just one in the chain of idiotic decisions Dumbledore made. But even though Sirius behaviour could be explained without potion, it could be explained better with one. What if potion specifically designed to make depression worse? >Carol , who would not want to spend so much as a minute alone in the > Black mansion Alla : Me neither From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:23:36 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:23:36 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map and COS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113104 I'd like to know if the Marauder's Map would have shown Ginny and Tom Riddle in the COS, if Fred and George had looked. I tend to think not, because the makers of the map -- James, Sirius, Lupin, and Wormtail -- apparently did not know where the COS was located, to include it on the map. Any ideas? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:27:28 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:27:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar and Tom Riddle -- No Pain Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113105 Unless it happened and I missed it, Harry's scar did not hurt when he saw TR in the diary and in the actual COS. Is this because he was only a memory and not in corporeal form? Or maybe because TR had not yet become LV and attempted to kill Harry? Angie From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:33:26 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:33:26 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > I never said he was a good person; only that I'm sure he's on the > side of good. But he does have admirable qualities: loyalty to > Dumbledore, impressive powers of deduction (when he doesn't let his > assumptions get in the way), and remarkable courage for a > Slytherin. As for "sadistic" vs. "sarcastic," I still go with > sarcastic. Sarcasm involves the caustic and often ironic use of > words as ridicule. Sadism, as I'm sure you know means taking > pleasure in inflicting pain, usually physical pain. (I'm ignoring > any sexual connotations; this is the HP series, after all.) At > least two qualify as sadists in my view: Umbridge and Bellatrix. > Based on their treatment of Dobby, the Malfoys may also fit this > category. (Imagine making the poor creature iron his hands!) Not that it necessarily settles anything, but I'm going to go with the authorial imprimitur of 'sadistic' here, and I think it's there for a *reason*. Why? Snape is harsh and sarcastic, at times even cruel. This is not particularly debatable, as we've settled on. But it's a little bit more than that--it's that he seems to genuinely, at times, *enjoy* the discomfiture and embarassment of other people. He enjoys reading the Witch Weekly article outloud, to Hermione's great embarassment. He may not be intending to actually do anything to Harry and Ron, but he sure is getting a kick out of scaring the poo out of the kids. He manages to often do what actually is the right thing, and maybe towards the right end--but those means could sure use some work. No, he's not Umbridge, and he's not Bella. But we don't need to succumb to the incarnation of "I see no difference" and surrender to the slippery slope here. To get meta, I think JKR is telling us not to expect any grand exculpatory reasons for Snape's behavior, and that he really is unfair, and 'a sadistic teacher who abuses his power'. He manages to do the right thing on some levels, and completely fails on others, which makes him one of the more complex (if, I still think, overestimated in his actual complexity) characters in the series. > Snape, however, uses *words* to ridicule students who perform poorly > or otherwise annoy him. I don't think it causes them any real or > lasting emotional pain. Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA. Granted, Neville is tough and he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling. Let me throw in a great quote here, although it doesn't completely apply. "What is moral cruelty? It is not just a matter of hurting someone's feelings. It is deliberate and persistent humiliation, so that the victim can eventually trust neither himself nor anyone else." If Neville were less tough, or had less supportive friends, I can see him turning out that way. And it's absolutely no excuse for Snape that he didn't, unless you *want* to play a strict no-harm-no-foul rule on ethics, here. I don't think any of us do, because the results across the board are unpleasant. [Pr*nk arguments, anyone? No one *actually* got hurt, right? What's the problem, then?] [I break my own rule here--I don't argue Prank threads without the evidence we're missing. But it's a good illustration of why the unknown or elusive intention needs to be factored in, not just the results.] > Even what I think is Snape's meanest moment as a teacher, "I see no > difference" in reaction to Hermione's elongated teeth, caused her > no lasting harm. As above, lasting harm is not the only circumstance we should be thinking about--intention on the part of the offender is a big one, too. Does it excuse someone who intends to/wants to act viciously just because they might be incompetent at it? Draco, for example, may not have actually managed to do anything truly awful yet, but indications are pointing towards the idea that he wants to, and he intends to when he can. > Carol: > I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, > though of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic > (caustic, ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that > there's a valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* > know anything about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his > celebrity status. It's not through any skill or talent of his own > that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but > everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably > arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than > everyone else. It's very important that Harry recognize and remedy > his ignorance before Voldemort returns. (Yes, I do think that Snape > has been briefed by Dumbledore regarding Harry's special role in > the war to come even though Snape doesn't yet know that Voldemort > is under Quirrell's turban.) There's a phrase that comes to mind, here: "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me". Trite--but I think it applies well to Snape in this situation. He may well think that he is doing Harry and everyone else such a big favor by this immediate cutting down of any possible pretension, but what he's also doing is sabotaging the chance of normal relations from the beginning, and all on an impulse where he (I think) has incomplete information. > No, I don't credit Snape with altruism in publicly exposing Harry's > ignorance, but I do think he has a reason for what he's doing and > believes it's a good one. (He also, no doubt, enjoys doing it.) The enjoyment really is the kicker on the mild sadism, as seen above. I think there's something a little, ummm, wrong with someone who gets their kicks out of the exercise of superior power over their inferiors. No, Snape doesn't behave that way towards his other colleagues (with the possible exception of some of the behavior towards Lupin), because he's not in power over them. But he freaks out when anyone in an inferior position makes any sort of challenge. This is canonical. :) Ah, Snape. Such a good illustration of the Ordinary Vices. Capable of doing good without being a good person. More information, we await you eagerly. -Nora notes that a friend of hers still has that book, alas From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:35:24 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:35:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's Growing Powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113107 In the OOP, during the dementor attack, Dudley whacks Harry and knocks Harry's wand out of his hand. Harry,desperate, says "Lumos" and the wand lights up anyway, to Harry's surprise. I don't remember any other time since Harry joined HW that he was able to perform magic without a wand (I know about the pre-HW days when the "weird" things happened without him meaning to) and I don't remember any other wizard except DD performing magic without a wand. Does anywone? I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and perhaps a sign of things to come. Wouldn't it be amazing, after all the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a wand? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:43:25 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:43:25 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113108 > sad1199 wrote: > >>1. I know this has been discussed to some degree before but I only > found one post on this area (if wrong I am sorry): Trelawney thinks > that Harry was born in mid-winter. Trelawney made the prophecy! Wouldn't she > of all people know when Harry Potter's birthday was? If the whole > wizarding world knows about The-Boy-Who-Lived and she MADE the > prophecy she should know when his birthday is!<< > > HunterGreen responded: > Well, she was in a trance when she made the prophecy, so she might > not even know she made it. Angie sticks her abnormally large nose in: But Trelawney wasn't in a trance when she was making the statement that Harry was born in mid-winter or presumably, when the news spread about LV's downfall. But then again, what everyone knew was that Harry was a infant on Halloween, whatever that year was. Maybe they didn't know exactly how old, so I guess she could have thought he had been born the previous winter? I don't know that the wizarding world knew when his birthday was. From amgolden22 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:17:21 2004 From: amgolden22 at yahoo.com (amgolden22) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:17:21 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113110 > > SSSusan: > > Maybe SL really *is* the only purely unselfish kind of love? I > mean, > > Harry sacrificing himself & dying out of love *would* be unselfish, > > wouldn't it? What could he possibly get from it?? Phabala: Well, he gets the freedom of knowing that he did everything he possibly could to help the people he loves. And for Harry, if he were unable to help people ("save" people, some might say) it would probably torture him. I think the word "sacrifice" itself is important here--it implies that someone is giving up something that's very important to them for the sake of another person, simply because he loves them. But that still doesn't mean it's completely altruistic, as in the Harry example. With Lily, however, she didn't know that her sacrifice would do what it did. She put herself in front of her child out of sheer desire not to see him hurt. Then again, maybe she did know, and it was all a big conspiracy... but probably not. -Phabala From tekayjaye at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:34:57 2004 From: tekayjaye at yahoo.com (Tekay Jaye) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040916023457.57721.qmail@web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113111 Angie wrote: Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? I can see Petunia being estranged from her parents, but I can't see James or Lily's parents not attempting to take care of Harry if they were alive. I know Dumbledore says somethin in OOP about the fact that there were wizard families who would have taken him in. I assume from all of that we are to assume Harry has NO other family alive. tekay now: We don't have to assume that Harry has no family, except for Petunia. Dumbledore tells McGonagall, "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now" (SS 13, US HB). Harry has no other relatives except the Dursleys. While it is rare for a child of the late 20th century to have *no* living grandparents, it can and does happen. James was apparently an only child, and Lily and Petunia apparently have no other siblings as well. There are no other relatives. My two cents, of course. YMMV Happy day, tekay From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 03:02:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:02:45 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113112 Hannah: > > > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school > > > shut down. > > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods > > > along the way. > SSSusan: > > Ooooh, one of my favorite topics! > > > Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that > > Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. I'm > > not sure that he really wanted to shut down Hogwarts, at least not > > beyond the time it would take to get DD kicked out. Then he > > probably hoped that HE [or someone he hand-picked] would be called > > upon to take over at Hogwarts Geoff: > My take on it would perhaps be a version of 2. I believe that Lucius > was out for power - to try to get to be the top dog in the Wizarding > World, especially while Voldemort was not in a position (at that > time) to do anything about getting back. > > So I think all his actions were directed to unseating Dumbledore who > is probably the most difficult obstacle for Malfoy to deal with. The > other possibilities would be merely spin-offs from the main game - > helpful no doubt - but not the major aim. In fact, I'm not totally > sure that he would try very hard to restore Voldemort..... SSSusan: I agree totally, Geoff. I suspect Lucius was royally disappointed when Voldy reappeared. Like you, I think getting DD out of Hogwarts and whomever it was he wanted INTO Hogwarts was simply one step along the hoped-for path to the top for Lucius. All those monetary donations, all that glad-handing at the ministry--it's all been part of his plan to get *himself* in power. Now that Voldy's back, he has to pretend that he's thrilled to be doing these things in the name of the Dark Lord, but I'm not buying it. (Is Voldy?) Siriusly Snapey Susan From sad1199 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 03:06:56 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:06:56 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > sad1199 wrote: > > >>1. I know this has been discussed to some degree before but I only > > found one post on this area (if wrong I am sorry): Trelawney thinks > > that Harry was born in mid-winter. Trelawney made the > prophecy! Wouldn't she > > of all people know when Harry Potter's birthday was? If the whole > > wizarding world knows about The-Boy-Who-Lived and she MADE the > > prophecy she should know when his birthday is!<< > > > > HunterGreen responded: > > Well, she was in a trance when she made the prophecy, so she might > > not even know she made it. > > Angie sticks her abnormally large nose in: > But Trelawney wasn't in a trance when she was making the statement > that Harry was born in mid-winter or presumably, when the news spread > about LV's downfall. But then again, what everyone knew was that > Harry was a infant on Halloween, whatever that year was. Maybe they > didn't know exactly how old, so I guess she could have thought he had > been born the previous winter? I don't know that the wizarding world > knew when his birthday was. sad1199 again: My point was that while teaching Harry at school Trelawney says that she thinks he is born in mid-winter (under Saturn). But she made the prophecy about a boy born in the last days of July and then Harry bounced Voldemort's curse back at him. She, being a person of knowledge, should be able to dedeuce that Harry was the boy from the prophecy and know that he was born in July. And wasn't there something about Dumbledore letting her live at Hogwarts because she made the prophecy? So, it would seem that Dumbledore would have at least told her what she prophecized... happy, caring, loving sad1199 p.s. sorry for no snipping From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 03:23:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:23:59 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113114 Hannah now: >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way.<<< SSSusan earlier: >> Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. << Geoff: >> So I think all his actions were directed to unseating Dumbledore who is probably the most difficult obstacle for Malfoy to deal with. The other possibilities would be merely spin-offs from the main game - helpful no doubt - but not the major aim. In fact, I'm not totally sure that he would try very hard to restore Voldemort.....<< Bookworm: > In general, I think he was trying to stir up trouble. If it would > bring back Voldemort, great. If he gets rid of Dumbledore and/or > Arthur Weasley, even better. Geoff makes a good point. Is Malfoy > a loyal DE or just using Voldemrot to gain his own power? SSSusan now: I would say *neither*. That is, I think he is neither a loyal DE nor using **Voldy** to gain power. I think Lucius is smart enough & cautious enough to know that if Voldy's *around*, his own climb to power will only be as far as Voldy will let him rise. During CoS-- when Voldy is *nowhere around*, Lucius is using *Tom's* diary to try to gain power, not accompanying or using an active & alive Voldy. (Hoping that distinction makes sense.) Again, if I'm right about this, then I wonder whether Voldy has been schnookered or is aware that Lucius truly *is* "slippery"? Siriusly Snapey Susan From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 03:28:47 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:28:47 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Letters to Children with Muggle Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113115 If my child got a letter stating that he/she had been accepted to a school for witchraft or wizardry, I don't know if I'd be happy about it. Does the school assume that everyone who receives such a letter will be overjoyed and will enroll their child? Or maybe those families who don't want their children enrolled are simply horrified, like the Dursleys, and keep it to themselves? It just seems like a risky business to me when the MOM works to prevent the Muggles from knowing about the wizarding world. Angie From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 04:53:34 2004 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:53:34 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > sad1199 again: > > My point was that while teaching Harry at school Trelawney says that > she thinks he is born in mid-winter (under Saturn). But she made the > prophecy about a boy born in the last days of July and then Harry > bounced Voldemort's curse back at him. She, being a person of > knowledge, should be able to dedeuce that Harry was the boy from the > prophecy and know that he was born in July. But this assumes that she even knew about the prophecy. Dumbledore and the eavesdropper heard it-- that's all we know-- and we know that in POA (Chapter Sixteen-- have just the boxed set paperbacks with me at the moment) she was surprised when Harry quoted her new prophecy, and said that he must have been dreaming. I assume she may well not have realized about making the first prophecy either. A.J. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 05:21:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:21:48 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113117 I (Carol) wrote: > > I would still argue that Snape's hearing isn't common knowledge or the parents would strenuously object to his teaching at Hogwarts and that Malfoy, if he knows about it, attributes Snape's ability to get himself cleared of charges to a remarkable instance of Slytherin cunning. And again, Sirius didn't know that Snape was a DE. > > > Neri: > Carol, you can find a theory of mine that attempts to explain some > of these mysteries in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 > > I think the secret of Snape being a past DE is similar to Lupin's > lycanthropy. The parents don't know about it (they are always the > last to know about things like that) but the staff do, and those who > make it their business to know such things probably also know about > it. Fudge implies in GoF that he knew about Lupin's lycanthropy from > the beginning and didn't like it one bit, but let DD carry on. > > This comparison just got me thinking that Snape should really be > grateful that Lupin isn't the vindictive sort. Somehow I'm pretty > sure that Lupin won't let slip, over breakfast with some parents of > Hogwarts students, that Snape was a DE. > > Neri Hi, Neri. Thanks for the link to your Hog's Head post. (I'd forgotten the group existed. I guess I never felt that I fit in there--more at home on this list.) I was going to respond offlist but since it starting turning into a book (as my posts tend to do), I decided to respond here instead. I agree on some points: Snape didn't turn in any DEs, he wasn't at the graveyard, and he's on good terms with Lucius Malfoy. I agree that the sudden movement in GoF is significant and that it doesn't relate to ESE!Fudge (whom I don't believe in--Ever So Weak Fudge, yes) and certainly doesn't mean that Snape is surprised to find that Lucius is a DE. But I don't think that DD would have Snape tell such a huge lie (informing the Court, or rather Barty Crouch Sr., that all the DEs Harry named were Imperio'd) because it's against DD's principles and would create very serious problems for Snape if it was ever disproved. I think these DEs got off on their own with the Imperio excuse *before* Snape was brought in, and I imagine they thought that he got off the same way they did. I don't think they bothered to check the public record to discover that their names were on it and his was not. Or maybe they knew that Snape was already teaching for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow (as I think he was but can't yet prove) and assume that he fooled Dumbledore into thinking he was innocent while he was actually (they think) spying for Voldemort. Either way, he'd have acted on Slytherin-style "principles" that they understood and approved of. But of course the truth is as DD stated it in the Pensieve; Snape was spying for *him* before Voldemort's fall (and may have been teaching for him as well). My hypothesis is a lot simpler than yours and doesn't depend on Dumbledore (JKR's epitome of goodness) requiring Snape to lie. it als has no potential damaging consequences to either DD's or Snape's credibility, both of which would be ruined if the names of the DEs arrested in the MoM incident got out. Granted, it doesn't explain why the DEs think Karkaroff betrayed them when according to the Pensieve, he only betrayed Rookwood (of course, he *would* have betrayed the others if they weren't already arrested or dead), but that has nothing to do with Snape. It just shows that they have no reason to suspect Snape of betraying them or of *really* being on Dumbledore's side despite the fact that he's been teaching at Hogwarts for fourteen years. They just think (IMO) that he's a subtle Slytherin who pulled the wool over old Dumbledore's eyes. (I also think that Lucius has a rather condescending fondness for Severus, whom he as a sixth or seventh year student allowed to join his gang at age eleven because of his precocity--my explanation for Sirius Black's "lapdog" taunt, but I'm not arguing for that here.) Regarding Snape's sudden movement: Does Snape actually regard Lucius Malfoy as his friend and not want him to get caught? Or did he at least feel a momentary twinge of guilt for not being on the same side as his old friend? I really don't know. And I don't know why Dumbledore hasn't exposed Malfoy as a DE and an accessory to the crime of petrifying the Muggleborns. Maybe he *is* protecting Snape from whatever revenge the DEs might derive by revealing his past if DD exposed Malfoy, but that seems a bit far-fetched to me. (Yes, of course, he's protecting Snape by preserving his cover, but would that protection extend to letting Malfoy get away with attempted murder? I think there must be some other explanation.) Oh, well. More questions than answers as always. But I still don't think that DD made Snape lie. My version (my third paragraph) is simpler and I think more logical. Certainly it doesn't require any additional plot line in Book 6 or 7 to accommodate and has no dire consequences if discovered. So as b_boy (Steve) always says, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Hope you were anticipating a lengthy response when you invited me to read that post! Carol From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 05:25:13 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:25:13 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113118 Geoff snipped: We don't see God very openly in HP but Harry does have this "saving people" urge and, on occasions, has acted first and not considered the potential dangers until afterwards. Snow: This section of your post brought to mind several thoughts. The first pertaining to Dumbledore's statement, "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "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. (my emphasis on we, meaning himself and Harry, IMO) Then we have Harry with his "saving people" attribute who acts from pure emotion but also regrets (after the fact) that he puts others in danger. The first example of this would be when Neville attempted to warn Harry and Hermione that Malfoy knew about the dragon and got detention because he was also out of bed late. Although Harry was doing something selfless to save Hagrid, he unintentionally got Neville into trouble, which he recognized during the detention in the forbidden forest when Harry tells Hermione "It's our fault he's here in the first place." The second example is when Harry fears for the lives of all the captives during the second task in GOF. This time Harry's emotional reaction doesn't put anyone else's life in jeopardy as much as himself when he almost doesn't have quite enough breathe to reach the surface of the water. The final example is at the Ministry when Harry realizes that it would be his entire fault if anyone who came with him were hurt because of his emotional life saving attribute. OOP- If Sirius really was not here, he had led his friends to their deaths for no reason at all Neither Dumbledore nor Harry set out to risk the lives of others but are willing to accept that they are responsible for their unintentional actions that are a direct result of their selfless, sacrificial love. Selfless love is to care less for ones self than others and sacrificial love is to give of yourself without regard, thought or question to do so. At least that's how I see it. Voldemort understands this love: OOP- "He has a great weakness for heroics; the Dark Lord understands this about him." Voldemort underestimates the `power' of this love (heroics) to most likely his own demise in fact he already has, which was Lily's love for Harry: OOP- "You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated- to his cost." There was a Veterans of Foreign Wars memorial in my small hometown that I passed everyday when I was young which sums it all up better than I could: "There is no greater love than a man should lie down his life for his friends" This love does not necessitate a mushy, fluffy type of ending to the story as a whole. On the contrary, it is this type of love that causes one to be patriotic to their country. It is this type of underlying ending to most every story, which was worth the read or worthy of sitting next to the annoying person in the theatre to see the film, that makes us feel as though we were a part of it. Snow From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 05:42:20 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:42:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's Medical Condition the Night His Parents Were Killed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113119 Angie: It just occurred to me that if you pull an infant, even a wizard infant,from a house that has been nearly destroyed and who has a cut on his forehead (and perhaps other injuries), that you would seek medical attention. To me, this suggests that Harry must have been examined by Madame Pomfrey at Hogwarts (assuming she was there then) or else have been taken to St. Mungos. He was either unharmed, except for the scar, or whatever injuries he had healed quickly. Someone has probably already thought of this, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway as a possible explanation of where Harry was for some of that mysterious period b/w the time his parents were killed and the time Hagrid returned him to DD at the Dursleys. Snow: I always suspected that Harry was taken to a secluded family protection, which could have been the aurors, the Longbottoms. A leak may have occurred that Harry had been taken there that night that caused Bella and Co. to seek information from them as to what they knew from this incident, which caused their mental torture. After all there has never been any proof that Voldemort knew that Neville was a contender for the prophecy. In fact was Voldemort even totally sure about Harry? ;) From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 06:20:07 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:20:07 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113120 Susan snipped: Again, if I'm right about this, then I wonder whether Voldy has been schnookered or is aware that Lucius truly *is* "slippery"? Siriusly Snapey Susan Snow: Since Lucius is so much like him, how could Voldy realize or differentiate between allegiance to himself and Lucius's self- indulgence to the same goal? Wouldn't Lucius's apparent behavior appear to be that of dedication if their ideals are the same? Not attempting to argue at all, just some thoughts to add to your own. I'm as curious as to why Voldy dismissed Lucius's behavior as you. Snow From greatraven at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 06:24:06 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:24:06 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Letters to Children with Muggle Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113121 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > If my child got a letter stating that he/she had been accepted to a > school for witchraft or wizardry, I don't know if I'd be happy about > it. Does the school assume that everyone who receives such a letter > will be overjoyed and will enroll their child? > > Or maybe those families who don't want their children enrolled are > simply horrified, like the Dursleys, and keep it to themselves? > > It just seems like a risky business to me when the MOM works to > prevent the Muggles from knowing about the wizarding world. > > Angie Sue Chuckle! Interesting thought. Well, if your child got a letter from Hogwarts, presumably it would come by owl, which would suggest there was something legitimately magical about the whole business. The child would have been doing things that neither you nor he/she could explain... until the letter arrived. And if you did tear up the letter, perhaps a trusted teacher such as Minerva McGonagall, or even Dumbledore himself, would turn up to explain why it was a good idea for your gifted child to learn how to use his/her powers so as not to harm himself or anyone else. I am quite sure that if Prof Dumbledore turned up on my doorstep, my kid would end up on the next train to Hogwarts! :-) But yes, a good question - what if DD and his staff turned up to talk you into it and you still said no? What would the Ministry do? Perhaps put a memory charm so you wouldn't talk, but then what? Would there be some way to keep the child from getting into trouble with magic? (This is starting to sound uncomfortably like the treatment of 'refusenik' telepaths in Babylon 5, so I'd better stop here!). Presumably they don't get too many knockbacks. From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 05:38:36 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:38:36 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Letters to Children with Muggle Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113122 Angie: > If my child got a letter stating that he/she had been accepted to a > school for witchraft or wizardry, I don't know if I'd be happy about > it. Does the school assume that everyone who receives such a letter > will be overjoyed and will enroll their child? > > Or maybe those families who don't want their children enrolled are > simply horrified, like the Dursleys, and keep it to themselves? > > It just seems like a risky business to me when the MOM works to > prevent the Muggles from knowing about the wizarding world. > > I believe that JKR said in an interview (sorry, can't remember which one), that a representative of HW is sent to Muggle families with the child's letter, explaining about the school; so, the parents wouldn't just be sending their children off into the unknown. Also, if a rep was sent with the letter, the Muggle family wouldn't have a chance to discuss the strange letter with other members of the non- magical community. If the parents were still reluctant, I'm assuming memory charms could be used to ensure the continued secrecy of the wizarding world. Beatnik24601 (who feels obligated to include parenthesis after her signature, because everyone else seems to do it) From u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au Thu Sep 16 05:55:26 2004 From: u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au (colbernays) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 05:55:26 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy/The basilisk attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113123 > > SSSusan: > These questions *are* troublesome. For one thing, presumably the > Basilisk no-speaka-de-English. I thought one had to speak > Parseltongue for it to respond. (Or is that movie contam.?) snip > I think perhaps Ginny was communicating with Diary!Tom and that he > either did the calling or gave her instructions (and taught her > Parseltongue????) in order to actually call & direct the Basilisk. I don't remember if it was mentioned in CoS (I assume so) but in OoP Ginny talks about being possessed by Tom, presumably when he possessed her to kill the chickens and to open the chamber he could also speak parseltongue. Colin From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 16 06:40:58 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:40:58 -0400 Subject: Lucius' malfoy's motivation in CoS (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? Message-ID: <20040916.033103.1384.9.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113124 Hannah said: >The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way. 4. Maybe he had a completely different plan that just didn't pan out. Or, and I hesitate to say, because I know it's natural law in HP verse that everything has deeper meaning, but, what if, this time, it doesn't? What if Lucius just happened to be carrying the diary (just bought or intending to sell it in Knockturn Alley?) and happened to see Ginny and thought, "I wonder what kind of trouble this could brew for those pesky Weasleys?" (except more evilly.) Just sayin, sometimes people do stupid things for no particular reason; may evil Lucius just had a *feeling* he could brew up some trouble, but he didn't have a real plan. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 16 05:52:05 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:52:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Voldemort's plans for Harry Message-ID: <20040916.033103.1384.7.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113125 SSSusan said: > Blustering, "But I *wasn't* mocking!! Whoops. Babe, it's cool, I was kidding. > So, now who's going to be the "lucky" little lady who gets to bear > his children? Eeeewww. I'm sure Bella would volunteer, but.... One word: MPREG. Actually I'm imagining some sort of Alien parasite-pod situation; or, like, a really *interesting* Hogwarts Easter Egg hunt, if you catch my drift. ;) Either way, it'll be gooey and disgusting and look awesome on-screen. Or I'm so far off-base I'm in the parking lot. Mac said: >She (JKR) talks of a killing curse. There's only ever been >one kind so far (AK) and I think that is what was attempted But assuming that it was an AK is kind of contradictory to Jo intimating that we should be wondering why V didn't die when it bounced. Her quote sounds to me like she's saying-but-not-saying that more happened that night than we currently know. Which would be extremely in keeping with her storytelling and fan-taunting style. :) Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 16 05:43:02 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:43:02 -0400 Subject: Snape and redemption (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in the Shrieking Shack) Message-ID: <20040916.033103.1384.6.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113126 Carol and others said: > There *is* a redemptive pattern to Snape I must confess: that word "redemption" in regards to a character always hits me funny. Maybe you're using the term differently than I do, (and, Carol, I'm only addressing your post as a point to jump into the convo; I don't mean to single you out) but it seems that "redemption" means that someone has to prove something to someone else in order to gain clearance. Which begs the question: to whom does Snape have to prove himself? That sounds like a rather subjective, slippery decision for any fan to make. I know that Snape has a *lot* of flaws, and a lot he probably should apologize for (not that he ever will, nor do I expect him to). But, well, put it this way: in real life, I've known people who've slighted me badly. And when it came time to forgive them, I couldn't ever think of it as "well, they've made up for it now." I just don't think it works that way; I think a HP fanficer put it well: "forgiveness is never *earned* -- it's either granted or it isn't." So, I've always felt very existentialist towards those deliciously complex characters who are nasty people with a history of evil, but fighting for good now. No matter what they've done in the past, imo, it's who they are in the moment, and who *they* see themselves as now, that should determine how we, the audience, sees them. I don't look for grand gestures or other external evidence to feel that they've proven their goodness to me. I dunno, I just think it's more fun not to look at a character's journey as a series of good deeds that cancel out the previous bad ones, but rather how that character has come to reconcile his own past badness, and what kind of "good guy" he wants to be in the future. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Sep 16 07:20:00 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:20:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. Message-ID: <20040916.033103.1384.10.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113127 ArienAstera, hi, nice to meet you. She said: > Could Snape have given Sirius a potion to make him more reckless > than normal? I know anyone would get bored cooped up that long, but > surely even he knows when to draw the line? Aura now: Ooo, I like this idea. That passage did seem to stick out at me, that the text was somehow relevant. Snape, knowing when to draw the line? Oh *hell* no. (Well, that's not entirly true, he knows when not to endanger the Order, but he can be damn nasty when it comes to revenge, specifically against Sirius.) Make Sirius bounce off the walls and feel even worse about his confinement -- Snape even taunted Sirius about being cooped up and unable to do any work for the Order. What would Snape's motivation be, though? Just revenge? I don't see him actually trying to get Sirius killed. My immediate thought involved going to a very fun slashy place with Sirius, Remus, and/or Snape. :) Alla said: >I am hoping that Snape did not do it, because that would mean that >he is really partially to blame for Sirius' death and I don't want >to think that Snape revenge can go THAT FAR. Me again: Even if Snape did give Sirius the potion, I agree that he wouldn't have expected it to lead to Sirius' death; my whole premise of explaing Snape's moments of heroism is "Snape's a bastard, but not a murderer." If Snape only meant to drive Sirius a little nuts (or drive him to either Snape or Lupin's bed, as is my interpretation), the death was an accident. Which is the only reason I hope Snape didn't give him the potion, or at least not right before Sirius died; Snape has enough guilt (and other issues) that's turning him into a twisted, angry jackass. Last thing he -- and everyone around him -- needs is more fuel for the fire. Carol said: > who would not want to spend so much as a minute alone in the > Black mansion Not the real one, but wouldn't that make an awesome Halloween haunted house? Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone ________________________________________________________________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 16 08:41:13 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:41:13 -0400 Subject: Marauder's Map and COS Message-ID: <001e01c49bc8$ecf6fab0$62c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113128 Angie "I'd like to know if the Marauder's Map would have shown Ginny and Tom Riddle in the COS, if Fred and George had looked. I tend to think not, because the makers of the map -- James, Sirius, Lupin, and Wormtail -- apparently did not know where the COS was located, to include it on the map. Any ideas?" DuffyPoo: I think you're right. Hagrid's hut also didn't appear to be on the map, not the inside at least, as Lupin only noted Peter Pettigrew on the map after HRH emerged from Hagrid's. MWPP can't get into enough trouble at Hagrid's to warrant it being on the map. ;-) No secret tunnels or whatnot. While they may have known the Chamber of Secrets story, they didn't know where the Chamber was, so couldn't put it on the map. JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From timregan at microsoft.com Thu Sep 16 09:49:17 2004 From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:49:17 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113129 Hi All, Mac wrote: >>> Longbottom incident met very widespread outrage and would have been WELL known - BUT among the adults and not the kids <<< What I don't get is why some of those adults who clearly do know about the Longbottoms do not treat Neville better? Take McGonagall, she must know Neville's sad family story and have known his parents, but when he indirectly gives Sirius the password to Gryffindor Tower she really really takes it out on him. Where's understanding gone then? Either JKR forgot that McGonagall would be always walking on eggshells with Neville, or McGonagall is pretty nasty. (Or there's some sub-plot between McGonagall and Neville which we have only seen pale reflections from, see, for example, my second ever post :-) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/41158 http://tinyurl.com/3n5yk ) Here are some quotes, read them and weep. ---------- PoA, Chapter 13: "Which person," she said, her voice shaking, "which abysmally foolish person wrote down this week's passwords and left them lying around?" There was utter silence, broken by the smallest of terrified squeaks. Neville Longbottom, trembling from head to fluffy slippered toes, raised his hand slowly into the air. PoA, Chapter 14: Neville was in total disgrace. Professor McGonagall was so furious with him she had banned him from all future Hogsmeade visits, given him a detention, and forbidden anyone to give him the password into the tower. Poor Neville was forced to wait. outside the common room every night for somebody to let him in, while the security trolls leered unpleasantly at him. ---------- Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his education, and you know that he was brought up by his grandmother because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside in a mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats Neville? Cheers, Dumbledad. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 09:46:44 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:44 -0000 Subject: Lucius and LV (was Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113130 > Geoff wrote: In fact, I'm not totally sure that he (Lucius) would try very hard to restore Voldemort.....<< > > Bookworm wrote: Geoff makes a good point. Is Malfoy a loyal DE or just using Voldemrot to gain his own power? > > SSSusan wrote: > I would say *neither*. That is, I think he is neither a loyal DE > nor using **Voldy** to gain power. I think Lucius is smart enough & cautious enough to know that if Voldy's *around*, his own climb to power will only be as far as Voldy will let him rise. During CoS- - when Voldy is *nowhere around*, Lucius is using *Tom's* diary to try to gain power, not accompanying or using an active & alive Voldy. (Hoping that distinction makes sense.) > Again, if I'm right about this, then I wonder whether Voldy has been schnookered or is aware that Lucius truly *is* "slippery"? Hannah now: I think LV is aware that Malfoy is out for his own ends primarily. But at present, the best thing for Lucius is to be on the side of LV and to toe the line. I don't think Lucius likes this - I'm sure he was happier when LV was out of the way and Malfoy had more freedom - but he knows that it's the best thing for himself, so that's what he'll do. LV knows that Lucius will remain on side while it suits him. I think he's well aware that if things change, and there's a chance for Lucius to betray him to further his own ends, then that's what Malfoy will do. So he's got to be ready to kill/ blackmail Malfoy when necessary. I don't think LV would have a problem with this potential disloyalty per se, since Malfoy is useful for LV to have on side, and as long as LV knows he can prevent Malfoy betraying him if the situation arises. So, IMO, Malfoy and LV are acting to type and using each other. They both know this, and both has to be ready for the consequences when one or the other outlives their usefulness. Hannah From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 10:27:05 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:27:05 -0000 Subject: Lucius / LV success???(Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: >snip> > SSSusan: >snip. I suspect Lucius was royally disappointed > when Voldy reappeared. Like you, I think getting DD out of Hogwarts and whomever it was he wanted INTO Hogwarts was simply one step along the hoped-for path to the top for Lucius. All those monetary donations, all that glad-handing at the ministry--it's all been part of his plan to get *himself* in power. Now that Voldy's back, he has to pretend that he's thrilled to be doing these things in the name of the Dark Lord, but I'm not buying it. (Is Voldy?) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan mhbobbin: Lucius doesn't strike me as someone who would be all that happy having to answer to Voldemort again. Lucius strikes me as wanting to be the top bad wizard with a free hand to run the WW--from the shadows-- and be cruel to Muggles. While getting richer. For LV to continue to rule the DEs and strike fear in the hearts of wizards, he has to start having successes. So far, what success has he had? Since his return: His planned duel to the death with Harry-- to prove that Harry had no special power over him --- ended in Harry's escape, resulting in his attempts to find out more about the prophecy. He made Bode try to take the prophecy. That failed. We don't know what his role was in the Prison breakout. But that may be his success. We don't know what his envoys to the Giants were able to accomplish. And then LV sends his DEs to the MoM and they end up being thwarted --mostly by kids--and sent to Prison. Granted, the Dementors seem to have left Azkaban for LV. BUT if LV hasn't lost his evil touch, it can't be apparent to his followers. Right now, many of the DEs are trying to determine when they'll break out of prison--in Chapter 1 or maybe Ch. 2 of Book Six. But when they do, will a wizard like Lucius meekly go back to LV as a Follower or will there be some challenge to LV's authority? Seems to me that Lucius is the wizard most likely to lead such a challenge. mhbobbin From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 11:07:16 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Basilisk (WAS: Colin Creevy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040916110716.59136.qmail@web90002.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113132 HunterGreen said: It wouldn't matter to the basilisk whether or not the person is muggleborn (after all it does attack Harry later on), only to the person commanding the basilisk. Griffin782002 now: I have said this before but I don't mind repeating. Snakes can detect a potential victim by smell, using their tongue. They bite the victim, they leave it to run away and can track it down by scent. And some, if not all, can see the heat a living organism emits. I can imagine the Basilisk able to tell the difference between the scent of a pureblood and a muggleborn wizard or witch. And when he attacked Harry, obviously he had to obey Riddle and he could tell by scent, after Fawks attacked him, where Harry was standing. And we should not forget the Basilisk is not a common animal. Griffin782002 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 12:19:28 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:19:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113133 Carol: snip > > It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. Alla: snip I see no justification whatsoever to what Snape did. > Preventive attack on eleven year old? snip > True, Harry does not know anything about WW yet. This "anything" > includes Harry not knowing that he is a celebrity. Well, actually, > no, Hagrid already told him that he is famous, but surely, Harry > does not know what this means.> > What good the public humiliation served, I don't know. Potioncat: SS/PS, first page of chapter 8: ...Whispers followed Harry from the moment he left his dormitory the next day. People lining up outside classrooms stood on tiptoe to get a look at him, or doubled back to pass him in the corridors again, staring. Harry wished they wouldn't, because he was trying to conentrate on finding his way to classes. I'm sure Snape saw this attention. Add to it this paraphrase: "Your father died, too arrogant to believe Black was the traitor..." We don't know if Snape has any idea what Harry's life has been like. I'm not sure if DD even understood how bad it was. But Snape does see the attention the boy is already getting. Snape knows (although we don't and Harry doesn't) what James was like. He isn't the only person on staff who expects Harry to be like his parents, but he may be the only one who expects that behavior to be bad. And, although we don't know it yet, Snape knows something about arriving at school and quickly getting a reputation for magical ability... Particularly a magical ability valued by a group of Slytherins who almost all became DEs. Potioncat From garybec101 at comcast.net Thu Sep 16 12:43:34 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:43:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113134 lady_galadriel14 wrote: I was re-reading PoA and noticed an inconsistency. At the end of PoA, Dumbledore says something to Harry about the unusual form his Patronus took when it charged down Malfoy at the Quidditch match, and made the comment that Prongs rode again. Obviously this means Harry's Patronus was clearly a stag. Why then, at the end of the book, did Hermione seem so surprised and impressed to find out that Harry could produce a Patronus? Also, in the meeting at the Hog's Head in OotP, everyone present is shocked that Harry can produce a corporeal Patronus. Wouldn't most, if not all, of these people have been at that Quidditch match and seen what happened? It's hard to believe no one would have noticed, even if they didn't happen to be watching Harry at that moment. I think a gigantic bright silver shape charging someone down would catch your eye. Now Meri: Its possible that noone recognized the Patronus for what it was on the day of the Quidditch match, mostly because as soon as Harry conjured it he went into a dive to catch the snitch and win the match. Also it is possible that some of the students at the Hog's Head weren't present at the match for one reason or another. Just a couple of thoughts. And as to Hermione being impressed, the Patronus conjured at the match was not done in real conditions, ie there were no actual dementors present. That Harry, in the face of a hundred of the soul sucking fiends, managed to produce a Patronus when it was much more difficult, is a very impressive feat indeed. Now Becki; To add to Meri's thoughts, if the majority of the students have never studied Patroni, (Patronuses, Patronus') then perhaps they wouldn't know what it was even if they saw it. Plus, Harry was on his way up, for as the crowd new, anyone could have conjured it up. And even though they were not real, Harry thought them to be real,. But another question just came to mind. Why would Cho, who Harry was playing at the time, looking at the ground to even see the fake! dementors? Harry was on the snitches tail, just about to capture it and she is looking at the ground? Could she be cheating!Cho? I don't really believe that but it does make you wonder... Becki From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 16 13:19:24 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:19:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113135 > > >> Carol, who will be very, very disappointed if Snape rejoins > Voldemort > > and very sad if he dies. > > > Alla: > > Believe it or not, this part I absolutely agree with. I just want > Snape away from chidren , especially from Harry at the end. > > And he lived happily ever after. :o) Pippin: But Harry, at the end, won't be a child any more. Even without an epilogue, he'll be nearly eighteen at the end of the seventh book, and he'll have lived as a legally adult wizard for nearly a year (assuming he survives, of course). Though Harry has every reason to resent the way Snape treats him, I will still be disappointed in Harry if he does not stop behaving like a resentful child by that time. Even if Snape is still acting like a resentful child himself. It would be so childish of Harry to say, "I'll act like a grown-up if he does." I'd like to see Harry forgive the child within himself for being frightened of Snape, and then perhaps he can start seeing Snape as not so scary. I mean, the kid's fought Voldemort -- isn't it about time he stopped being intimidated by Snape? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 13:23:19 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:23:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. WasRe: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (was re:time-turning) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113136 > Alla: > snip > Do you think that if in this scene Rowling indeed foreshadows > something, which may come up during final battle, Snape has some > knowledge about it? > Potioncat: Yes, we have criss-crossing threads here, dont' we? JKR set us up to simply think Snape is a mean bully of a teacher, but in fact, he is all that and more. I think Snape expects potions to play a big part in the downfall of LV or the protection of Harry. If he was, as many think, one of LV's potionmakers, he would know something involved in LV's attempt at preventing death. Either that or JKR is foreshadowing it, and it will be coincidence that Snape made such a point. But think of this, Snape taught them expelliarmus (bet he regrets that!) and polyjuice, and about werewolves (wait a minute, just had a bout of movie contamination.) And all these things have proved to be important. > > >snipping my portion of post> > Alla: > > Really? I am trying to remember my school years, which was a little > more than decade ago and if teacher took something from you in > class, she usually gave it back at the end, even if it was a note, > book or magazine. snip Potioncat: Well, it was a lot more than a decade ago that I was in school in the US. But that brings up a point that comes up a lot. Our group has had very different school experiences based on when we attended school. Punishments that shock younger members were taken for granted by the older ones. JKR has done a very interesting job of mixing up time in the WW. I wonder if she's done that just for the fun of it, or if the mixed time has a different purpose? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 13:27:05 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:27:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113137 Angie wrote: > Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are > dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? I can see > Petunia being estranged from her parents, but I can't see James or > Lily's parents not attempting to take care of Harry if they were > alive. Potioncat: I've been meaning to look for a quote that Lupin makes in connection with another thread. Not sure which book it's in but he says something about "LV came to kill the last of the Potters..." Which has always made me wonder if LV/TR had a grudge against the Potter family and if a large number had died at his orders. Potioncat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 13:47:30 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040916134730.86318.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113138 > Hannah: > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way. > For me, the real question is: Why did Lucius wait until the beginning of the school year to get the diary to Hogwarts? According to Dobby: "There is a plot, Harry Potter. A plot to make most terrible things happen at Hogwarts...Dobby has known it for months, sir." If Dobby's known it for months, why has Lucius waited so long to put it in play? And it's interesting that he didn't just give the diary to Snape and get him to plant it someplace where a kid could "accidently" find it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 13:43:05 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:43:05 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113139 Dumbledad: > Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his > education, and you know that he was brought up by his grandmother > because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside in a > mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats > Neville? > Potioncat: Hi, Dumbledad, haven't seen your name in a while. I think McGonagall believes in the "Life is Tough Get Over It" philosophy. Similar to Gram. She reminds me of Merilla(sp) in "Anne of Green Gables." From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 14:05:11 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040916140511.24362.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113140 > sad1199 again: > > My point was that while teaching Harry at school Trelawney says > that she thinks he is born in mid-winter (under Saturn). But she > made the prophecy about a boy born in the last days of July and > then Harry bounced Voldemort's curse back at him. She, being a > person of knowledge, should be able to dedeuce that Harry was the > boy from the > prophecy and know that he was born in July. And wasn't there > something about Dumbledore letting her live at Hogwarts because she > made the prophecy? So, it would seem that Dumbledore would have at > least told her what she prophecized... Trelawney goes into a trance when she makes real prophecies; she doesn't remember them or the contents of the prophecies. Had she known that she had accurately predicted the downfall of the Dark Lord then she would have told the whole world about it and there would have been nothing secret about the prophecy at all. JKR would have had to come up with a new plot line for OOTP. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Thu Sep 16 14:14:57 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:14:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113141 > Potioncat: > SS/PS, first page of chapter 8: > ...Whispers followed Harry from the moment he left his dormitory the > next day. People lining up outside classrooms stood on tiptoe to > get a look at him, or doubled back to pass him in the corridors > again, staring. Harry wished they wouldn't, because he was trying > to conentrate on finding his way to classes. > > > I'm sure Snape saw this attention. Add to it this paraphrase: > "Your father died, too arrogant to believe Black was the traitor..." This tells me a couple of things. James knew about the attack because he was told Black was a traitor. (That's why they were living in a muggle area, right?) Also, Snape knew that James had been told. Was he the one that told DD about the attack? When Snape found out there was a traitorous friend of James', was he the one that assumed that the traitor was Black? Was he the one that told DD with a two fold goal, 1. Pay James his life debt back and 2. Prove to DD that protecting Black years before had only led to further attempts at murder. Did Snape plan on defecting from LV's camp or just get talked into it by DD. > Snape knows (although we don't and Harry doesn't) what James was > like. He isn't the only person on staff who expects Harry to be > like his parents, but he may be the only one who expects that > behavior to be bad. I love this part. James was everyone's hero, for reason's we all know. Snape must have felt like he was the only one that knew the "real" James Potter. The boy/man that taunted him and made his life miserable, and got away with it. He wanted to nip that behavior in the bud, when it came to Harry, an even more famous (and loved) Potter. Casey From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 14:04:51 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:04:51 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <20040916134730.86318.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113142 Magda: > And it's interesting that he didn't just give the diary to Snape and > get him to plant it someplace where a kid could "accidently" find it. Potioncat: Oh, good question! For the all the ideas out there that Snape has dinner at the Malfoys each week, they don't seem to be working together do they? Or has Harry just not seen it? Well, let's see. Lucius is acting on his own agenda and doesn't want Snape in on it? Lucius doesn't know that Snape was a DE and doesn't yet trust him? info? I was always puzzled by the explanation that Malfoy was trying to discredit Arthur. And that could be the reason. But was DD misleading Malfoy? DD let Malfoy know that DD knew who gave the diary to Giny. But does DD know it was for a different reason? Can you tell I don't do mysteries or spy stories very often? Potioncat From sad1199 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 14:28:09 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:28:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Letters to Children with Muggle Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > If my child got a letter stating that he/she had been accepted to a > school for witchraft or wizardry, I don't know if I'd be happy about > it. Does the school assume that everyone who receives such a letter > will be overjoyed and will enroll their child? > > Or maybe those families who don't want their children enrolled are > simply horrified, like the Dursleys, and keep it to themselves? > > It just seems like a risky business to me when the MOM works to > prevent the Muggles from knowing about the wizarding world. > > Angie sad1199 replies: It seems to me that Hogwarts only sends out 10 letters a year per house (i.e. Gryffindor, etc.). Now, I don't know how I figured that out but at one time I did. I think that for the most part witch and wizard families get letters and very few muggle families do. Of course, for the sake of our story and this particular time line there are quite a few muggle families involved. Have a Happy Love Filled Day. sad1199 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 14:30:13 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:30:13 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113144 Susan snipped: > > Again, if I'm right about this, then I wonder whether Voldy has > > been schnookered or is aware that Lucius truly *is* "slippery"? Snow: > Since Lucius is so much like him, how could Voldy realize or > differentiate between allegiance to himself and Lucius's self- > indulgence to the same goal? Wouldn't Lucius's apparent behavior > appear to be that of dedication if their ideals are the same? > > Not attempting to argue at all, just some thoughts to add to your > own. I'm as curious as to why Voldy dismissed Lucius's behavior as > you. SSSusan: In one way, it might be simple to determine it--use his legillimency skills on Lucius. I mean, I wonder how cool Lucius can stay when lying to the Dark Lord directly? But, really, Hannah said everything I would have liked to say about Lucius & Voldy in #113130. I heartily second her thoughts. Siriusly Snapey Susan From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 14:35:18 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:35:18 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113145 There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. Snow From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 14:40:07 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:40:07 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Dumbledad: > > Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his > > education, and you know that he was brought up by his grandmother > > because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside in > a > > mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats > > Neville? > > > > Potioncat: > Hi, Dumbledad, haven't seen your name in a while. > > I think McGonagall believes in the "Life is Tough Get Over It" > philosophy. Similar to Gram. She reminds me of Merilla(sp) > in "Anne of Green Gables." Also, she knows all about Harry's history and doesn't hesitate punishing him: Is SS she takes off all those house points for the dragon incident and gives him a detention. In CoS she gives him detention for flying the car into the Whomping Willow. In OotP she doesn't intervene when DU is clearly abusing her powers over Harry. So she is just a very strict teacher. She has a soft spot sometimes (and she may even demonstrate this to Neville, we just don't see it, after all he is allowed to go to Hogsmeade again). Meri From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 16 15:05:04 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:05:04 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > It is also possible that the regular stuff didn't tell Lupin for similar reasons, or that some of the stuff really didn't know (I'm pretty sure McGonagall did) but that doesn't change the fact that at least 200 wizards (and everybody they told) did know about it.< Pippin: And you're contending that none of those people, the two hundred (and everybody they told), were Hogwarts parents, when it's the only wizarding school in Britain? ::boggles:: Neri: > Also, note that after the Pensieve scene in GoF, DD asked Harry not to tell about Neville's parents (probably only out of consideration for Neville's feelings, as this "secret" also wasn't much of secret) > BUT he never told him not to mention that Snape is an ex-DE who changed sides and spied after LV. DD doesn't even look bothered when he finds that Harry learned it. It really doesn't look like it is that much of a secret.< Pippin: Dumbledore knows he can trust in the Trio's discretion about something like this. And even if the Trio blabbed, who'd believe them? No one's going to take the word of three fourteen year old wizards, when everyone knows they have a grudge against Snape. According to Sirius it was Karkaroff who betrayed all those DE's and Snape was never even suspected. I'd say the records of the trial were altered, and the memories of those who were there, with the exception of Dumbledore, were altered too. If so, then even Mad-eye Moody wouldn't remember the truth. We've seen that the Order isn't too dainty to use memory charms ...remember Marietta? And they've been used on far larger numbers of people. The largest batch of the previous century was done on a beach full of Muggles at Ilfracombe (FBAWTFT) (which I gather is a very crowded place). But we've seen they're just as effective on wizards. . > Neri: > DD looked into Kreacher's mind to find the truth, and probably consider it proof enough for himself, if not for any official court. He knew enough about Lucius to continue the investigation in other ways. If Lucius is bewitched it is certainly important to know how and by whom. >Lucius was clearly the head of the pro-Voldemort faction and he was working against DD. Other governors told DD that Lucius had threatened them and their families. It just seems odd that DD does nothing about Lucius Malfoy. < Pippin: Let's be clear. Lucius did *not* openly suport Lord Voldemort. That would not have been ... prudent, as he reminds Draco. It is disgusting to be a racist, but it is not against the law (nor do I think Dumbledore would punish anyone for their beliefs, no matter how misguided and evil they might be.) Neither does it seem that any of the school governors were willing to accuse Lucius openly. He was kicked off the board of governors, not tried for blackmail. Smells of a deal, doesn't it? Resign quietly, Lucius, and we won't make a stink. Even if it could be proved that Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, it could not be proven that he himself was not under its spell. I do not think Dumbledore believes that, I'm just pointing out there's not enough of a case to convince the Ministry. Have we ever seen Dumbledore take the law into his own hands to punish someone? He much prefers giving people enough rope to hang themselves. I agree that there's a Snape Malfoy connection and Dumbledore finds it valuable, but I think it's white world, or was until the end of GoF. That is, Snape and Malfoy were associated, but neither knew the other was a member of Voldemort's Inner Circle during the Voldemort era. Afterwards, Lucius claimed, not that he had never been a Death Eater, but that he had been forced to become one by the Imperius Curse, as some people undoubtedly were. IMO, Snape never believed this, and it drove him half-mad to have to behave as if he did in order to keep up his lap-dog role. It would be like trying to act as if he were fond of Harry. Thus the sudden movement when Harry finally excuses him from the charade. Pippin who admits Neri's explanation is simpler, but thinks that it doesn't account for all the facts in evidence From squeakinby at tds.net Thu Sep 16 15:14:34 2004 From: squeakinby at tds.net (squeakinby) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:14:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR web site update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4149ADDA.4060906@tds.net> No: HPFGUIDX 113148 snow15145 wrote: >There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper >that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble >on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > > There are 2 new things to pick up which I found but didn't seem to get me anything--waaaa! I want a balloon! Jem From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 15:09:06 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:09:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113149 Carol: > It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the > Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the > class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry > (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. SSSusan: I know this is off the main topic of what you, Alla, Potioncat & others are discussing, but when I see this comment, I just have to say "STOP!" I would argue, Carol, that we do NOT know this! Yes, Lily's sacrifice protected him--I do believe that was essential--but how do we know that there wasn't *also* Something About Harry in addition to that charm? Perhaps Lily's protective charm is what prevented Harry from dying but it was the Something About Harry that caused the actual rebound that vaporized Voldy? This is ancient magic, we've been told, but do we know of any other witch or wizard who survived an AK before, ever? It seems not. So I would argue that it's reasonable to consider that it might have required the combination of Lily's ancient magic sacrifice-charm AND the Something About Harry to have accomplished it. Until told directly otherwise by JKR, I don't think I will ever give up the idea that there WAS something special about Harry from the get- go. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 15:42:20 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:42:20 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113150 Snow wrote: > There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper > that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble > on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > Potioncat: OK. Gum wrappers in the rubbish which reveal lies...so, are Alice's wrappers rubbish or a message? From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 15:47:32 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:47:32 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update In-Reply-To: <4149ADDA.4060906@tds.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, squeakinby wrote: > snow15145 wrote: > > >There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper > >that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble > >on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > > > > > There are 2 new things to pick up which I found but didn't seem to get > me anything--waaaa! I want a balloon! > > Jem I found the eggshells. What else is there? Meri From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 15:47:07 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:47:07 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > sad1199 here: > > 4. I still think Fudge is a bad guy. He always seems to do the wrong > thing at the right time for the bad guys. For instance, WHY, WHY, > WHY would he bring the dementor in to give the Soul Kiss to Barty > Jr.? So no one would hear the TRUTH, of course! Again, the truth is > only known by a select few because of Fudge. There was something I > didn't like about Fudge in PoA but, I don't have that book in front > of me now. It was something about why is he so nice to Harry when > Sirius is loose and then doesn't believe Harry later, or something > like that. Anyway, my point is I believe Fudge is a.) one of the > evil ones or b.) under an Imperious Curse or some other curse (by > whom?). > Alshain (the following text is but my opinion, of course): Or c. what Lenin used to call "a useful idiot". Oh, Fudge is a bad guy allright, but you don't have to be a Death Eater in disguise or under the Imperius curse to be a bad guy. I consider Fudge as a politico on a post he isn't suited for (remember, it was mostly an accident that he got the job. Had not Crouch sr. experienced a drop in popularity, Dumbledore said no etc. Fudge wouldn't be where he is today.) He's second choice, and he knows it very well. Unfortunately his talent is smaller than his love for power, so he gets desperate when something happens that rocks his precious status quo and it's demanded that he actually do something that might risk his position. His treatment of Harry is perfectly in-character as well. In PoA he views Harry as the Saviour of the Wizarding World, a naive child who can turn into a valuable ally one day. Ergo, he has to be kept safe and undisturbed as much as possible, and it's no sacrifice at all for Fudge to do so. Indeed, being seen as one of the mentors and protectors of The Boy Who Lived is only going to increase his status. But starting from GoF, Harry becomes inconvenient. Taking him seriously means that Fudge will have to make significant changes in his behaviour, make unpleasant decisions, even face his own shortcomings, and Fudge rather uses every dirty trick there is to keep people from believing Harry and demanding a change. Fudge's essential characteristics haven't changed at all -- he still thinks first and foremost of himself and about how he's going to stay in power. Only the situation has changed. I like Fudge just fine the way he is and haven't any wish to see him revealed as a Death Eater. The cynic and political scientist in me enjoys the way he's written. Alshain From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 16:03:22 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:03:22 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Snow wrote: > > There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum > wrapper > > that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful > marble > > on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > > > > > Potioncat: > OK. Gum wrappers in the rubbish which reveal lies...so, are Alice's > wrappers rubbish or a message? Snow: No that's just where `gum-ma' keeps throwing them when Alice gives them to Neville. It struck me when I looked at this new page with all the wrappers that were crinkled that it looked kind of like the word Gram. Then I thought of how babies don't say Grandma correctly some even say gum-ma. Maybe Neville, when he was a baby, called Gram Gum- ma and Alice is trying to make him remember. I wonder if it could be just that simple of a clue. From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 16:07:12 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:07:12 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113154 emrsing wrote: Ihave just finished re-reading the whole HP series for the 4th time. And now that I have discovered HP4GU, the HP Lexicon, etc., am starting again with a more "critical" reading. One question that comes up for me that I haven't seen addressed anywhere is, what is the significance of Hagrid's title being "Keeper of the Keys" and Grounds at Hogwarts. The only KEY we have seen him carry (to the best of my memory) is the key to Harry's vault at Gringott's. And he certainly held several key pieces of information that Harry, Hermione, and Ron used in solving the mysteries in SS. But, is there some significance beyond this? After all, Dumbledore did say that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Does he perhaps hold the key to the whole mystery? Any thoughts or theories out there? Leah: I feel sure this has cropped up before, but an (admittedly cursory) search of the archives couldn't find anything. I too am unable to think of any canon showing Hagrid locking up around the castle- I would tend to think of that as Filch's job, and I think that we have seen the latter with keys. If there is some sort of analogy attached to this title, I suppose the most obvious would be St Peter, who was given the keys of heaven and hell; the crossed keys are now the symbol of the papacy. I'm not sure where we go from there though- Hagrid as 'the rock'- possible, Hagrid as a denier, Hagrid with powers of judgement? Peter became the Vicar or substitute for Christ on earth- are we meant to see Hagrid as a fallible substitute for Dumbledore. It would also be possible for the keeping of the keys to put Hagrid in some sort of porter/gatekeeper role- he is Keeper of the Grounds and Keys. There is the porter in 'Macbeth' who calls himself the porter of hell, and somehow in association with Hagrid, the idea seems to call up some sort of underworld association- I suppose it's Fluffy that does it. Given the number of visits to underworlds Harry has already made, this might have something in it. Finally, there's the locked room in the MOM. Does Hagrid have any actual or symbolic key to that? Sorry, I don't think I've been very helpful. Perhaps someone else can take it further. Leah From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 15:29:10 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:29:10 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <20040916134730.86318.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113155 Hannah: > > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school > > shut down. > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods > > along the way. Magda: > For me, the real question is: > Why did Lucius wait until the beginning of the school year to get > the diary to Hogwarts? > > And it's interesting that he didn't just give the diary to Snape and > get him to plant it someplace where a kid could "accidently" find > it. SSSusan: If you're saying you just wonder why Lucius didn't think of asking Snape to do this, I understand your point. If you're saying you wonder why Snape wouldn't willingly participate in such a scheme, then my answer is, "I absolutely don't think he would. He'd come up with an excuse not to." In my mind, Snape DID switch sides - fully. I don't think he would be interested in participating in a scheme for any of the possible Lucius motives we've come up with. That is, I don't think he'd participate in a scheme designed to try to kill Mudbloods OR to try to oust DD OR to try to bring Voldy back OR to discredit Arthur Weasley [hmmm - he doesn't seem to pick on Ron much, does he?]. No way. He may be nasty & sadistic & a bearer of grudges for eons, but he's no longer into these kinds of shenanigans (imho). Siriusly Snapey Susan From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 16 16:43:36 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: Trelawney (was Re: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge) Message-ID: <001301c49c0c$508c5050$5f90d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113156 sad1199 said: "My point was that while teaching Harry at school Trelawney says that she thinks he is born in mid-winter (under Saturn). But she made the prophecy about a boy born in the last days of July and then Harry bounced Voldemort's curse back at him. She, being a person of knowledge, should be able to dedeuce that Harry was the boy from the prophecy and know that he was born in July. And wasn't there something about Dumbledore letting her live at Hogwarts because she made the prophecy? So, it would seem that Dumbledore would have at least told her what she prophecized..." DuffyPoo: Trelawney genuinely seems not to know what she says during her prophecies. In the case of the one HP heard, she wasn't even aware she made a prophecy and denied she would ever say anything so far-fetched. I don't think there is anything in canon about DD letting her live at Hogwarts because she made the prophecy although that is a pet theory of mine. She is there for her own protection, 'no place safer than Hogwarts' and all that. While she may not remember either making the prophecy, or the exact wording, DD wanted neither LV nor his DEs to get hold of her to 'force' it out of her as was done with Bertha Jorkins. I don't believe DD would tell her the exact wording of the prophecy for the same reason I don't think he has told anyone, other than HP. Knowing the exact wording would put people at risk. I'm sure several people know *of* the prophecy and maybe even the general gist of the thing, but I think only DD and HP know the whole thing - if we've been told the whole thing. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 16:48:19 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:48:19 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sneak Mark (was "Slytherin" Hermione?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113157 My opinion: Hermione knows the story of how and why Lily and James Potter were betrayed by a trusted friend who sold them out to Voldemort because of his own cowardice (and possibly for his own gain). She also realizes fully how dangerous Umbridge is to Harry and to Hogwarts (remember, she caught onto this almost immediately, during Umbridge's first speech). She realized that Dumbledore's Army was vulnerable to a similar disaster, and took steps to insure that if a traitor got into their midst they would know a) that it had happened and b) who it was. Note that if either of these facts had been known to the original Order of the Phoenix, several lives, including those of Harry's parents, might have been saved. It is quite true that a little more security at the beginning might have been good, but on the other hand, the only way to do that is to require that each new member is vouched for by an old member -- which wouldn't have kept out Marietta. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 16:52:20 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:52:20 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113158 "lady_galadriel14" points out: >I was re-reading PoA and noticed an inconsistency. At the end of >PoA, Dumbledore says something to Harry about the unusual form his >Patronus took when it charged down Malfoy at the Quidditch match, >and made the comment that Prongs rode again. Obviously this means >Harry's Patronus was clearly a stag. Why then, at the end of the >book, did Hermione seem so surprised and impressed to find out that >Harry could produce a Patronus? Also, in the meeting at the Hog's >Head in OotP, everyone present is shocked that Harry can produce a >corporeal Patronus. Wouldn't most, if not all, of these people have >been at that Quidditch match and seen what happened? It's hard to >believe no one would have noticed, even if they didn't happen to be >watching Harry at that moment. I think a gigantic bright silver >shape charging someone down would catch your eye. Yes, it probably did. But I suspect that a) most of the students didn't know what it was and b) most of the people at the Quidditch match, student or teacher, didn't know it had come from Harry. Those teachers who realized what had happened probably assumed Dumbledore had produced it. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 17:13:43 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:13:43 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > Dumbledad: > > > Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his > > > education, and you know that he was brought up by his > grandmother > > > because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside > in > > a > > > mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats > > > Neville? > > > > > > > Potioncat: > > Hi, Dumbledad, haven't seen your name in a while. > > > > I think McGonagall believes in the "Life is Tough Get Over It" > > philosophy. Similar to Gram. She reminds me of Merilla(sp) > > in "Anne of Green Gables." > > Also, she knows all about Harry's history and doesn't hesitate > punishing him: > Is SS she takes off all those house points for the dragon incident > and gives him a detention. > In CoS she gives him detention for flying the car into the Whomping > Willow. > In OotP she doesn't intervene when DU is clearly abusing her powers > over Harry. > So she is just a very strict teacher. She has a soft spot sometimes > (and she may even demonstrate this to Neville, we just don't see it, > after all he is allowed to go to Hogsmeade again). Alshain agrees with aforementioned speakers and adds: What was McGonagall to have done in the PoA situation? Given what she knew then, Neville's forgetfulness could have led to at least one, possibly several murders. Even if she loves her Gryffindors (tough love, obviously) she isn't coddling them and isn't playing favourites. The only time she's relented was in CoS when Harry and Ron ostensibly wanted to see Hermione, but I'll argue that she wasn't her usual cantankerous self at that point. Alshain From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 17:15:38 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:15:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113160 Carol asked: I wonder if "wonderful" means what we Americans usually use it to mean, something really, really good... I would refer her to Terry Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies". Writing about how words have degenerated, he says: Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. Elves are terrific. They beget terror. The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning. No-one ever said elves are nice. Elves are bad Terry Pratchett - "Lords and Ladies" So it may be quite possible that Dumbledore's understanding of the word "wonderful" may be somewhat different from the meaning we (on both sides of the pond) now attach to it Sylvia (who has to admit that though Pratchett's elves are nasty people, they are the essence of cool). From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 17:42:26 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:42:26 -0000 Subject: Words (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113161 Carol asked: > > I wonder if "wonderful" means what we Americans usually use it to > > mean, something really, really good... Sylvia: > I would refer her to Terry Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies". Writing > about how words have degenerated, he says: > Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. > Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels > Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. > Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. > Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. > Elves are terrific. They beget terror. > > The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, > and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that > have changed their meaning. > No-one ever said elves are nice. > Elves are bad > > Terry Pratchett - "Lords and Ladies" > > So it may be quite possible that Dumbledore's understanding of the > word "wonderful" may be somewhat different from the meaning we (on > both sides of the pond) now attach to it > > Sylvia (who has to admit that though Pratchett's elves are nasty > people, they are the essence of cool). SSSusan: I would agree with Sylvia. As Carol wondered about "wonderful" and as I read Sylvia's response, I kept thinking about Ollivander's comment about Voldy: that he had done "great" things - "terrible, but great." I got into a HUGE "shouting match" on another list over that use of "great" by Ollivander and equating it to describing Hitler. Horrible leaders can still do "great" things, as in "remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness" [Merriam-Webster, 3rd definition]. The things Hitler accomplished were "great" in that sense, though his methods were heinous and the consequences were beyond horrifying. Words such as "great" and "wonderful," Sylvia is right, are ones we should probably attend to. Siriusly Snapey Susan From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 10:13:27 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:13:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: <20040916023457.57721.qmail@web90008.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113162 > Angie wrote: > Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are > dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? Hannah: Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are indeed dead. On the World Book Day chat, someone called Rita asked; 'What happened to Harry's grandparents? Will we ever learn about them?' JKR replied; 'They're all dead and not particularly important to the story, although you will find out a little bit more.' Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 10:51:46 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:51:46 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113163 Dumbledad wrote: > What I don't get is why some of those adults who clearly do know > about the Longbottoms do not treat Neville better? Take McGonagall, she must know Neville's sad family story and have known his parents, but when he indirectly gives Sirius the password to Gryffindor Tower she really really takes it out on him. Where's understanding gone then? Either JKR forgot that McGonagall would be always walking on eggshells with Neville, or McGonagall is pretty nasty. > > Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his > education, and you know that he was brought up by his grandmother > because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside in a mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats > Neville? Hannah now: I'm afraid I disagree with you. Of course Neville has had a hard time, and deserves sympathy, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be treated like any other student. Neville did something very stupid which put himself and his classmates in mortal danger (or at least that was the case from McGonagall's pov, since no one knew then that Black was only after the rat, or that Hermione's cat had stolen the passwords). McGonagall doesn't treat Neville with excessive cruelty. She gives him a harsh, but deserved, punishment. What was she supposed to do? Having asked who left the passwords lying about, and then found out it was Neville, she could hardly smile sweetly and say 'Oh, it was *you* Longbottom, that's OK then.' In the real world, people who commit crimes have often had very unhappy, disturbed lives. But that doesn't give them the right to commit crimes, or make it any better for the victims. Whatever problems Neville has, he still has to be able to learn to act responsibly and take the consequences of his actions. In actual fact, I think not punishing Neville would have made him feel worse. Neville is an hounourable person, and must have felt dreadful about what happened. He would have felt he deserved to be punished and wouldn't have been able to live with himself if he hadn't. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 16 10:30:53 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:30:53 -0000 Subject: Lucius' malfoy's motivation in CoS (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <20040916.033103.1384.9.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113164 >Hannah said: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way. > Aura replied: 4. Maybe he had a completely different plan that just didn't pan out. > >Or, and I hesitate to say, because I know it's natural law in HP verse that everything has deeper meaning, but, what if, this time, it doesn't? What if Lucius just happened to be carrying the diary (just bought or intending to sell it in Knockturn Alley?) and happened to see Ginny and thought, "I wonder what kind of trouble this could brew for those pesky Weasleys?" (except more evilly.) Just sayin, sometimes people do stupid things for no particular reason; may evil Lucius just had a *feeling* hecould brew up some trouble, but he didn't have a real plan. Hannah again now: I do agree with you, Aura, that not *everything* in the HP books can lead on to some incredible conspiracy theory to be revealed in later books (just most things ;-). But this is a bit different. Remember at this stage, Dobby had already appeared in Harry's room warning him that there was a 'plot to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts.' I don't think there's any question that he was referring to the basilisk problem. So clearly there *was* a plot, before the diary was handed out, and this plot had something to do with the Malfoys (since Dobby was their elf). Thus I don't think it was an accident that Malfoy was there in Diagon Alley with that book; he intended to give it to a student. The questions are what he hoped to gain from it, and if it was specifically Ginny or just any susceptible Hogwarts sudent that he intended to pass the diary. Hannah From eschaafin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 17:38:58 2004 From: eschaafin at yahoo.com (Sophie) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:38:58 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <20040916134730.86318.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113165 Magda Grantwich wrote: > And it's interesting that he didn't just give the diary to Snape and > get him to plant it someplace where a kid could "accidently" find it. > I doubt that Lucius would want to give (or share) any of the credit for what he was trying to achieve. (I don't think in the end that teamwork is high up on the DE's list.) And Lucius just figured out he had a flawless plan. As for Lucius' motivation- do you think that he really believed that LV would be back? I'm sure he was quite content being on his own (and probably fancied himself at the top of the DE social ladder.) For that reason, I think he was probably trying to discredit Authur Weasley (pretty much his arch-nemesis) and as a bonus, causing DD some pain. (btw, this is my first post in a year or so; and even then I only posted a few times. Now that I have more free time, I look forward to spending more time here!) Sophie From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 17:54:21 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:54:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Kneasy > The problem is that you have already decided that love is the motive > and the driving force. > It could be duty, courage or sheer bloody-mindedness. Or even hate. > He may be seeking revenge for James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius and a whole > list of casualties that may accrue in books 6 & 7. We've seen Harry bent on revenge twice - in the Shrieking Hut vs. Sirius, and in the MoM vs. Bella. In the first instance, Harry was saved from killing an innocent man by his own reluctance to kill and by Crookshank's loyalty (or sacrificial love? ). In the MoM, his desire for revenge resulted in an Unforgivable curse. And when he waives revenge on Pettigrew, JKR tells us (via DD) that it was right and noble. From all this, how can you seriously speculate that the resolution will come through Harry seeking revenge? Aren't we taught (it's almost hammered into our heads) that revenge is both dangerous and wrong? > > IMO Harry will not have a choice in what he does, though he may > have a choice in 'when'. Voldy is hell bent on killing him in any event, > so Harry is just hanging around for the inevitable showdown. Unless > Harry goes ESE he is going to cop it in the neck. Since he's going to > get killed anyway I can see the up-side of making it count by taking > out Voldy, but I don't see it as a sacrifice. It's the old soldiers maxim > of "Since I'm going anyway, I'll take as many of you with me as I can." > > I tend to subscribe to the attitude of Gen. Patton:- > "Your job is not to die for your country but to make some other > poor bastard die for his." > Is Gen. Patton here analogous to DD or to Harry? In any case, I of course totaly disagree with you. In fact, for me it seems almost obvious that Harry will finaly have to face a choice between killing Voldemort and doing .. well, I don't exactly know, but something else. And he will choose the something else, which will be the thing that brings about Voldemort's downfall. I haven't got a cogent argument to support this, unfortuantely (gut feeling doesn't cut it, I know). Although, there is a kind of negative hint, which is that Harry interprets the prophecy as him having to murder Voldemort (or be murdered by him). BUT, I think in all the books, when Harry thinks he has the solution, he actually doesn't. So, maybe this is evidence supporting my thesis. Naama > > sacrifice. > > Kneasy: > Maybe so. But you've got to admit, there was a downside to her loving > sacrifice whether intended or not. > > > SSS > > The way I'm envisioning the Harry Sacrifice denouement, it wouldn't > > work that way. > > > > So humor me. Let's set the final scenario this way. (And forgive > > the lack of creativity & grace in what's to follow--no time or > > ability to even attempt to make it pretty.) Harry, after two > > torturous years of wondering what he must do, why he must do it, how > > can he get out of it, blah blah blah, finds himself and all his > > fellows IN the final showdown. He has suspected the possibility that > > he might have to die in order to end it all, but damn it, he really > > doesn't want to. In this moment, however, he glances around him, > > sees all these fellows fighting alongside him, considers all these > > people whom he loves deeply. And then, NOT out of sense of duty or > > obligation, but out of deep, sheer love for who they are, for their > > goodness and humanity, he chooses to step up and sacrifice himself. > > He splats, Voldy get annihilated, end of VW2 and Voldy. > > > > What, exactly, is the downside of that kind of love? > > > > Kneasy > The problem is that you have already decided that love is the motive > and the driving force. > It could be duty, courage or sheer bloody-mindedness. Or even hate. > He may be seeking revenge for James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius and a whole > list of casualties that may accrue in books 6 & 7. Which is more likely; > that or saying "I love you Ron," before going out to face the enemy? > Ugh. That'd upset a lot of SHIPpers. > > IMO Harry will not have a choice in what he does, though he may > have a choice in 'when'. Voldy is hell bent on killing him in any event, > so Harry is just hanging around for the inevitable showdown. Unless > Harry goes ESE he is going to cop it in the neck. Since he's going to > get killed anyway I can see the up-side of making it count by taking > out Voldy, but I don't see it as a sacrifice. It's the old soldiers maxim > of "Since I'm going anyway, I'll take as many of you with me as I can." > > I tend to subscribe to the attitude of Gen. Patton:- > "Your job is not to die for your country but to make some other > poor bastard die for his." > > Go for it, Harry! > > Kneasy From joj at rochester.rr.com Thu Sep 16 16:33:41 2004 From: joj at rochester.rr.com (coolbeans3131) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:33:41 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper > that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble > on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > > Snow What I find interesting on the rubbish page is a family tree looking diagram. It has "Harry and Hermione" on the left and "Ron" on the right.Then a line going down from them to "Sirius Black". Then a line going down from him with (I think) "Rubeus Hagrid" and what looks like "something Potter"(?) and a name that's scribbled out. What could this mean? Does it lend any weight to the H/H ship, with Ron going dark or at least a rift between them? Joj, who finds the diagram more intersting than the drawings in the scrapbook. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 18:25:20 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:25:20 -0000 Subject: Colin Creevy/The basilisk attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > These questions *are* troublesome. For one thing, presumably the > Basilisk no-speaka-de-English. I thought one had to speak > Parseltongue for it to respond. Definitely, it took commands in parseltongue. But Ginny was, in some form or other, possessed by Tom. He took her over in a very real sense, since she couldn't remember what she did at those times. It was circumstancial evidence (feathers and blood on her robes) + missing a few hours that caused her to suspect herself. So, Tom did everything, including speaking pareseltongue through Ginny. > whether that's a requirement or not, still, the logistics of a giant > creature like that moving around--getting up from the pipes , quickly > locating the intended target [bec. I *do* believe there were > intendended targets--that it wasn't accidental they were all Muggle- > born] without being seen, getting back down into the Chamber, etc. > How was all this done?? > > And how could Ginny have actually been descending into the Chamber > each time? Remember how far down it was? How Harry/Ron/GL got back > up by being flown by Fawkes? Wouldn't Ginny be constantly filthy? > And if it took Harry speaking Parseltongue to get the sink to "step > aside," then how would Ginny do the same? It almost seems there must > be another way in/out than just Myrtle's bathroom's sink. > > I think perhaps Ginny was communicating with Diary!Tom and that he > either did the calling or gave her instructions (and taught her > Parseltongue????) in order to actually call & direct the Basilisk. > But even if the Basilisk isn't smart enough to seek out an intendend > target - even if it only "knows" to attack the person who's right > there when it arrives - there's still all this logistical stuff to be > explained. > Again, as far as parseltongue goes, it is Tom and not Ginny who is doing the talking. The logistics are problematic, I agree. I've always imagined Ginny releasing the basilisk, and then riding it up the tunnel (or holding it while it pulls her up). Then, when it had done the job, directing it back to the tunnel, but not accompanying it back to the chamber. Filth - well, maybe she (Tom really) used some protective clothing, or maybe she really was dirty a lot, and had to constantly rush and clean herself. Naama From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 16 18:35:34 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:35:34 -0000 Subject: diagram (was: JKR web site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113169 Joj: > What I find interesting on the rubbish page is a family tree > looking diagram. It has "Harry and Hermione" on the left and "Ron" > on the right.Then a line going down from them to "Sirius Black". > Then a line going down from him with (I think) "Rubeus Hagrid" and > what looks like "something Potter"(?) and a name that's scribbled > out. > > What could this mean? Does it lend any weight to the H/H ship, > with Ron going dark or at least a rift between them? > > Joj, who finds the diagram more intersting than the drawings in the > scrapbook. SSSusan: We're perilously close to getting kicked to OT Chatter--and I'm not a member of that--so I'm rushing to say, are you SURE that says "Rubeus Hagrid"? I thought it looked like "Dolores" above and "Hagrid" below?? Also, can't see how it would indicate a SHIP, since it's not like H/H would have Sirius Black as their child! [SB is on the branch below them.] Hmmmmm.... Maybe you're right that that does say "Rubeus Hagrid" and this was some kind of mechanism to help her keep the TT episode of PoA straight. Hahaha! Siriusly Snapey Susan From sad1199 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 19:12:37 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:12:37 -0000 Subject: diagram (was: JKR web site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Joj: > > What I find interesting on the rubbish page is a family tree > > looking diagram. It has "Harry and Hermione" on the left and "Ron" > > on the right.Then a line going down from them to "Sirius Black". > > Then a line going down from him with (I think) "Rubeus Hagrid" and > > what looks like "something Potter"(?) and a name that's scribbled > > out. > > > > What could this mean? Does it lend any weight to the H/H ship, > > with Ron going dark or at least a rift between them? > > > > Joj, who finds the diagram more intersting than the drawings in the > > scrapbook. > > SSSusan: > We're perilously close to getting kicked to OT Chatter--and I'm not a > member of that--so I'm rushing to say, are you SURE that says "Rubeus > Hagrid"? I thought it looked like "Dolores" above and "Hagrid" > below?? > > Also, can't see how it would indicate a SHIP, since it's not like H/H > would have Sirius Black as their child! [SB is on the branch below > them.] > > Hmmmmm.... Maybe you're right that that does say "Rubeus Hagrid" and > this was some kind of mechanism to help her keep the TT episode of > PoA straight. Hahaha! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan sad1199 here: Can't believe I'm breaking the rules. I NEVER do that! But, it looks to me that on the rubbish page is the bottom half of the page we erased to get a drawing of clues and a cauldron. Where is the eraser? Also, are there more fanily tree type diagrams on the home page than before? Under the newspaper and by the links pen? How do you get to OT Chatter? Have a Happy Love Filled Day and I WILL NOT BREAK RULES AGAIN is written in blood on my hand. sad1199 From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 19:13:38 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:13:38 -0000 Subject: diagram (was: JKR web site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113171 > Joj: > > What I find interesting on the rubbish page is a family tree > > looking diagram. > > SSSusan: > We're perilously close to getting kicked to OT Chatter--and I'm not a > member of that--so I'm rushing to say, are you SURE that says "Rubeus > Hagrid"? I thought it looked like "Dolores" above and "Hagrid" > below?? > > Also, can't see how it would indicate a SHIP, since it's not like H/H > would have Sirius Black as their child! [SB is on the branch below > them.] > > Hmmmmm.... Maybe you're right that that does say "Rubeus Hagrid" and > this was some kind of mechanism to help her keep the TT episode of > PoA straight. Hahaha! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Annemehr: Going on the theory that stuff revealed on Jo's site is fair game here just as her interviews are, and that includes the background minutia... I think the diagram is something like a flow chart, for keeping plot lines straight. Remember not so long ago, she said writing the sixth book was going well, and that she was still at the stage where she had charts propped up to keep track of stuff like which clues had to be dropped into which innocent-looking chapters? This looks like Harry and Hermione are telling Ron some stuff, maybe. The next question, of course, is "which book?" It looks like it could be PoA, if Sirius and Pettigrew are on there -- though if that one name is "Pettigrew," it must be abbreviated. Looks more like "Potter," but if it is, it must be a grandparent or something... Come to think of it, though, it just might really *be* rubbish -- it's tucked just under that rough draft of the welcome message with the words crossed out. Annemehr hoping nothing else ever winds up under "toxic" From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 16 19:20:26 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:20:26 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > We've seen Harry bent on revenge twice - in the Shrieking Hut vs. Sirius, and in the MoM > vs. Bella. In the first instance, Harry was saved from killing an innocent man by his own > reluctance to kill and by Crookshank's loyalty (or sacrificial love? ). In the MoM, his > desire for revenge resulted in an Unforgivable curse. And when he waives revenge on > Pettigrew, JKR tells us (via DD) that it was right and noble. From all this, how can you > seriously speculate that the resolution will come through Harry seeking revenge? Aren't we > taught (it's almost hammered into our heads) that revenge is both dangerous and wrong? > Kneasy: Yet he derives such satisfaction from revenging himself for the perceived insults of Draco et al at the end of every book. No? Revenge on Umbridge was sweet - no? He lack of retribution on Pettigrew is right and noble for the very good reason that we strongly suspect Peter has a major part to play in the story arc. Wouldn't do for a key character to disappear too soon. Besides, we haven't yet got to the bottom of what happened at Godric's Hollow. As longer-term readers will know, I don't accept Sirius' word unconditionally. In fact, I don't really trust him. Harry *could* have been about to zap the wrong party. Despite the protests of the kinder-hearted, I have no trouble at all with villains getting their just desserts. Crunch 'em! And IMO just desserts = retribution = revenge. I'd never feel satisfied if Tom/Voldy/Malfoy/Fudge/ just got a slap on the wrist, some counseling and rehabilitation back into society. Oh, no! Flesh dripping off bones, eldritch screams, eyeballs shrivelling, major organs flopping to the floor twitching - all that good stuff. They deserve it, don't they? Right, let 'em have it. > Naama: > Is Gen. Patton here analogous to DD or to Harry? Kneasy: To DD. Harry is the poor bloody infantry who faces death while DD emotes back in his office. > Naama: > In any case, I of course totaly disagree with you. In fact, for me it seems almost obvious > that Harry will finaly have to face a choice between killing Voldemort and doing .. well, I > don't exactly know, but something else. And he will choose the something else, which will be > the thing that brings about Voldemort's downfall. I haven't got a cogent argument to support > this, unfortuantely (gut feeling doesn't cut it, I know). > Although, there is a kind of negative hint, which is that Harry interprets the prophecy as > him having to murder Voldemort (or be murdered by him). BUT, I think in all the books, when > Harry thinks he has the solution, he actually doesn't. So, maybe this is evidence supporting > my thesis. > Kneasy: Maybe. But remember it's DD who tells him he has to kill Voldy or vice versa. You've assumed DD was right over Harry being right and noble for not killing Peter, are you saying he's wrong now? Perhaps DD got it the wrong way round - he should have killed Peter (in which case Voldy would have taken about 50 years to get back from Albania) and that he doesn't have to kill Voldy now, Sybill got it all wrong. Harry's not exactly enamoured of the idea - but let's face it, what does Harry know? Not a lot. DD's been leading him around by the nose for years. Harry thinks he has the solution but doesn't. Yes, quite possible. He thinks he knows how to beat Voldy, is wrong, and dies. Sad, that. No wonder JKR won't confirm that Harry lives. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Thu Sep 16 19:27:21 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:27:21 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > There is a new link on the site the rubbish bin. It is a gum wrapper > that can be found near the tea cup. There is also a colorful marble > on the desk top I don't recall seeing before. > > Snow Pat here: Well, I cheated and looked at the Leaky Cauldron for the things you need to find. I won't post it here since some might prefer to do it on their own. I will say that finding some of the things takes a ton of patience. As in you have to wait for Peeves to come through on several different pages--Extras, Main Desk, and the Rubbish one as well. Then on the Fan site there is something to move--oops, giving away too much, but you get the idea. To get the new thing for your scrapbook, you have to find three things--and they are on different pages. And yes, on the rubbish page, there is a blank paper that shows you what you are looking for. Hint: just try clicking on lots of things to see if they do anything--and then wait around for Peeves. *winks, and still wonders about the 12 numbers posted on the Leaky Cauldron* Pat From melaniertay at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 20:04:06 2004 From: melaniertay at yahoo.com (Mel) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:04:06 -0000 Subject: diagram (was: JKR web site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113174 > sad1199 here: > > Can't believe I'm breaking the rules. I NEVER do that! But, it > looks to me that on the rubbish page is the bottom half of the page > we erased to get a drawing of clues and a cauldron. Where is the > eraser? Also, are there more fanily tree type diagrams on the home > page than before? Under the newspaper and by the links pen? How do > you get to OT Chatter? 1. There's a link to OT Chatter from the home page here at this site. 2. There is no eraser. See below for spoiler: S P O I L E R S Click on the center of the pen on the left and it'll break, spilling ink onto the paper. Mel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 21:36:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:36:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: . > > I love this part. James was everyone's hero, for reason's we all > know. Snape must have felt like he was the only one that knew > the "real" James Potter. The boy/man that taunted him and made his > life miserable, and got away with it. He wanted to nip that behavior > in the bud, when it came to Harry, an even more famous (and loved) > Potter. > Alla: But that is my problem. First of all , even if James made Snape's life miserable, I think that Snape made his fair effort to make James' life miserable in return. How about Snape's exercising a little of rational thought and realising that James did not really get away with it? He is dead. I know, Snape would not have been Snape if he started thinking rationally about Potters. :) What behaviour of Harry Snape wanted to nip in the bud? What arrogance? Was Snape afraid of Harry by any chance? How does Snape know that Harry is arrogant, when he just arrives at school. Potioncat argued that Snape did not know about Harry's life at Dursleys, but then was he briefed by Dumbledore about Harry's role in what is coming or wasn't he? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 21:39:33 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:39:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I'd like to see Harry forgive the child within himself for being > frightened of Snape, and then perhaps he can start seeing > Snape as not so scary. I mean, the kid's fought Voldemort -- isn't > it about time he stopped being intimidated by Snape? > Alla: I said that many times, I am positive that Harry will forgive Snape at the end, even if he still behaves as a sadist, BUT what do you mean "Harry forgive himself for being frightened of Snape"? Do you mean that Harry was wrong somehow to be frightened of him? And isn't it very telling of Snape's character that child who fought Voldemort is intimidated of him. Snape must be very proud. :o) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 16 22:03:16 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:03:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113177 Alla: > > Potioncat argued that Snape did not know about Harry's life at > Dursleys, but then was he briefed by Dumbledore about Harry's role in what is coming or wasn't he? Potioncat: When you get right down to it, we don't know what Snape knows. Even if he knows that Harry is to be LV's downfall, does he know how the Durley's treated him? I'm not trying to justify Snape's behavior, just trying to understand it. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 16 22:57:15 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:57:15 +0000 Subject: Neville's dumb mistake (was Why don't Ron and Ginny know?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113178 Dumbledad asked: >Imagine that you are teaching a boy who is struggling with his >education, and you know that he was brought up by his grandmother >because his parents were tortured close to death and now reside in a >mental home. Would you be able to treat him as McGonagall treats >Neville? I certainly would. "Abysmally foolish" doesn't even begin to describe it -- and Neville is not stupid. (If it had been Crabbe or Goyle, no one would have been surprised.) As far as everyone knew, there's a deranged murderer somewhere in the area, targeting one of Neville's roommates. (Yes, we know differently now, but *they didn't.*) This deranged murderer is a former Hogwarts student and therefore can be expected to know his way around, and in fact he has already gotten into Hogwarts once. The password system is one of the chief obstacles to unauthorized personnel even when there isn't a crisis. And Neville a) writes the passwords down and b) loses them and they c) fall into the murderer's hands! Note that even if he'd written them down, if he'd kept them on his person, Crookshanks wouldn't have been able to get them. I think McGonagall's punishment was no more than deserved, especially the part where he was no longer allowed to use the passwords since he'd been so irresponsible with them. And as Neville becomes more of a force in Dumbledore's Army and in the fight against Voldemort, it will probably be just as well that he learns about proper security measures and to be more careful about what he writes down and leaves lying around. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx From cincimaelder at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 23:24:24 2004 From: cincimaelder at yahoo.com (Darby) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:24:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Carol: > > It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the > > Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the > > class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry > > (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. > Perhaps Lily's protective charm is what prevented Harry from dying > but it was the Something About Harry that caused the actual rebound > that vaporized Voldy? This is ancient magic, we've been told, but do we know of any other witch or wizard who survived an AK before, > ever? It seems not. So I would argue that it's reasonable to > consider that it might have required the combination of Lily's > ancient magic sacrifice-charm AND the Something About Harry to have > accomplished it. > > Until told directly otherwise by JKR, I don't think I will ever give > up the idea that there WAS something special about Harry from the get- > go. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I agree with what you are saying here. In fact DD points out many times that Harry has something special about him that VM can't stand. You asked... "do we know of any other witch or wizard who survived an AK before, ever? It seems not." You are correct! In fact, in GoF, when Moody teaches Avada Kedavra, he states that only one person is known to have survived it, Harry. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 23:29:09 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:29:09 -0000 Subject: Neville's dumb mistake (was Why don't Ron and Ginny know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > As far as everyone knew, there's a deranged murderer somewhere in the area, > targeting one of Neville's roommates. (Yes, we know differently now, but > *they didn't.*) This deranged murderer is a former Hogwarts student and > therefore can be expected to know his way around, and in fact he has already > gotten into Hogwarts once. The password system is one of the chief > obstacles to unauthorized personnel even when there isn't a crisis. And > Neville a) writes the passwords down and b) loses them and they c) fall into > the murderer's hands! Note that even if he'd written them down, if he'd > kept them on his person, Crookshanks wouldn't have been able to get them. Just a small quibble: Neville didn't actually *lose* the passwords. Crookshanks stole them from his bedside table. So the passwords were stolen from a place the murderer would supposedly have needed the password to get into in the first place. Neville probably assumed they were perfectly safe there. Of course, I still agree with you and McGonagall about Neville being punished, because once you write down the passwords, you never do know what might happen to them -- after all, a part-kneazle belonging to a housemate might steal them and give them to a lurking animagus! And that may look like sarcasm, but it's not; it's an acknowledgement that the unforeseen may happen. Annemehr From susanadacunha at gmx.net Fri Sep 17 00:16:05 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:16:05 +0100 Subject: Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers) References: Message-ID: <003b01c49c4b$9bde3d90$482f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113181 Angie wrote: "In the OOP, during the dementor attack, Dudley whacks Harry and knocks Harry's wand out of his hand. Harry,desperate, says "Lumos" and the wand lights up anyway, to Harry's surprise. I don't remember any other time since Harry joined HW that he was able to perform magic without a wand (I know about the pre-HW days when the "weird" things happened without him meaning to) and I don't remember any other wizard except DD performing magic without a wand. Does anywone? I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and perhaps a sign of things to come. Wouldn't it be amazing, after all the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a wand?" --------------- I'm sure this was discussed before but searching through messages is exhausting so today I won't - forgive me. I add my opinion hopping it's not something already contested a million times: Any wizard can do magic without his/her wand. But the outcome is not always predictable - Harry feels sorry for the snake and angry at his cousin -zap- a glass vanishes; Harry is furious at his aunt -zap- he insufflates her (his wand has in the trunk, inside the cupboard); Harry needs his things from the cupboard -zap- the door sprang open (his hand inside his trunk, inside the cupboard); Harry needs light to save his life -zap- his wand ignited; and my very favorite: A very young Fred Wesley (about 5 or 6) is furious at his little brother Ron and -zap- he TRANSFIGURES A TEDDY INTO A SPIDER! Now, that's pretty advance magic for a six-year-old and I'm sure he didn't have a wand. I will always imagine an eight year old Hermione writing on a black board in front of a muggle class and an envious classmate throwing a piece of paper to her hair, making her turn. But, of course, nothing would be more important to her than finishing the answer. I imagine the chalk finishing the sentence on its own while she glares at the astonished class, eyes with tears of sadness and fury. (A full day for the MoM obleviators) Anyway, no-wand-magic (I like to call it hysterical magic) it's probably more common in children because they have their emotions at the surface and they can't control them. I don't think it means a wizard is powerful. Other possible examples of hysterical magic: Flying Ford Anglia - the car was dismantled and put back together by Mr. Weasley who bewitched it to fly, be invisible and probably to run without gas (considering it was still running after months in the forest). It was never (willingly) bewitch to have a mind of his own. Wet, it *decides* to drive into the forest when *upset* with the beating and *decides* to rescue Ron and Harry from the spiders. Could Mr. Weasley have put in something else out of excitement? Or maybe Ron could have done it before breaking his wand. He *was* in a life threatening situation. Lily's sacrifice - I'd rather think she was smart enough to trick Voldy into signing a contract (her life for Harry's - I read this theory somewhere in this site. Sorry for not quoting). But my second favourite theory is that she did hysterical magic: in *intending* to stop Voldemort from EVER killing Harry, she cast a blood protection spell that she didn't even know existed (an ancient form of magic that is powerful enough to stop an AK). Marauders Map - given the size of the castle and surroundings, I always imagined the map as a *small* piece of parchment that shows the paths that the wizard *intends* to see. (Explaining the 'why wasn't Pettigrew spotted before' and the 'how can it show several floors' things.) So, after activating the map with a wand, there would be some magical interaction between the wizard and the map that doesn't require a wand (though I admit the map could guess the wizards intent, since it guesses passwords). Flying in brooms - though a broom is bewitch to fly, it requires a wizard to do it (magic carpets don't - that's why they're illegal). But no wand is required. The list could go on, but it's late. Susana 1h30 - I have to stop doing this to myself... From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Fri Sep 17 00:40:54 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:54 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > sad1199 here: > > > 1. [snip]... Trelawney thinks > that Harry was born in mid-winter. GoF (Amer. paperback, page 200) > "I was saying, my dear, that you were clearly born under the > baleful influence of Saturn," said Professor Trelawney... ...I > think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in mid- > winter?" [snip] BUT! Trelawney made the prophecy! Wouldn't she > of all people know when Harry Potter's birthday was? Pat here: I agree with others that I don't think she remembers what she says when she actually gives a real prophecy. When Harry heard her say the the Dark Lord was coming back with the help of his servant (Pettigrew), she didn't remember it 30 seconds after she said it when Harry tried to ask her about it. And I somehow doubt that Dumbledore would have trusted her with such valuable information. Also, at the end of OotP, when Dumbledore shows Harry the prophecy in the pensieve, he says that, even though the prophecy has been destroyed, there is one person who remembers it--the one to whom it was made (note that he doesn't include the one who made the prophecy). > 2. Polyjuice Potion. [snipping].... One more thing, does Snape > have some idea that Moody is Barty Jr.? He knew something was amiss > with Quirrell. Pat here: That's a good point. Snape does seem to be dead on about Quirrell, but perhaps there is something about the Polyjuice Potion that makes it quite different--after all, Dumbledore was fooled as well. > 3. If house elves are so low on the social chain, how come the two > elves in our story are so powerful? [snips for brevity] She uses her own brand of magic to bind Jr. to her > but it is broken when she is stunned. Pat here: Well, the way I see this is rather hard to explain. I'll try to do it without offending anyone. I think if you go back to the relationship of slaves and masters (in the US in the south), you'll find stories (and maybe that's all they are) of the slaves really having a certain amount of power within the family stucture. I'm thinking of the slave women who were nannies to the plantation owners' children. They had some authority over the children, at least when they were little. They were not free to leave but because they were part of the household, they would have had an enormous amount of information about the family that was of a confidential nature. That, in itself, would have given the slaves some amount of control over the masters. There seems to be some of the same sort of thing with the house elves. They are bound to serve the family, yet they are recognized for having their own powerful magic. In the case of Winky, she had done a lot to help Crouch Sr hide and take care of Crouch Jr. He trusted her--partly because he had no other choice--she knew things about him that could have destroyed his career and landed him in Azkaban. It will be interesting to find out just how powerful the house elves are--I think they are more powerful than we have yet seen. (ie, Dobby leaving the Malfoys without permission several times; using his magic to attack Lucius to protect Harry at the end of COS, etc.) > 4. I still think Fudge is a bad guy. > Thank you for all responses. Have a Happy Love Filled Day. [snipped] sad1199 Pat here: I completely agree with you. I at one time, thought Fudge might be a DE, but now I think he's just the evil politician type, interested in saving his own skin at the expense of anyone who gets in his way. Good questions--they are some of the same things I've struggled with in GOF. Pat From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Fri Sep 17 00:40:12 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:12 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Where to Post on Updates to Rowling's Website Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113183 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! Poppy Elf for the HPfGU List Administration Team From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Fri Sep 17 00:48:58 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:48:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are > dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? I can see > Petunia being estranged from her parents, but I can't see James or > Lily's parents not attempting to take care of Harry if they were > alive. I know Dumbledore says somethin in OOP about the fact that > there were wizard families who would have taken him in. I assume > from all of that we are to assume Harry has NO other family alive. > > I guess that would be a good thing, possibly, because if Harry has > other family, LV could use them against him, as he did with Sirius. > > Angie Pat here: Yes, it does seem unusual for a child to have no living relatives. But, in my own case, I didn't have any grandparents by the time I was 9--and Voldemort was not involved. It's also very possible that James was an only child. So once he and his parents were gone, that would take care of that side of Harry's family (especially if his paternal grandparents also came from small families, which we don't know). On Lily's side of the family, Dumbledore does say that Petunia is Harry's only living relative. So that sounds pretty definite. Pat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 01:39:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:39:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113185 > Potioncat: > When you get right down to it, we don't know what Snape knows. Even > if he knows that Harry is to be LV's downfall, does he know how the > Durley's treated him? > > I'm not trying to justify Snape's behavior, just trying to > understand it. Alla: Oh, I definitely agree that we don't know what Snape knows. :o) I am just speculating that IF Snape knows from Dumbledore or other sources that Harry is destined to be Voldie downfall (if he is THAT well-informed), he is likely to know about Harry's life prior to school. Am I making sense? I don't think we can have it both ways: either Snape knows about Harry's and therefore knows that he is not arrogant or Snape does not know anything about Harry and therefore his behaviour even less justifiable (e.g. he is making assumptions solely based on James') I think I just confused myself again. Potioncat wrote: >> I think Snape expects potions to play a big part in the downfall of > LV or the protection of Harry. If he was, as many think, one of LV's > potionmakers, he would know something involved in LV's attempt at > preventing death. > > Either that or JKR is foreshadowing it, and it will be coincidence > that Snape made such a point. But think of this, Snape taught them > expelliarmus (bet he regrets that!) and polyjuice, and about > werewolves (wait a minute, just had a bout of movie contamination.) > And all these things have proved to be important. Alla: Oh, I have no doubt that Snape expects potions in general to play a role in the final battle, but I doubt that he knows that any concrete potion will be important. Do you think that Snape mentions "Stopper in Death" because he made it for Voldemort, while serving him? Wouldn't it be fun if it be a good help for Harry at the end. Snape indeed taught them lots of .... interesting things. I would not praise him for teaching about werewolves though. :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 02:25:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113186 > Alla: > > I said that many times, I am positive that Harry will forgive Snape at the end, even if he still behaves as a sadist, BUT what do you mean "Harry forgive himself for being frightened of Snape"? Do you mean that Harry was wrong somehow to be frightened of him?< That Harry wasn't wrong to be frightened of him is my point. Feelings aren't right or wrong, they just are. Harry is frightened of Snape and he thinks it's wrong to feel that fear. So he tries to show, with his petty defiance, that he's not afraid. But who is he fooling? Mostly himself, I think. If Harry could forgive himself for being afraid of Snape, not detentions, not sarcasm, but Snape himself, then maybe he could realize how irrational that fear really is. And it is irrational. What's Snape ever done to Harry, except make him look bad in front of the Slytherins? And it's not as though they were ever going to be paid up members of the Harry Potter fan club in the first place. Harry, like Neville, needs to learn to laugh at his fear of Snape. But he won't do that, as long as he can't forgive himself for being afraid in the first place. As Lupin said, Harry's great fear is fear. But if he could manage it, then, maybe, Harry wouldn't be so invested in defying Snape. Talking back to Snape was harmless except that it aggravated Snape even more, but when the defiance extended to not practicing occlumency, it had serious consequences (no pun intended.) Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 02:26:44 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:26:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113187 > Alla: > > Oh, I definitely agree that we don't know what Snape knows. :o) I am > just speculating that IF Snape knows from Dumbledore or other > sources that Harry is destined to be Voldie downfall (if he is THAT > well-informed), he is likely to know about Harry's life prior to > school. >Potioncat: But, why? DD heard the prophecy, and believes it to be about Harry. He leaves Harry with the Dursleys, but he tells McGonagall it is to keep him from being pampered and spoiled. He doesn't tell her about the special protection. We don't know what Snape or anyone else is told. In fact, it isn't certain how much DD knows about Harry's life as a Muggle. IMO, and I keep reminding myself, it is only opinion, Snape expects Harry to follow in James' footsteps, sees that he has an adoring fan base on day one and takes action. Completely out of the good of his heart and for the boy's own good, you understand... ;-) > > > > Alla: > Snape indeed taught them lots of .... interesting things. I would > not praise him for teaching about werewolves though. :) Potioncat: Yeah, movie contamination had me thinking that Hermione learned about the call of the werewolf and it helped them later. Odd, how quickly that movie bug takes over! It was nothing of the sort! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 02:38:43 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:38:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >. Harry is frightened of > Snape and he thinks it's wrong to feel that fear. So he tries to > show, with his petty defiance, that he's not afraid. But who is he > fooling? Mostly himself, I think. > > If Harry could forgive himself for being afraid of Snape, not > detentions, not sarcasm, but Snape himself, then maybe he > could realize how irrational that fear really is. And it is > irrational. What's Snape ever done to Harry, except make him > look bad in front of the Slytherins? And it's not as though they > were ever going to be paid up members of the Harry Potter fan > club in the first place. > > Harry, like Neville, needs to learn to laugh at his fear of Snape. > But he won't do that, as long as he can't forgive himself for being > afraid in the first place. As Lupin said, Harry's great fear is fear. > > But if he could manage it, then, maybe, Harry wouldn't be so > invested in defying Snape. Talking back to Snape was > harmless except that it aggravated Snape even more, but when > the defiance extended to not practicing occlumency, it had > serious consequences (no pun intended.) > > Alla: Where to start? Pippin, didn't you consider James to be "evil" based on what he did to Snape in the Pensieve scene? What exactly did James do to him, except making him look bad in front of the whole school? I think we kind of agreed that psychological kind of bullying is the worst one ever. I really don't want to recite all the canon again, but I will probably make a nice long list of examples over weekend, if I have time , of what Snape ever did to Harry and some other Gryffs. But I say that now - if the only thing Snape did to Harry and Neville was to cause them humiliation and enjoy it, he really did enough, in my book for children to despise him. And, IMO he did that many many times. Snape enjoys watching children being afraid of him. I want to refer you to Nora's excellent post yesterday (113106). I really cannot put it more eloquently than she did. Right now, I think it is extremely unrealistic to expect Harry not to be intimidated by Snape and really, his defiance led to the fact that his Boggart was not professor Snape. Yes, his defiance extended to not practicing Occlumency, which was a shame, but if you tell me that Harry is the primary party to blame for that, I really disagree with you. :) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 02:42:52 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:42:52 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113189 > Pippin: > And you're contending that none of those people, the two > hundred (and everybody they told), were Hogwarts parents, when > it's the only wizarding school in Britain? > > ::boggles:: Neri: We seem to have this problem in any case, because it is a fact that all these 200 wizards heard about Snape being an ex-DE in Karkaroff's trial, and Snape was probably already a teacher then, and these wizards made a racket when Bagman was in danger, so I assume they wouldn't have any problem protesting about Snape as a teacher if they wanted to. But they also heard from DD that Snape was a hero who spied for their side "at great personal risk", so apparently they accepted him being a teacher, although I'm sure that some of them were parents to Hogwarts' students. Molly and Arthur also accepted it in OotP. We have a similar problem with Karkaroff, and he isn't merely a teacher but a headmaster. Did the Durmstrang Governors fail to find out about his former career, or did they consider it a recommendation, learning the Dark Arts from the greatest expert? Also, even if Malfoy was cleared, you'd expect that some lingering doubt will prevent him from becoming so influential, but apparently it doesn't. It seems that the Fudge-type wizards still don't see much wrong in being an ex-DE. Remember that most of the purebloods actually supported Voldy's side for most of the war. They don't want to start excluding anybody who had a connection with Voldy because tomorrow somebody might decide that they belong in this category too. > > Neri: > > Also, note that after the Pensieve scene in GoF, DD asked > Harry not to tell about Neville's parents (probably only out of > consideration for Neville's feelings, as this "secret" also wasn't > much of secret) > > BUT he never told him not to mention that Snape is an ex-DE > who changed sides and spied after LV. DD doesn't even look > bothered when he finds that Harry learned it. It really doesn't > look like it is that much of a secret.< > > Pippin: > Dumbledore knows he can trust in the Trio's discretion about > something like this. And even if the Trio blabbed, who'd believe > them? No one's going to take the word of three fourteen year old > wizards, when everyone knows they have a grudge against > Snape. > Neri: Perhaps. But still, not even a simple request not to talk about it, when DD does take the time to request the same about Neville's parents? Hardly sounds like proper secret keeping. > Pippin: > According to Sirius it was Karkaroff who betrayed all those DE's > and Snape was never even suspected. I'd say the records of the > trial were altered, and the memories of those who were there, > with the exception of Dumbledore, were altered too. If so, then > even Mad-eye Moody wouldn't remember the truth. > > We've seen that the Order isn't too dainty to use memory charms > ...remember Marietta? And they've been used on far larger > numbers of people. The largest batch of the previous century > was done on a beach full of Muggles at Ilfracombe (FBAWTFT) > (which I gather is a very crowded place). But we've seen they're > just as effective on wizards. > . Neri: 200 top wizards from the justice system and from the Ministry with tampered memories? Hmm. To quote Uncle Vernon: "no wonder the country's going to the dogs" :-D I actually buy the explanation about a mass memory loss, only I think there's nothing magical about it. We have here most of the elite of Britain's WW living in denial, doing their best to forget whose side they were on during most of the war. > Pippin: > > > Even if it could be proved that Lucius gave the diary to Ginny, it > could not be proven that he himself was not under its spell. I do > not think Dumbledore believes that, I'm just pointing out there's > not enough of a case to convince the Ministry. Have we ever > seen Dumbledore take the law into his own hands to punish > someone? He much prefers giving people enough rope to hang > themselves. Neri: Themselves yes, but I think he'd draw the line when they try to hang his students. And while knowing next to nothing about WW law, I suspect that modifying the memory of 200 top wizards and forging trial records would also constitute taking the law into one's hands. > Pippin: > I agree that there's a Snape Malfoy connection and Dumbledore > finds it valuable, but I think it's white world, or was until the end > of GoF. That is, Snape and Malfoy were associated, but neither > knew the other was a member of Voldemort's Inner Circle during > the Voldemort era. > Neri: I find this a slur on both Snape's and Lucius' intellect :-) > Pippin: > Afterwards, Lucius claimed, not that he had never been a Death > Eater, but that he had been forced to become one by the > Imperius Curse, as some people undoubtedly were. IMO, > Snape never believed this, and it drove him half-mad to have to > behave as if he did in order to keep up his lap-dog role. It would > be like trying to act as if he were fond of Harry. Thus the sudden > movement when Harry finally excuses him from the charade. > Neri: But according to both Sirius ("Malfoy's lapdog") and Umbridge ("Malfoy always speaks most highly of you") the charade seems to continue in OotP. And indeed, this is exactly why the charade was needed at all. OotP (and probably HBP also) is when the investment in the Snape-Malfoy connection finally pays off. If it doesn't, then why have this connection in the first place? Snape could have saved his blood pressure. > Pippin > who admits Neri's explanation is simpler, but thinks that it > doesn't account for all the facts in evidence Neri: Carol's explanation is even simpler than mine, but it also accounts for less facts. And no theory accounts for all the facts. I suspect even JKR's true solution won't account for ALL the facts. Personally, I try to maximize the number of accounted facts WHILE minimizing the number of assumptions and problems. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 02:45:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:45:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113190 > >Potioncat: snip. > IMO, and I keep reminding myself, it is only opinion, Snape expects > Harry to follow in James' footsteps, sees that he has an adoring fan > base on day one and takes action. Alla: Yes, I find such scenario to be very plausible. The question is what justification can one offer to Snape's action, except Snape's misguided assumptions. Potioncat: > Completely out of the good of his heart and for the boy's own good, > you understand... ;-) Alla: Yes, sure, best interests at heart all the time. :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 03:21:27 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:21:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113191 > Alla: > > Where to start? Pippin, didn't you consider James to be "evil" based on what he did to Snape in the Pensieve scene? > > What exactly did James do to him, except making him look bad in front of the whole school?< Pippin: You mean, besides the unprovoked magical attack and the sexual humiliation? I give you my word, if Snape ever makes an unprovoked magical attack on Harry or sexually assaults him, I will call it evil. (I know that pantsing is not much as sexual assault goes, but it is as much sexual assault as I want to see graphically depicted in the Potterverse. ) Not that I don't believe speech can be evil, but Snape's words didn't affect Harry except for his reputation with the Slytherins, and they would have laughed at Harry what ever he did. Harry's life has been made occasionally unpleasant by Snape, but it's not like he's having nightmares or throwing up, or flunking all his classes, at least, not as a result of anything Snape did. Voldemort caused Harry some psychological damage. The Dursleys have too. But Snape? What symptoms of psychological damage do you see? Snape makes the Slytherins laugh at Harry but he also makes the Gryffindors stick up for him. Even when Harry feels the whole school is laughing at him, it's not. The only time the whole school was against him (except the Slytherins) was when he lost all those points for Gryffindor -- and Snape had nothing to do with that. Alla: > Snape enjoys watching children being afraid of him. < Hmmm. I think he enjoys watching Harry be afraid of him, and he thinks that fear will motivate Neville. He doesn't try to frighten the others much. What Harry doesn't get is that Snape is enough of a legilimens to know when Harry is afraid even when he tries to hide it, so Harry gains absolutely nothing by defying him. Nothing. He only aggravates Snape and gives Snape an excuse to punish him. And it really is time that Harry, who is scarcely a child any more, figured that out. Alla: > Right now, I think it is extremely unrealistic to expect Harry not to be intimidated by Snape and really, his defiance led to the fact that his Boggart was not professor Snape.< Pippin: Do you think it's unrealistic for Harry not to be intimidated by Voldemort? Pippin From navarro198 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 17 03:29:09 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:29:09 -0000 Subject: Lucius and LV (was Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113192 Bookworm wrote: Is Malfoy a loyal DE or just using Voldemort to gain his own power? SSSusan wrote: I would say *neither*. That is, I think he is neither a loyal DE nor using **Voldy** to gain power. I think Lucius is smart enough & cautious enough to know that if Voldy's *around*, his own climb to power will only be as far as Voldy will let him rise. Hannah now: I think LV is aware that Malfoy is out for his own ends primarily. But at present, the best thing for Lucius is to be on the side of LV and to toe the line. I don't think Lucius likes this - I'm sure he was happier when LV was out of the way and Malfoy had more freedom - but he knows that it's the best thing for himself, so that's what he'll do. LV knows that Lucius will remain on side while it suits him. I think he's well aware that if things change, and there's a chance for Lucius to betray him to further his own ends, then that's what Malfoy will do. Bookworm: This is basically what I meant by using Voldemort. As Voldemort's lieutenant or whatever, the more power Voldemort has, the more Malfoy gains by association. Whether or not he would have bided his time during VWI, now that he has experienced being one of the most powerful/influential men in the WW, he isn't going to want to be just one of the DEs. I don't expect him to outright challenge Voldemort soon, but to see some indications of Malfoy setting things up to be the first among equals in the DE circle. Ravenclaw Bookworm From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 16:15:19 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:15:19 -0000 Subject: Mollycoddling (Re: Why don't Ron and Ginny know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113193 > Potioncat: > I think McGonagall believes in the "Life is Tough Get Over It" > philosophy. Similar to Gram. A major theme going in the books seems to be something like "mollycoddling is bad". "frugalarugala" From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 03:37:21 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:37:21 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113194 Geoff: We're back to the old problem that "love" is a catch-all word meaning anything from "I love ice-cream" to the sacrificial love we are talking about. This is where the four loves mentioned by C.S.Lewis come in - eros, philia, storge and agape. We are really looking at agape. > > Snow: > > This section of your post brought to mind several thoughts. The first pertaining to Dumbledore's statement, "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "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. Tonks here: Agape love also involves choice. One can love as Dumbledore has out of affection and feeling. One can also with affection or separate from it, CHOOSE to love. And the choice to place another's welfare above your own without regard to feelings, is the type of love that allows one to love one's enemy. This is a very, very rare form of love. I also think that it is a form that we will see of Snape. Snape does much of his protection of Harry out of duty to Dumbledore, but there might come a time when he does more than his duty. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 03:42:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:42:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113195 > Pippin: > You mean, besides the unprovoked magical attack and the > sexual humiliation? I give you my word, if Snape ever makes an > unprovoked magical attack on Harry or sexually assaults him, I > will call it evil. > > (I know that pantsing is not much as sexual assault goes, but it > is as much sexual assault as I want to see graphically depicted > in the Potterverse. ) Alla: I do disagree that that was a sexual assault, not even close, IMO, but are you saying that humiliation only counts when it is a sexual one? You said "unprovoked magical attack". What about Occlumency failure? Harry did not attack Snape, you know. Was his look in the Pensieve enough justification for Snape to do that : "Amusing man, your father, wasn't he?" said Snape, shaking Harry so hard that his glasses slipped down his nose. "I - didn't ---" Snape threw Hary from him with all his might. Harry fell hard onto the dungeon floor." - OOP, p.640. paperback, Does physical attack at the student qualifies as "evil act" in your book, Pippin? Pippin: But Snape? What symptoms of psychological > damage do you see? Alla: I am sorry, I am too tired to recite the quotes, which I did yesterday. Please look at my post 113099 . I am referring to OOP quotes, which do show, IMO that Harry was afraid of Snape. I saw some more quotes, which I will find definitely. Pippin: > Snape makes the Slytherins laugh at Harry but he also makes > the Gryffindors stick up for him. Even when Harry feels the > whole school is laughing at him, it's not. The only time the whole > school was against him (except the Slytherins) was when he lost > all those points for Gryffindor -- and Snape had nothing to do with > that. > Alla: I don't think you get my point, Pippin. :o) I don't care that Snape makes Slytherins laugh at Harry. You are right, they would do it with or without Snape's help. It is Snape's enjoyment of Harry's humiliation, which annoys me tremendously. Alla previously : > > Snape enjoys watching children being afraid of him. < > Pippin. Hmmm. I think he enjoys watching Harry be afraid of him, and he > thinks that fear will motivate Neville. He doesn't try to frighten > the others much. What Harry doesn't get is that Snape is > enough of a legilimens to know when Harry is afraid even when > he tries to hide it, so Harry gains absolutely nothing by defying > him. Nothing. He only aggravates Snape and gives Snape an > excuse to punish him. And it really is time that Harry, who is > scarcely a child any more, figured that out. Alla: How it makes Snape les of a sadist if he only enjoys two children being afraid of him ( and I am not completely sure I agree with you). I think Harry achieves a great deal by standing up to Snape . He does not always give the bully who is twice his size AND his teacher the sattisfaction of watching his victim ot be afraid of him. >> Pippin: > Do you think it's unrealistic for Harry not to be intimidated by > Voldemort? > Alla: What do you mean? Harry is afraid of Voldemort, isn't he? I am confused a little bit. P.S. I am VERY curious what do you think about Nora's post, Pippin. :o) From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 01:51:59 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:51:59 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113196 > sad1199 here: > > 4. I still think Fudge is a bad guy. He always seems to do the > > wrong thing at the right time for the bad guys. Anyway, > > my point is I believe Fudge is a.) one of the evil ones or > > b.) under an Imperious Curse or some other curse (by whom?). > Alshain: > Or c. what Lenin used to call "a useful idiot". Oh, Fudge is a > bad guy all right, but you don't have to be a Death Eater in > disguise or under the Imperius curse to be a bad guy. I consider > Fudge as a politico on a post he isn't suited for . He's > second choice, and he knows it very well. Unfortunately his talent > is smaller than his love for power, so he gets desperate when > something happens that rocks his precious status quo and it's > demanded that he actually do something that might risk his position. > > Fudge's essential characteristics haven't changed at all -- he still > thinks first and foremost of himself and about how he's going to stay > in power. Only the situation has changed. I agree with Alshain. One of my favorite things about these books is that while there is certainly a big arch in the story that is (or seems to be) a clearcut battle of Good and Evil -- our side and their side -- it is clear at the same time that every one on "our side" is not completely good (Fudge) and everyone on "their side" may not be completely bad -- sorta like RL! When Dumbledore (or is it Mr. Weasley?) is explaining to Harry about the time right after the last fall of Valdemort he says something like -- some on 'our side' did things to make people feel safe again, like locking some people up without trial and the like -- and he makes it clear that he does not agree with these actions. He does not indicate any belief that these people are in league with Voldemort however. In fact, they are doing what they believe to be fighting the good fight against the big V. But they are wrong, and are in fact doing evil -- they are just not on The Side of Evil. (I just spent lots of time looking for the citation, but can't find it right now -- I'll keep looking) -- AJ From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 03:46:27 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:46:27 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113197 I never understood why Scabbers/Wormtail attacked Goyle on the Hogwarts Express the first year. After all it happened, just after Draco introduced himself and Crabbe and Goyle to Harry. I'm assuming that Wormtail knew the surnames of the Death Eaters, but that may not be right. But, based on that assumption, I couldn't figure out why Wormtail would bite Goyle. However, after rereading that passage, I think that Wormtail was trying to save his own neck. Ron had been grousing about how worthless Scabbers was. Maybe Wormtail was worried Ron would find a new pet and he would be put out to pasture? Which would mean he would lose his precious information base. Angie From empooress at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 02:11:35 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Flunky Bananabrain) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:11:35 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Letters to Children with Muggle Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113198 Angie wrote: > If my child got a letter stating that he/she had been accepted to > a school for witchraft or wizardry, I don't know if I'd be happy > about it. Does the school assume that everyone who receives such > a letter will be overjoyed and will enroll their child? As, I do not have the books in front of me, I can't remember exactley where this was but (and I do believe it was in Order of the Phoenix), Hermine stated in a discussion that a repesentative of the school accompanied Hogwart's letters that were sent to muggle born children. empooress From aubussonjd at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 03:29:46 2004 From: aubussonjd at yahoo.com (aubussonjd) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:29:46 -0000 Subject: Neville's Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113199 I have belonged to this group for a while now and have never posted before. I hope I am not repeating something that has already been discussed, but I am only in the process of reading the previous posts. I would like to bring up the subject of Neville's wand, or lack thereof. Although Neville always seemed to struggle, I believe this is because he was using his father's wand. The wand chooses the Wizard, and it chose Neville's father- not Neville. Once Neville is suited with an appropiate wand that has chosen him, I can see nothing stopping Neville from becoming a very powerful wizard. He must certainly have talent to be able to master spells with another wizard's wand. Any thoughts on this? P.S. Sirius lives. "aubussonjd" From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 04:02:32 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:02:32 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113200 Trevor's attempts to get away from Neville in SS made me think of Wormtail trying to get away from Ron in POA. As I recall, Trevor was a gift from Trevor's Uncle Algie, the same person who nearly killed him a couple of times, and who gave him the plant in OOP. I'm not sure yet if I approve of Uncle Algie. His motives aren't clear to me. But I digress. Of course, frogs, by nature, jump from one place to the next. Maybe the whole thing was just set up to establish that Neville was absentminded. But I don't remember him losing Trevor after SS (did he?). So I guess he got better at looking after Trevor? How long do frogs live, anyway? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 04:09:31 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:09:31 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113201 Would anyone else like to know how the Marauder's Map came to be in Filch's possession? Filch apparently confiscated it from MWPP or from whomever they left it to. I'm wondering why Wormtail wasn't worried that he'd be spotted on the MM when he entered Hogwarts as Ron's pet. If the map was confiscated before Wormtail left school, I guess he felt safe. Filch obviously didn't know that the map could do, or he would have been using it to catch students. But if MWPP left the map to other students, it looks like Wormtail would have worried about being caught because he wouldn't know the map was in Filch's office. Maybe he felt that he had no choice but to risk it? Angie From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 04:13:02 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:13:02 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: >It seems that the Fudge-type wizards still don't see much wrong in being an ex-DE. Remember that most of the purebloods actually supported Voldy's side for most of the war. They don't want to start excluding anybody who had a connection with Voldy because tomorrow somebody might decide that they belong in this category too.< Oh, I don't think we'll ever agree there. I think the Fudge type wizards lost way too much to Voldemort's thugs to ever welcome them into polite society. Those who walked free pled innocence and ignorance and bewitchment, and perhaps those pleas weren't investigated as thoroughly as they might have been, everybody was sick of Crouch's witch hunting ,but they were made. As for Karkaroff, hmm...perhaps Dumbledore's recommendation, along with Durmstrang not being so fussy about these things --Voldemort, according to JKR, worked mostly in Britain. I guess it was like the Nazi rocket scientists who went to work in America after the war. Would they have been as welcome in bombed out London? > Neri: > Perhaps. But still, not even a simple request not to talk about it, > when DD does take the time to request the same about Neville's parents? Hardly sounds like proper secret keeping.< Harry's been keeping Dumbledore's secrets for years now. He doesn't need to be instructed not to reveal to anyone that Snape was a DE anymore than he needed to be told not to tell anyone how Sirius escaped. It'd be a waste of space. But Neville's secret is different -- it's not a matter of wizarding security, just Neville's sensibilities. Harry and his pals aren't always tactful about things like that. Honestly, I think Dumbledore was more worried about Hermione's officious do-gooding than anything Harry might say to Neville himself. > Neri: > 200 top wizards from the justice system and from the Ministry with tampered memories? Hmm. To quote Uncle Vernon: "no wonder the country's going to the dogs" :-D< Pippin: Too good a line to snip! But after all, why not? He consented to Marietta's memory being tampered with, and she was his student. Pippin: >>Have we ever seen Dumbledore take the law into his own hands to punish someone? He much prefers giving people enough rope to hang themselves.<< > > Neri: > Themselves yes, but I think he'd draw the line when they try to hang his students.< Pippin: He did warn Lucius not to try anything like that again, and as far as we know, Lucius hasn't. Neri: > And while knowing next to nothing about WW law, I suspect that modifying the memory of 200 top wizards and forging trial records would also constitute taking the law into one's hands.< Pippin: Surely. As did helping Sirius escape. But I said, "to punish". Dumbledore's willing to take the law in his own hands to save innocent lives and he encourages Harry to do the same. I think this is a really important distinction. He will not take the law into his own hands to punish, even if it seems the punishment might prevent future crimes. On the other hand, he's willing to abet breaking one of the most important wizarding laws to save lives. > > Pippin: > > I agree that there's a Snape Malfoy connection and Dumbledore finds it valuable, but I think it's white world, or was until the end of GoF. That is, Snape and Malfoy were associated, but neither knew the other was a member of Voldemort's Inner Circle during the Voldemort era. > > > > Neri: > I find this a slur on both Snape's and Lucius' intellect :-) Pippin: Why? Suppose each of them is ordered by Voldemort not to let the other find out that he is a DE, and both of them follow orders to the best of their not inconsiderable ability. Why give such an order? Because he was using them to spy on each other. He doesn't trust either of them. > Neri: > But according to both Sirius ("Malfoy's lapdog") and Umbridge > ("Malfoy always speaks most highly of you") the charade seems to continue in OotP. And indeed, this is exactly why the charade was needed at all. OotP (and probably HBP also) is when the investment in the Snape-Malfoy connection finally pays off. If it doesn't, then why have this connection in the first place? Snape could have saved his blood pressure.< I've made myself unclear, I see. The relationship continues, but now in the knowledge that both are supposedly faithful Death Eaters who no longer have to hide their true selves from one another, though of course they still have to hide it from the world. Of course it won't be quite so useful to Voldemort, which might be another reason for the sudden movement. Pippin From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 04:25:00 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:25:00 -0000 Subject: Neville's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113203 "aubussonjd wrote: -- Once Neville is > suited with an appropiate wand that has chosen him, I can see nothing > stopping Neville from becoming a very powerful wizard. He must > certainly have talent to be able to master spells with another > wizard's wand. Angie congratulates on an excellent first post: I agree and good point about him being able to master spells with another wizard's wand. It seems that part of what was holding Neville back was lack of motivation and confidence. His gran apparently drilled it into him that he would never be as good as his father, so why try? But when he decided in OOP to join Dumbledore's Army, he reached a turning point (I believe he starting on this road when FakeMoody performed the Crucatious curse on the spider in GOF) and began to improve beyond all recognition, according to the narrative in OOP. As to his wand, since his father's wand was broken in OOP, he will presumably get a new wand in Book 6. It will be MOST interesting to see what kind of wand he gets. Perhaps Fawkes's tail feathers are getting a little heavy and he needs to make another donation? :) > > > aubussonjd also wrote: > P.S. Sirius lives. > Angie agrees and hopes they are both right: I know there are numerous threads on this, but I'm just wondering if DD wants LV to think Sirius is dead so that he can do more work for the order and so that Sirius can't be used as a way to lure Harry into LV's grip again. It just looks like to me if JKR wanted to be crystal clear that Sirius is dead, she could have written it that way -- as with Cedric's death. Instead, she either left a HUGE red herring or ample wiggle room to bring him back. I hope it's the latter. Harry needs a parent-type person (I refuse to believe JKR would kill Harry in the end). From submarimon15 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 05:50:37 2004 From: submarimon15 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:50:37 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: >But, based on that assumption, I couldn't figure out why > Wormtail would bite Goyle. "Goyle reached out towards the Chocolate Frogs next to Ron - Ron leapt forward, but before he'd so much as touched Goyle, Goyle let out a terrible yell. Scabbers the rat was hanging off his finger, sharp little teeth sunk deep into Goyle's knuckle - Crabbe and Malfoy backed away..." PS pg 82, Canadian paperback I assumed that meant "Scabbers", showing more intelligence than a rat should have ;), protecting his master. It did make them leave, and it did look like this were going to get quite messy had that not happened. You're right in the fact that he may have bit Goyle to show that he had some worth, but mostly I thought he just wanted Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle gone as much as Harry and Ron did. From submarimon15 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 05:59:13 2004 From: submarimon15 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:59:13 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Trevor's attempts to get away from Neville in SS made me think of > Wormtail trying to get away from Ron in POA. As I recall, Trevor was > a gift from Trevor's Uncle Algie, the same person who nearly killed > him a couple of times, and who gave him the plant in OOP. I'm not > sure yet if I approve of Uncle Algie. His motives aren't clear to > me. But I digress. > > Of course, frogs, by nature, jump from one place to the next. Maybe > the whole thing was just set up to establish that Neville was > absentminded. But I don't remember him losing Trevor after SS (did > he?). So I guess he got better at looking after Trevor? > > How long do frogs live, anyway? > > Angie I just finished reading PS again and am about to start on CoS when I go to bed tonight, but... I don't even remember Trevor being mentioned in the later books. Perhaps he decided it was safer after PS and left Trevor at home with his Gran? He may have had it in CoS (i'll find that out tonight), but I cannot remember for the life of me hearing about it in PoA or GoF... and if course he got his precious Mimbulus Mimbletonia in OotP so I doubt he'd care about Trevor then.... Good point, I'll let you know tomorrow :) Mike From tangentialone at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 04:40:31 2004 From: tangentialone at yahoo.com (tangentialone) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:40:31 -0000 Subject: Neville's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113206 --- "aubussonjd" wrote: > Once Neville is > suited with an appropiate wand that has chosen him, I can see nothing > stopping Neville from becoming a very powerful wizard. He must > certainly have talent to be able to master spells with another > wizard's wand. Any thoughts on this? > Tangent: Well, we have an example in canon of something similar--Ron having to use Charlie's old wand. But it didn't seem to me as though *he* became much more powerful/capable when he got his own wand, presumably better suited to him. Of course, power seems to be at least somewhat hereditary, and the Weasley parents haven't struck me as particularly powerful, so there might not be much potential for Ron to be powerful, even with a wand that's well-suited. Whereas it seems the Longbottoms *were,* so Neville might have some power that he's going to come into. I suppose there could even be occassion for Neville to have his wand replaced--clumsiness gets turned into a plot point. ~~Tangent(quickly introducing self, then skittering back into the shadows of lurkdom) From submarimon15 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 06:16:09 2004 From: submarimon15 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:16:09 -0000 Subject: Lucius and LV (was Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Bookworm wrote: > Is Malfoy a loyal DE or just using Voldemort to gain his own power? > Bookworm: > This is basically what I meant by using Voldemort. As Voldemort's > lieutenant or whatever, the more power Voldemort has, the more > Malfoy gains by association. Whether or not he would have bided his > time during VWI, now that he has experienced being one of the most > powerful/influential men in the WW, he isn't going to want to be > just one of the DEs. I don't expect him to outright challenge > Voldemort soon, but to see some indications of Malfoy setting things > up to be the first among equals in the DE circle. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm This is definitely a prime example of the phrase "No honour among thieves". I don't believe for a minute that there's any loyal DEs apart from Bellatrix Lestrange. Voldemort rules by fear and entices followers with promises of power. At present, there are two, maybe three, people fighting for the position of "Right Hand man". Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange and possibly Peter Pettigrew. Lucius is going to try to get as much power as possible and attempt to become second in command. I think he knows full well there's no way he's going to overthrow Voldemort through a fight, but if he bides his time he'll have a chance. It's my opinion that Snape is doing this too, only on the other side. Both Lucius and Snape are fighting in where they can, but leaving both sides open and waiting for the outcome of the war. With his arrest in OotP, Lucius may have just limited himself to only one choice, however. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 17 07:09:58 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:09:58 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Tonks: > > Agape love also involves choice. One can love as Dumbledore has out > of affection and feeling. One can also with affection or separate > from it, CHOOSE to love. And the choice to place another's welfare > above your own without regard to feelings, is the type of love that > allows one to love one's enemy. This is a very, very rare form of > love. I also think that it is a form that we will see of Snape. > Snape does much of his protection of Harry out of duty to > Dumbledore, but there might come a time when he does more than his > duty. Geoff: I would agree with that. As a side comment, you might notice that I referred to this in my post as "selfless" love; I would specifically distinguish between this and "unselfish" love as having different aspects. There is an interesting take on this in that selfless love, although normally rare, will surface in a crisis situation. If you look at the way in which people help in, say, an event like a serious accident or a terrorist attack or the way in which, in the UK, people in places lik the East End of London reacted in the bombing raids of 1940/41, this wish to help, even at personal risk, comes to the fore and folk who are normally retiring or wary of risk will do incredible things at such times. Neville comes immediately to mind as an example in HP. The Wizarding World is in a crisis situation even if top officials are refusing to see the problem. Some of the folk in our saga have recognised this and are reacting accordingly. So we see Harry and friends doing things which may be badly thought out, foolhardy and even counter-productive to the safety of those they are trying to protect. But their actions are not being taken out of any other choice but to place others' welfare first. Desparate times demand desperate measures and those measures may well include agape. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Sep 17 07:44:13 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:44:13 -0000 Subject: Escaping Trevor/Neville's magic suppressed? (was: Re: Trevor -- similarity to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113209 Angie: > Trevor's attempts to get away from Neville in SS made me think of > Wormtail trying to get away from Ron in POA. Well, I always had a slight suspicion about Trevor's desire to get away having something to do with a need/desire to go and sit on a hen's egg, though I doubt it's really anything so dramatic. Perhaps Trevor is somehow instinctively/magically aware that Neville is in danger and *that*'s why he's so keen to escape. Neville surely is in danger, both as possibly the one referred to in the prophecy and as Harry's friend. A tangential and certainly unoriginal thought crossed my mind. I'm sure it's been suggested that it could have been a Longbottom who overheard the prophecy and, realising that their own son was in danger arranged that his magical tendencies should be suppressed without the knowledge of Gran and Uncle Algie. Alternatively, Dumbledore or the overhearer of the prophecy could have warned Frank and Alice. Then, having been killed, they would have been unable to reverse the magic, leaving Neville with his apparently impaired abilities and Gran and Uncle Algie desperate to force magic out of him. And of course the gum wrappers are intimitely involved. Somehow. ;-) This magical suppression could be what Trevor is aware of. But yes, that Uncle Algie is a bit of a worry. A liability whichever side he's on, I'd say. ~Eloise From patientx3 at aol.com Fri Sep 17 08:25:56 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:25:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113210 Carol wrote: > Snape, however, uses *words* to ridicule students who perform poorly > or otherwise annoy him. I don't think it causes them any real or > lasting emotional pain. Nora replied: >>Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA. Granted, Neville is tough and he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling. [snip] lasting harm is not the only circumstance we should be thinking about--intention on the part of the offender is a big one, too. Does it excuse someone who intends to/wants to act viciously just because they might be incompetent at it?<< HunterGreen: Do you think Snape intends to cause lasting harm though? We don't know what Snape's intentions are, but I don't think he puts that much thought into what he says. With Neville it seems likely that his lack of success frustrates and annoys Snape, which is why he's so mean to him (it could be that Snape, being very bright and naturally good at potions, has trouble empathizing with someone who has trouble learning). Maybe, more of a lack of patience than sadism. (in the case of Harry, though, I'd say that he does indeed intend to cause Harry discomfort, but I don't think that he believes he's doing Harry any lasting harm). As for Neville having Snape as his biggest fear, that might not be completely Snape's fault. Neville started school *already* weak and having low self-esteem (just look at the way his grandmother treats him), so he was more senstive to Snape than he would have been otherwise. Sure, Snape is quite cruel to him, but he's not responsible for Neville's problems. Carol: > I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, > though of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic > (caustic, ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that > there's a valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* > know anything about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his > celebrity status. It's not through any skill or talent of his own > that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but > everyone in the class to know that. [snip] Nora: >>There's a phrase that comes to mind, here: "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me". Trite--but I think it applies well to Snape in this situation. He may well think that he is doing Harry and everyone else such a big favor by this immediate cutting down of any possible pretension, but what he's also doing is sabotaging the chance of normal relations from the beginning, and all on an impulse where he (I think) has incomplete information.<< HunterGreen: The relationship between Snape and Harry was already doomed anyway. Snape would always see James when he looked at Harry, and even if he treated Harry like an average student, he still wouldn't be being *nice* to him. Snape, also, would still be favoring Slytherins and Harry's enemy Malfoy, so a rift would have eventually grown between the two of them. Perhaps it wouldn't be as strong, but they weren't ever going to be best friends either. > No, I don't credit Snape with altruism in publicly exposing Harry's > ignorance, but I do think he has a reason for what he's doing and > believes it's a good one. (He also, no doubt, enjoys doing it.) The enjoyment really is the kicker on the mild sadism, as seen above. I think there's something a little, ummm, wrong with someone who gets their kicks out of the exercise of superior power over their inferiors. No, Snape doesn't behave that way towards his other colleagues (with the possible exception of some of the behavior towards Lupin), because he's not in power over them. But he freaks out when anyone in an inferior position makes any sort of challenge. This is canonical. :) Ah, Snape. Such a good illustration of the Ordinary Vices. Capable of doing good without being a good person. More information, we await you eagerly. -Nora notes that a friend of hers still has that book, alas From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 09:12:24 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:12:24 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Would anyone else like to know how the Marauder's Map came to be in > Filch's possession? Filch apparently confiscated it from MWPP or > from whomever they left it to. > > I'm wondering why Wormtail wasn't worried that he'd be spotted on the > MM when he entered Hogwarts as Ron's pet. If the map was confiscated > before Wormtail left school, I guess he felt safe. Filch Doddiemoemoe here: Well, Filch could never get the gist of what the MM map was...Even if Filch firgured out the map which would never happen as he was a squib... so kids would serve detention...and the true explanation never surfaced....it would take whomever too long to figure it out... DD From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 17 09:55:20 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:55:20 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113212 > Alla wrote: Potioncat argued that Snape did not know about Harry's life at Dursleys, but then was he briefed by Dumbledore about Harry's role in what is coming or wasn't he? > > Potioncat wrote: > When you get right down to it, we don't know what Snape knows. Even if he knows that Harry is to be LV's downfall, does he know how the Durley's treated him? I'm not trying to justify Snape's behavior, just trying to understand it. Hannah now: Well, we don't know what Snape knew about Harry's upbringing when he started at Hogwarts, but he certainly knows *now* (at the end of OotP). Remember, he spends several months of regular occlumency lessons seeing into Harry's memories of being chased up trees by bulldogs, watching Dudley get spoilt, etc. I doubt this information (assuming that he didn't have it before) will make any difference to his treatment of Harry. The animosity between them is based on more, at this point, than a desire on Snape's part to prevent Harry becoming arrogant. And Snape has to be seen to hate Potter by Malfoy and co. But maybe there might be a subtle change in Snape's underlying attitude? Or perhaps that's too much to hope for! Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 17 10:27:22 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:27:22 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113213 Agie wrote: > Trevor's attempts to get away from Neville in SS made me think of > Wormtail trying to get away from Ron in POA. As I recall, Trevor was a gift from Trevor's Uncle Algie, the same person who nearly killed him a couple of times, and who gave him the plant in OOP. I'm not sure yet if I approve of Uncle Algie. His motives aren't clear to me. But I digress. Of course, frogs, by nature, jump from one place to the next. Maybe the whole thing was just set up to establish that Neville was absentminded. But I don't remember him losing Trevor after SS (did he?). So I guess he got better at looking after Trevor? How long do frogs live, anyway? Hannah now: There are a couple of theories floating around in the bay about Trevor the toad. Go to hypothetic alley to read about them and find posts relating to them. They suggest that Trevor is possessed either by evil, or by Neville's parents (I'm simplifying and paraphrasing here). But I personally don't think that Trevor has any significance. We've already had the 'innocent pet turns out to be an animagus' storyline. JKR is a very inventive author - she isn't going to do the same thing twice. She's also indicated there may be something significant about the cats in later books. I doubt there'd be a great toad revelation as well. Trevor is still around in later books, though I get the feeling he is rather superceded by the Mimbulus mimbletonia in OotP. Not sure how long toads live... that's a good question. Perhaps toads in the WW live longer (the pet shop witch in PoA seems to indicate that WW rats do). I think that Trevor is a prop, for describing Neville's character. We're told (by Hagrid) that they're unfashionable. And as soon as Neville is introduced, you think 'oh, dear, this boy's got an unfashionable pet *and* he keeps losing it.' It sort of sets the scene for Neville's character, and provides a bit of humour too. The Houdini tendencies of Trevor also serve a plot purpose in PS/SS. Neville has been looking for him in the common room, and is out of sight of the trio as the come downstairs on their stone rescue mission. He then gets to perform his heroic 'you're not leaving the tower' that ultimately wins the house cup. Of course, all this is just my opinion... Hannah, who's going to look very silly when Trevor turns out to be the half-blood prince... From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 12:25:08 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:25:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113214 > Alla: > > Yes, I find such scenario to be very plausible. The question is what > justification can one offer to Snape's action, except Snape's > misguided assumptions. Potioncat: I know some readers think that DD and Snape are pretty much in control of the situation and know all the facts correctly. I doubt it. We know that Harry misjudged Snape in SS/PS when he thought Snape was after the stone. So it's just as reasonable that Snape misjudges Harry. And while Snape may be a Potions Master he's no Emotions Master. (That sounded more clever before I typed it.) I'm also beginning to think there is such a thing as HPfGU contamination. This happens when a HPfGU members have discussed [insert favorite character here] so often and so well, that the character no longer resembles the JKR-version. I know it's happened with Snape and Black. (The treatment is to read two chapters and post in the morning.) I really really hope JKR will publish the back stories that never make it to the books, if only to see how close we've come to figuring them out. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 12:39:09 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:39:09 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113215 Angie: > > But if MWPP left the map to other students, it looks like Wormtail > would have worried about being caught because he wouldn't know the > map was in Filch's office. Maybe he felt that he had no choice but > to risk it? > Potioncat: Filch confiscated it from the Marauders. The twins wouldn't have told Percy about stealing itl So it's likely Pettigrew never knew they had the map. Some readers think Lupin was looking for it when he "searched" for a Boggart in Filch's office. Does anyone remember when Ron found out about the map? Had Scabbers already fled? Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 13:13:18 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:13:18 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113216 Hannah: > Trevor is still around in later books, though I get the feeling he > is rather superceded by the Mimbulus mimbletonia in OotP. Not sure how long toads live... that's a good question. Perhaps toads in the WW live longer (the pet shop witch in PoA seems to indicate that WW rats do). > Potioncat: Toads live up to 40 years. I wonder if Magic Toads live longer? From garybec101 at comcast.net Fri Sep 17 13:27:49 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:27:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113217 Angie wrote: Are we to assume that Harry's maternal and paternal grandparents are dead and that he has no other aunts/uncles/cousins? I can see Petunia being estranged from her parents, but I can't see James or Lily's parents not attempting to take care of Harry if they were alive. Potioncat: I've been meaning to look for a quote that Lupin makes in connection with another thread. Not sure which book it's in but he says something about "LV came to kill the last of the Potters..." Which has always made me wonder if LV/TR had a grudge against the Potter family and if a large number had died at his orders. Becki Now; Interesting question Potioncat about the Potter-Family-grudge. I too have wondered about that, and even more that they must have died shortly before James and Lily. Sirius says to Harry in OoP, (I can look it up if I must...) that he left his family house around age 15 (I think, could be sixteen), and spent summers and holidays at the Potters who where very happy to take him in. And by time he was 17, he got his own place, so that is only maybe 5 or so years between when we know for sure that they were alive until the GH attack and us knowing that Harry didn't have any family left. Unusual for both to die in such a short time span, don't you think? Becki (who is very excited to see the open letter to Jo from Steve (Lexicon) and Emerson (Mugglenet) asking some wonderful questions about the book. If you haven't seen it yet, it is posted at Mugglenet) From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 17 13:29:46 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:29:46 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > I too am unable to think of any canon showing Hagrid locking up > around the castle- I would tend to think of that as Filch's job, and > I think that we have seen the latter with keys. The Hogwarts grounds are surrounded by a fence, according to the sketch map drawn by Rowling which was displayed in the WB museum. There are gates through which the road from the station travels, but presumably there are gates in other places around the perimeter. It is logical to assume that Hagrid's duties as groundskeeper include a daily traverse of the perimeter fence, making sure that all gates are secure. Steve The Lexicon From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Sep 17 13:29:16 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:29:16 -0000 Subject: Conspiracies and re-assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113219 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" > wrote: > >It seems that the Fudge-type wizards still don't see much > wrong in being an ex-DE. Remember that most of the > purebloods actually supported Voldy's side for most of the war. > They don't want to start excluding anybody who had a connection > with Voldy because tomorrow somebody might decide that they > belong in this category too.< I think part of it is the incestuous nature of the WW. It's small and most are probably related, even if distantly. You may suspect your cousin was a DE, or your wife's brother. Unless the person was found out actually doing a crime, it might be better off just to let sleeping dogs die. Casey From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Sep 17 13:51:38 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:51:38 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113221 > Potioncat: > Filch confiscated it from the Marauders. The twins wouldn't have > told Percy about stealing itl So it's likely Pettigrew never knew > they had the map. Some readers think Lupin was looking for it when > he "searched" for a Boggart in Filch's office. > > Does anyone remember when Ron found out about the map? Had Scabbers > already fled? Eloise: Harry told Ron and Hermione about the map when he met them in Honeydukes, the first time he used it, in December. Scabbers didn't disappear until January. Begs the question of where Scabbers was at the time. Does Ron habitually carry him around? Was he there when Harry explained about the map? I don't think Harry uses it again before Scabbers disappears, but it seems a little unlikely that they *never* discussed it at all in the intervening month, especially as it was the holidays and they would have had plenty of opportunity to speak to each other openly without risk of being overheard. ~Eloise From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 13:59:27 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:59:27 -0000 Subject: Bill Weasley and curse breaking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113222 Re-reading POA, I noticed that Bill Weasley works as a curse breaker for Gringotts bank in Egypt. This has probably been discussed long ago, but I can't find anything. Why would Gringotts need a curse breaker? I know that there are old Wizard tombs with curses on them, like old Pharos tombs. But why would Gringotts be involved in .. grave robbing?? Or are they working for family members trying to get the old family fortune out of the tombs? Can there be that many old dead wizards in Egypt that Gringotts needs a full time curse breaker? After awhile there seem to be clues everywhere to God knows what. .. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 14:51:49 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:51:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113223 Alla: > Was his look in the Pensieve enough justification for Snape to do that : > > "Amusing man, your father, wasn't he?" said Snape, shaking Harry so hard that his glasses slipped down his nose. > > "I - didn't ---" > Snape threw Hary from him with all his might. Harry fell hard onto the dungeon floor." - OOP, p.640. paperback, > > > Does physical attack at the student qualifies as "evil act" in your book, Pippin?< Are you saying Snape wasn't uncontrollably angry, didn't feel violated, and was just using Harry's transgression as an excuse to satisfy his sadistic urges? I doubt that. After all, he could have used an authorized punishment, like whipping . I think Snape was so angry he didn't know what he was doing, otherwise he wouldn't have passed up the chance. The thing is, we don't know why that memory was so traumatic for Snape. We may never know. I suggest it's the sexual connotations, and others tell me they don't exist, though we know very little of the sexual mores of the wizarding world. It's been suggested that Snape was ashamed of wearing underpants because they're so Muggle. Who knows? But Snape clearly felt violated, and to have Harry invade his memories must have made him feel violated again. We also don't know why Harry is so resilient. And it seems that whether you think you've been the victim of mild horseplay or severe brutality has a lot to do with your expectations. Harry shrugs off far worse than what Snape gives him when it's coming from the Dursleys, but in the Wizarding World, where everyone is supposed to treat him like a hero, it's a big deal. Having read Nora's 113106, I agree with it all. I'd only add that I think there's something, um, wrong, with being so indifferent to the harm you're doing with your persistent humiliation that you keep it up to the point of lasting damage. That applies to James and Sirius in their treatment of Snape, as it does to Sirius in his treatment of Kreacher. But Snape and Kreacher are just racist, dark arts loving toerags, so why should we care about their feelings? But isn't it their feelings, not their philosophies, that's behind their actions? You can know an awful lot about Dark Arts and not use them. You can be a racist and deplore violence--I don't think Regulus quit the Death Eaters because he started feeling that Muggles and Mudbloods were his equals. I stand by what I said about James. Harry says to himself that he knows what it's like to be humiliated in a circle of onlookers. The use of the word circle is deliberate--it's the Death Eaters who stood in a circle to humiliate him, no one else. Pippin From maritajan at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 14:57:12 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040917145712.71594.qmail@web12104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113224 --- garybec wrote: > Potioncat: > I've been meaning to look for a quote that Lupin makes in connection > with another thread. Not sure which book it's in but he says > something about "LV came to kill the last of the Potters..." > The quote I think you're referring to is actually in PoA, pg. 371. It's Sirius talking to PP about his motivation for staying Scabbers with Ron..... "...ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of allies...and to deliver the last Potter to them." ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Sep 17 15:15:53 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:15:53 -0000 Subject: Alice Longbottom and the Potters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: Karen wrote: >>> >>> Neville is a full-blood so Alice Evans doesn't work. But >>> I really like the idea of Alice Potter. I think this >>> weaves very well in the tapestry of JKRs writing. Tonks replied: >> >> The Potters died a least a week or so before the >> Longbottoms ended up in St. Mungo's. Harry was taken to >> Petunia's house within 24 hours of the death of Lily and >> James. Therefore if Alice was a Potter, Harry would have >> had some other blood relative that he could have gone with >> besides Petunia. But Petunia was the only one left. >> So the Alice Potter idea is out too. Leah suggested: > > Harry has to be in the place where 'his mother's blood > dwells', so if Alice is a Potter not an Evans, she would > not have any of Lily's blood and would not have been any > use to him. That's fine as far as Dumbledore's charm itself goes, but it's hard to see how the theory could be reconciled with other statements that the Dursleys are Harry's only living relatives. Starting with PS/SS, ch. 1: Dumbledore: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." ch. 2: (Harry, musing): "When he had been younger, Harry had dreamed and dreamed of some unknown relation coming to take him away, but it had never happened; the Dursleys were his only family." ch. 3: (Harry's thoughts, upon receiving the Hogwarts letter): "No one, ever, in his whole life, had written to him. Who would? He had no friends, no other relatives." PA, ch. 1: (Narrator): "Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and their son, Dudley, were Harry's only living relatives." GF, ch. 1: (Narrator): "Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and Dudley were Harry's only living relatives. They were Muggles who hated and despised magic in any form, which meant that Harry was about as welcome in their house as dry rot." Unless you disbelieve all of those statements, Alice is not related to Harry. -- Matt From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 15:21:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:21:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Having read Nora's 113106, I agree with it all. Alla: Then, I don't really know what we were arguing about. :o) It seemed to me that you were arguing that what Snape does to Harry is just that ... No big deal. And Harry was supposed to shrug it off and to submit to Snape's treatment of him to give him more enjoyment than he already has. I was arguing that sadism is a very big deal, that's all. Pippin: But Snape and Kreacher are just racist, > dark arts loving toerags, so why should we care about their > feelings? Alla: Could you point out to me where I EVER said that? As to Pensieve scene, I stated many times how I feel about it. Kreacher, I believe, is a very different story. I do NOT believe that Sirius treated Kreacher any worse than any other elf-owner treats them. In general, it is very wrong. But I don't believe that Sirius deserves to be singled out from the others. I believe that hose elves should be and will be set free, but I fail to see how Sirius behaviour was the worst. Lucius to Dobby? yes. Sirius to Kreacher? I am not sure. Right now, though, I will definitely say : Die, Kreacher. Die. It is your right to feel what you are feeling about James. I am just having trouble figuring out how you consider what James did to Snape such a big deal (and I agree with you, it was), but what Snape does to those who cannot fight him back, not a big deal. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 16:53:29 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:53:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113227 > Alla: > It seemed to me that you were arguing that what Snape does to Harry is just that ... No big deal. And Harry was supposed to shrug it off and to submit to Snape's treatment of him to give him more enjoyment than he already has.< Pippin: How would Harry laughing off Snape's treatment of him give Snape more enjoyment? If Harry cheerfully said, "I can see I'll have to study more if I want to do well in this class, sir" would Snape derive some twisted pleasure from it? If Harry said, "I was sorry to learn that my father treated you so badly when you were at school, and I wish there was something I could do about it" would you think less of him? See, as long as Harry defies Snape, Snape is getting what he wants, which is an excuse to punish Harry. So Snape will keep goading Harry, despite Harry's resistance. I understand that you want Snape to stop feeling gratified by the pleasure he feels when he hurts somebody, but I don't think that's under his control, anymore than I can help feeling gratified when I eat chocolate. I can give up eating chocolate, but I can't give up liking it, you see? And unfortunately, Snape is in a position where he has to punish people sometimes...it's part of his job. And it's a job that the WW and Dumbledore want him to do, and apparently their ideas about what a good teacher is differ from ours, so I can't really blame him for the way he does it, though I don't approve. Alla: > Kreacher, I believe, is a very different story. I do NOT believe that Sirius treated Kreacher any worse than any other elf-owner treats them. In general, it is very wrong. But I don't believe that Sirius deserves to be singled out from the others. I believe that hose elves should be and will be set free, but I fail to see how Sirius behaviour was the worst. Lucius to Dobby? yes. < Pippin: Excuse me? There are at least 100 House Elves owned by Hogwarts, and I have never heard Dumbledore treat any of them the way Sirius treated Kreacher. Alla: > It is your right to feel what you are feeling about James. I am just having trouble figuring out how you consider what James did to Snape such a big deal (and I agree with you, it was), but what Snape does to those who cannot fight him back, not a big deal.< Pippin: I'm not talking about the way we should regard sadistic teachers in general, I'm talking very specifically about what Harry should do about Snape. Consider the boggart dementor versus the real dementor. The feelings that Harry has facing the boggart dementor are just as real as the ones he has facing a real dementor. They are a big deal, and you could argue that both dementors and boggarts are evil sadistic creatures because of it. But the remedy for each is very different. Riddikulus won't do a thing against a real dementor, but OTOH the patronus, as we finally saw in GoF, won't make a boggart go away. You have to use laughter. You may feel you are doing something very noble and wonderful by conjuring a patronus instead, and the patronus may cancel out the bad feelings. But it won't do a thing about the boggart, and as soon as the patronus fades, the boggart will be back to scare you again. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 17:07:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:07:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113228 Pippin: snip. I understand that you > want Snape to stop feeling gratified by the pleasure he feels > when he hurts somebody, but I don't think that's under his > control, anymore than I can help feeling gratified when I eat > chocolate. I can give up eating chocolate, but I can't give up liking > it, you see? Alla: LOL, Pippin, as fellow chocolate lover I agree with THAT part, but I have to part the ways with all your other contentions. What do you mean, it is beyond Snape's control to stop feeling pleasure, while he hurts somebody. You mean sadism is like an addiction or an uncurable disease? You mean there is no way for the person to improve oneself? I understand that if Snape tries to improve his behaviour, he won't be able to do it right away, but in time, why not? The problem is that he does not WANT to stop doing what he is doing and we have a closed circle of bad behaviour. > Pippin: > Excuse me? There are at least 100 House Elves owned by > Hogwarts, and I have never heard Dumbledore treat any of them > the way Sirius treated Kreacher. > Alla: Oops, sorry. I concede of course. Dumbledore does treat house elves better than anybody else, but still it is the exception, not the rule. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 17:12:02 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:12:02 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" > wrote: > > > I too am unable to think of any canon showing Hagrid locking up > > around the castle- I would tend to think of that as Filch's job, > > and I think that we have seen the latter with keys. > > Lexicon Steve: > > The Hogwarts grounds are surrounded by a fence, according to the > sketch map drawn by Rowling which was displayed in the WB museum. > There are gates through which the road from the station travels, but > presumably there are gates in other places around the perimeter. It > is logical to assume that Hagrid's duties as groundskeeper include a > daily traverse of the perimeter fence, making sure that all gates > are secure. > > Steve > The Lexicon bboyminn: I think Lexicon Steve is on the right track. Hagrid takes care of the grounds and probably has, stashed somewhere, a master set of keys to the castle. Over the summer holiday, it's likely that the castle is pretty much abondon with the exception of Hagrid who must continue to maintain the grounds and keep the castle secure. He does this much the way Frank Bryce kept the grounds and keys of the old Riddle mansion. Hagrid, however, keeps the keys not to a grand house, but to largest ancient structure ever built in Europe. A structure which probably has many many keyed doors at the entrances, in interior doors, and at the various gates in the perimeter wall. As long as we are on the subject, we primarily see the main gate to the castle ground, the one with the winged boars on high pillars, but the phrasing used in the various books seems to imply that there are more gated entrances to the grounds. So, Hagrid keeps the master set of keys, and when the castle is truly locked up, it is Hagrid who locks it up, but it is reasonable that Filch also has a fairly large set of keys that he uses in the course of his work. However, it's Hagrid who has the full Master set of keys. Keeper of the Keys is a tremendous responsibility for Hagrid, and even if Dumbledore gave the position to him as nothing more than a hollow but ego boosting title, I'm sure Hagrid wears the title with pride and take the responsibility seriously. Just a few thoughts. Steve/the other Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 17:17:41 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:17:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113230 > HunterGreen: snip. > As for Neville having Snape as his biggest fear, that might not be > completely Snape's fault. Neville started school *already* weak and > having low self-esteem (just look at the way his grandmother treats > him), so he was more senstive to Snape than he would have been > otherwise. Sure, Snape is quite cruel to him, but he's not > responsible for Neville's problems. Alla: We don't know whether Snape is responsible for ALL Neville's problems, but I am pretty sure that his cruelty is resposible for making Neville's problems worse. I am sure you remember the theory that Snape was there when Neville's parents were tortured and Neville subconciously may be afraid of him because of that. That if Neville indeed was memory-charmed, Snape maybe the one who did it. I find such theory do be quite plausible, but the question is if Snape was there, what was he doing - torturing the Longbottoms with others or coming to save Neville? I really want it to be the first one, personally and if all of those speculations are indeed true, I really want to read the scene int he books , when Neville remembers all that and lets Snape have it. :o) From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Fri Sep 17 17:30:35 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Juleczka) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:30:35 +0200 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle (Was: Colin Creevy/The Basilisk attacks) In-Reply-To: <1095277245.22049.63667.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113231 > DuffyPoo : > In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin on four > Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one setting the > basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns and who were not > Julia now: It strucks me odd that the basilisk attacked the "Squib's cat". What for? Why did Riddle want to do it? And how did he know that Filch is actually a squib. Was it some kind of revange on Filch? Maybe Riddle hated Filch and Mrs Norris as much as everybody else? But wait a second... wasn't then in Hogwart a different guy? I remember Molly saying something about him... Maybe it isn't important but still interesting :) I thought that Filch being a Squib is some kind of a secret but it turns out that even young Riddle knows it... Another thought came to my mind while analyzing Tom's words. Why did nobody actually get killed? Was it a coincidence that all five of them saw the basilisk in some kind of refection? If it was really Ginny setting the basilisk on them then she wasn't really effective... Or maybe she has powers "that Dark Lord knows not"? :D Maybe in some way she was protecting her schoolmates (and animals :) by creating such situations in which nobody would get seriously harmed? Even under Riddle's influence she could think properly... very impressive. It's just my thought... What do you think? Julia From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 17:33:41 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:33:41 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113232 Something about McGonagall jumped out at me while looking for something else. Let's start with canon: SS/PS chp 14 last pages Professor McGonagall, in a tartan bathrobe and hair net, had Malfoy by the ear. "Detention!" she shouted. "And twenty points from Slytherin! Wandering around in the middle of the night, how DARE you--" Malfoy protests that Potter has a dragon. She accuses him of telling lies and hauls him off to see Professor Snape.(That must have been an interesting interview!) chp 15 McGonagall has returned to discover Harry, Hermione and Neville are also up. Part of her tirade includes: "You fed Draco Malfoy some cock-and-bull story about a dragon, trying to get him out of bed and into trouble." cutting to: "I'm disgusted," said Professor McGonagall. "Four students out of bed in one night! I've never heard of such a thing before!" Having docked Malfoy 20 points for being out of bed and lying, she now docks each Gryffindor 50, including Neville, who she thinks was tricked like Malfoy was. She ends with, "I've never been more ashamed of Gryffindor students." ********************************************************************* Seems the Marauders did pretty well. You'd have thought they would have at least been caught once or twice out of bounds at night. What is she ashamed of? That they were out of bed or that they tricked Malfoy? (Remember, she doesn't know the truth.) And how must this have appeared to Snape? Dejavu? Not too much later, though I'm not sure of timeline, in chapter 16 Snape warns Harry, "...any more nighttime wanders and I will personally make sure you are expelled." I always thought Protector!Snape was trying to keep Harry safe. Now I'm wondering if Snape was trying to prevent a repeat of history. Is he protecting Draco? And was McGonagall telling the truth? never so ashamed, or is she also aware of the Snape-Marauder episodes? Potioncat From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 17 17:35:14 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:35:14 -0400 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? Message-ID: <001b01c49cdc$b1141cc0$52c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113233 Angie "But if MWPP left the map to other students, it looks like Wormtail would have worried about being caught because he wouldn't know the map was in Filch's office. Maybe he felt that he had no choice but to risk it?" DuffyPoo: I think the map was taken from MWPP, otherwise, how would Lupin know when it was confiscated and by whom? Presumably MWPP knew that Filch didn't know how to work it, whether or not they knew he was a squib, only because the tunnels/whatever were unguarded/still open. Eloise said: "Begs the question of where Scabbers was at the time. Does Ron habitually carry him around? Was he there when Harry explained about the map? I don't think Harry uses it again before Scabbers disappears, but it seems a little unlikely that they *never* discussed it at all in the intervening month, especially as it was the holidays and they would have had plenty of opportunity to speak to each other openly without risk of being overheard." DuffyPoo: I get the impression Scabbers spent most of his time asleep on Ron's bed, or somewhere else in that room. I can't imagine Ron drags him to class every day. Hermione doesn't appear to take Crookshanks nor Harry, Hedwig, although Trevor does show up in Potions class once. Harry told Ron and Hermione about the map while they were in Hogsmeade. Perhaps overhearing a conversation about the map is what made Wormtail run for it. He knew Hagrid's hut wasn't on the map and he knew Sirius was somewhere in the vicinity of the school as he had already attempted to break in on Hallowe'en. He certainly would have heard about that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 17 17:48:20 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:48:20 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113234 Potioncat wrote: > Something about McGonagall jumped out at me while looking for > something else. > > Let's start with canon: > SS/PS chp 14 last pages > > Professor McGonagall, in a tartan bathrobe and hair net, had Malfoy > by the ear. > "Detention!" she shouted. "And twenty points from Slytherin! > Wandering around in the middle of the night, how DARE you--" > > Malfoy protests that Potter has a dragon. She accuses him of > telling lies and hauls him off to see Professor Snape.(That must > have been an interesting interview!) > > chp 15 > McGonagall has returned to discover Harry, Hermione and Neville are > also up. Part of her tirade includes: > "You fed Draco Malfoy some cock-and-bull story about a dragon, > trying to get him out of bed and into trouble." > cutting to: > "I'm disgusted," said Professor McGonagall. "Four students out of > bed in one night! I've never heard of such a thing before!" > > Having docked Malfoy 20 points for being out of bed and lying, she > now docks each Gryffindor 50, including Neville, who she thinks was > tricked like Malfoy was. She ends with, "I've never been more > ashamed of Gryffindor students." > > ********************************************************************* > > Seems the Marauders did pretty well. You'd have thought they would > have at least been caught once or twice out of bounds at night. > > What is she ashamed of? That they were out of bed or that they > tricked Malfoy? (Remember, she doesn't know the truth.) And how > must this have appeared to Snape? Dejavu? > > Not too much later, though I'm not sure of timeline, in chapter 16 > Snape warns Harry, "...any more nighttime wanders and I will > personally make sure you are expelled." > > I always thought Protector!Snape was trying to keep Harry safe. Now > I'm wondering if Snape was trying to prevent a repeat of history. Is > he protecting Draco? And was McGonagall telling the truth? never so > ashamed, or is she also aware of the Snape-Marauder episodes? SSSusan: She is ashamed of their behavior **on behalf of** Gryffindor House, imo. I'm currently on a looking-through-all-the-books-for-MM-scenes tear, and this is a recurring theme with her: that she can't BELIEVE someone would behave in such a manner and besmirch the image of her House! ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 17:54:53 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:54:53 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113235 > SSSusan: > She is ashamed of their behavior **on behalf of** Gryffindor House, > imo. I'm currently on a looking-through-all-the-books-for-MM- scenes > tear, and this is a recurring theme with her: that she can't BELIEVE > someone would behave in such a manner and besmirch the image of her > House! ;-) > Potioncat: Interesting that we've both started a McGonagall search! I understand her being upset with them, but "never" been so ashamed? She's had the Marauders and the Weasley twins...come on... she's been ashamed before! ;-) From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Sep 17 18:05:52 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:05:52 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > However, after rereading that passage, I think that Wormtail was > trying to save his own neck. Ron had been grousing about how > worthless Scabbers was. Maybe Wormtail was worried Ron would find a > new pet and he would be put out to pasture? Which would mean he > would lose his precious information base. > > Angie You have a very good point. It is consistant with Wormtail's insecurity/fear which seems to drive much of his behavior. I always took it to mean there was some amosity between Wormtail and the adult Malfoy or Goyle. To me that attack and the attack by the fake Moody on Drago in book 4 have similarities. Tim From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 17 18:11:43 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:11:43 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113237 SSSusan: > > She is ashamed of their behavior **on behalf of** Gryffindor > > House, imo. I'm currently on a looking-through-all-the-books-for- > > MM-scenes tear, and this is a recurring theme with her: that she > > can't BELIEVE someone would behave in such a manner and besmirch > > the image of her House! ;-) > > Potioncat: > Interesting that we've both started a McGonagall search! > > I understand her being upset with them, but "never" been so > ashamed? She's had the Marauders and the Weasley twins...come > on... she's been ashamed before! ;-) SSSusan: Well, note that she said "never MORE ashamed...before" not "NEVER ashamed...before." She uses similar "never" lines several times in the books. All I can figure is that each instance is worse than the one before, so she's just "raising the bar" for being ashamed with each new case! Siriusly Snapey Susan From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 17 14:20:03 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:20:03 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113238 > Eloise wrote: > Harry told Ron and Hermione about the map when he met them in > Honeydukes, the first time he used it, in December. Scabbers > didn't disappear until January. > > Begs the question of where Scabbers was at the time. Does Ron > habitually carry him around? Was he there when Harry explained > about the map? I don't think Harry uses it again before Scabbers > disappears, but it seems a little unlikely that they *never* > discussed it at all in the intervening month, especially as it > was the holidays and they would have had plenty of opportunity > to speak to each other openly without risk of being overheard. Hannah now: I agree with Eloise, the boys must have discussed that map. They probably were using it too, if they got the chance, just think of the opportunities! Spying on teachers, seeing which boys and girls were hanging out together in broom closets... I reckon Pettigrew was too worried about Black and Crookshanks at the time to think much about the map. In the face of these more obvious and pressing dangers he may not even have realised that he was in danger of exposure via the map. If he did realise, he probably thought that the trio would never notice his name (and they didn't after all). Maybe he didn't even know that as an animagus he'd show up? I always imagined he'd have had a minor part in the making of the map, and that the other Marauders would be the ones who got to use it, with Pettigrew trying to peer over their shoulders. Hannah From Snarryfan at aol.com Fri Sep 17 14:21:45 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:21:45 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113239 Mike wrote: > I don't even remember Trevor being mentioned in the later books. > Perhaps he decided it was safer after PS and left Trevor at home > with his Gran? He may have had it in CoS, but I cannot remember > for the life of me hearing about it in PoA or GoF... and of course > he got his precious Mimbulus Mimbletonia in OotP so I doubt he'd > care about Trevor then.... We see Trevor again in POA, in Potion, when Snape use him for test Neville's potion. (Now, what Trevor do there, and how Snape knew that it's was Neville's...) I think he has a brief apparition in OOTP, when he show his plant. I think that he gives Trevor to Harry to have his hand free or something. Christelle From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 17 18:41:20 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:41:20 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113240 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Lexicon Steve: > > The Hogwarts grounds are surrounded by a fence, according to the > > sketch map drawn by Rowling which was displayed in the WB museum. > > There are gates through which the road from the station travels, but > > presumably there are gates in other places around the perimeter. It > > is logical to assume that Hagrid's duties as groundskeeper include a > > daily traverse of the perimeter fence, making sure that all gates > > are secure. > > bboyminn: > > I think Lexicon Steve is on the right track. Hagrid takes care of the > grounds and probably has, stashed somewhere, a master set of keys to > the castle. > > Over the summer holiday, it's likely that the castle is pretty much > abondon with the exception of Hagrid who must continue to maintain the > grounds and keep the castle secure. > Kneasy: I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' dates fall in August - the school holidays. Even more significantly the dates are consecutive - so the book must have been returned and then taken out again during the holiday period. The library at least is open. Many have wondered what the staff do during holidays - do they have homes elsewhere, or do they live permanently at the school? No evidence either way, but I'd suspect that some at least stay in the school and that means that the place is unlikely to bbe locked up like a bank vault. And talking of vaults - Hagrid does have the care of other keys - he had the keys to DDs and Harrys vaults. Permanently? Maybe not, but maybe yes. Right from the begining of my 'Potter Period' back in 2000, I've wondered at that 'Keeper of the Keys' title; posted the same question last year. Nobody came up with anything new though. I'm still wondering if 'Keys' means more than we generally assume. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 18:50:50 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:50:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Having read Nora's 113106, I agree with it all. I'd only add that > I think there's something, um, wrong, with being so indifferent to > the harm you're doing with your persistent humiliation that you > keep it up to the point of lasting damage. That applies to James > and Sirius in their treatment of Snape, as it does to Sirius in is > treatment of Kreacher. But Snape and Kreacher are just racist, > dark arts loving toerags, so why should we care about their > feelings? Thank you for the kind words--although I don't think (or at least I didn't intend to suggest) that there's NOT something wrong with James and Sirius' treatment of Snape. I just think we ought to ponder whether there's something more behind it--just as I am willing to admit the eminent possibility that there's something more behind Snape's treatment of Harry et. al. than sheer nastiness. I also think it does have to be taken into account that teacher abusing student is not quite the same thing as student abusing other student or master abusing hateful yet warped house-elf. [It's a fine and tricky thing to balance contextual/local concerns and the demands of a universal moral code. So far as I know, no one's theories do that perfectly...] > But isn't it their feelings, not their philosophies, that's behind > their actions? You can know an awful lot about Dark Arts and not > use them. You can be a racist and deplore violence--I don't think > Regulus quit the Death Eaters because he started feeling that > Muggles and Mudbloods were his equals. I have the as-of-yet unvalidated concept that when it comes to the elder Potter and Snape, it's an uncomfortable blend of the two. I have no doubt that there were intensely negative feelings, on both sides, and as to date, taken out in an excruciatingly difficult to read way on Snape by James. Regarding feelings, there are often reasons behind them, even if they are often not the thing that appears most obviously on the surface. I will not say 'subconscious', because then I'd have to smack myself hard ala a naughty House Elf. In other words, I suspect that an intellectual hatred of the Dark Arts *combined* with a personal loathing to create the particular animosity we have seen on exhibit. I also think one of the points that may be coming up in the Potterverse is, perhaps, the moral guilt borne by the at least one- time Voldemort supporters who nonetheless were not directly violent (mere et pere Black, for example) bear in the warping of their society. Mrs. Black's defense seems to me to go something like: "Well, I just told my children from birth that these Mudblood creatures were inherently inferior and our society would be much better off without all of them--who would have thought one of them would have DONE something about it?" > I stand by what I said about James. Harry says to himself that he > knows what it's like to be humiliated in a circle of onlookers. The > use of the word circle is deliberate--it's the Death Eaters who > stood in a circle to humiliate him, no one else. I agree that there is strong parallelism--very strong. But...I want to be careful, perhaps overly so, in drawing a sign of direct equivalency between the two things. Partially because there is something profoundly different in the differential power relations between a circle of DEs and a circle of nasty bullying schoolkids. You'll all excuse me now; I'm going to do like my favorite animated character of all time... -Nora says: vive le weekend, and pass the bottle From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 18:58:59 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:58:59 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > I never understood why Scabbers/Wormtail attacked Goyle on the > Hogwarts Express the first year. ... > > However, ..., I think that Wormtail was trying to save his own neck. > ... > > Angie bboyminn: There is an old saying, 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you'. In this case, of course, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, but you do bite the hand that tries to steal food from the hand that feeds you. Either that or Peter/Scabbers mistook Goyle's attempt to grab a chocolate frog as an attempt to grab him (Scabbers). Personally, I favor Scabber's protecting Ron. Without Ron, Scabbers is (pardon the French) screwed. Just a thought, admittedly, a very short thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 19:55:21 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040917195521.34786.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113243 --- Nora Renka wrote: > I have the as-of-yet unvalidated concept that when it comes to the > elder Potter and Snape, it's an uncomfortable blend of the two. I > have no doubt that there were intensely negative feelings, on both > sides, and as to date, taken out in an excruciatingly difficult to > read way on Snape by James. Regarding feelings, there are often > reasons behind them, even if they are often not the thing that > appears most obviously on the surface. I will not > say 'subconscious', because then I'd have to smack myself hard ala > a naughty House Elf. In other words, I suspect that an > intellectual hatred of the Dark Arts *combined* with a personal > loathing to create the particular animosity we have seen on exhibit. > > -Nora says: vive le weekend, and pass the bottle "Excrutiatingly difficult"? Looks pretty clear-cut to me. I have some questions for those who feel that there are reasons behind why James and Sirius do to Snape what we saw in the Pensieve: Why does Lily ask "What has he ever done to you?"? Why does Lupin ask "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?"? Why does Sirius answer "Well you made us feel guilty sometimes" and "...arrogant little berks, you mean"? Do those lines sound like there was some kind of feud-between-equals going on or that there were extenuating circumstances? Magda (who would enjoy reading some good discussion of this issue from the archives if she could get the damn yahoo search function to work properly) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 19:57:30 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:57:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: <20040917145712.71594.qmail@web12104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113244 Potioncat: > > I've been meaning to look for a quote that Lupin makes in > > connection with another thread. Not sure which book it's in but > > he says something about "LV came to kill the last of the > > Potters..." Marita added: > The quote I think you're referring to is actually in PoA, pg. 371. > It's Sirius talking to PP about his motivation for staying Scabbers > with Ron..... > > "...ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of allies...and > to deliver the last Potter to them." Now Eustace_Scrubb: That quote's really interesting. The way Sirius phrases it, it suggests that as far as he knew, betraying Harry to Voldemort would have resulted in completion of some sort of grudge killing, _not_ elimination of a threat mentioned in a prophecy. I'm always wondering who knew what about the Prophecy before Godric's Hollow. How much did Dumbledore tell the Order about _why_ the Potters were at risk? And how much did Voldemort tell the Death Eaters? The answer could affect loads of the theories that have been discussed here--about who else may have been at Godric's Hollow, about why and when the Longbottoms were attacked and probably others. Here Sirius seems to think Voldemort had marked James and Lily down for death because of who they were, not because of who their son might become. And to get back to the initial question in this thread, were Harry's grandparents also victims of the Death Eaters? Does Voldemort have a longstanding vendetta against Potters that pre-dates the Prophecy? I know JKR has said they are not important to the plot, but it does seem that at least the Potter grandparents were both alive 4 or 5 years prior to James' and Lily's deaths, so it seems at least possible that they also fell victim to Voldemort--perhaps this connects in some way to one of the three times James (and Lily) defied Voldemort. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb "Not useless," said the Owl. "EUSTACE!" From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 20:08:36 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:08:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar and Tom Riddle -- No Pain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113245 Angie wrote: > Unless it happened and I missed it, Harry's scar did not hurt when > he saw TR in the diary and in the actual COS. Is this because he > was only a memory and not in corporeal form? Or maybe because TR > had not yet become LV and attempted to kill Harry? Eustace_Scrubb: I hope that agreeing isn't interpreted as being a "me-too" post, but I think the two factors you mention probably explain the lack of pain from Harry's scar. (I just re-read that chapter last night and Harry's anger with Memory!Tom slowly grew, but there was no searing pain in his head.) In PS/SS LV was really present, though as VaporMort. In CoS, even the nearly reconstituted Tom Riddle was never more than a memory of the pre-LV Tom--who (possible Time-Turning aside) had neither affected nor been affected by Harry Potter. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 20:15:46 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:15:46 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: ... heavily edited... > > Right from the begining of my 'Potter Period' back in 2000, I've > wondered at that 'Keeper of the Keys' title; posted the same > question last year. Nobody came up with anything new though. > I'm still wondering if 'Keys' means more than we generally assume. > > Kneasy bboyminn: Let's not forget that 'Keeper of Keys' is not something JKR made up. First it is really, in ancient and olden times there really were people who held the title 'Keeper of Keys'. It's history, and a castle like Hogwarts would logically have a 'Keeper of Keys'. It also appears in books, poetry, fantasy, myth, fable, and legend. A search of Google for... "Keeper of Keys" -harry -hagrid (where '-' means not -harry = not harry) yields 1,250 hits. Also,... Britian "Keeper of Keys" will yield about 170 hits. Myth, fable, and Legend- - JANUS - In ancient mythology, the treasures of the gods were protected by JANUS, the "Keeper of Keys", and "Custodian of Treasures". Looking both forward and back, this ancient figure could see in all directions, preserving and protecting all that was important. -the month of January - Roman god of beginnings and endings. He is usually represented with two heads, one facing backward, the other facing forward. Janus symbolizes the principle of looking back to the past to understand the present in order to shape the future. >From an ancient myth about Poseidon (actually a play) "Hecuba, Queen, Mother of Hector become an elderly Keeper of keys: a porter at the door: a baker of bread." 'Keeper of Keys' By Bernice L. McFadden 'Keeper of Keys' a Charlie Chan Mystery Janny Wurts - 'The Cycle of Fire' Series including 'Stormwarden', 'Keeper of Keys' & 'Shadowfane'. -Keeper of Keys Riddle- I am the keeper of keys that unlock no door, And I am quite natural with my feet on the floor. I'm proud and I'm perfect, and I look really grand, And I can tickle your fancy if you lend me a hand. Who or what am I? (sorry, I don't actually have the solution) -Frogs - a comedy in one act by Aristophanes- "Everything is falling into place," gasps Dionysos. "Like a well-made play." Then, due to a misunderstanding with Aeakos, Pluto's keeper of keys, Dionysos finds himself in imminent danger of violent death." - From Pagan Liturgy - Summer Solstive Ritual- Priest: Hear now the benediction of the Evening Star, spoken softly by the Keeper of Keys to the Doors of Dusk in the Moon-shade of purple-shrouded twilight: - Silver Dragon Academy - a Goth website (I think) "Your animal Spirt is the Gray wolf. The Gray wolf is the keepers of keys to the human spirt and the guide through life." The French word 'Concierge' translate to English mean 'The keeper of keys' In addition, the 'Keeper of Keys' is mentioned in the Christian Bible. I wish I could have found more factual and historical references, but with 1,250 to search through, and limited time and energy, this is the best I could do. Not sure what that adds to the discussion, I guess primarily a reminder to people that 'Keeper of Keys' is not a unique concept to JKR, and I would suspect, but can't prove at the moment, that there are people today who have the title 'keeper of keys'. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 20:18:08 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:18:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040917195521.34786.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > "Excrutiatingly difficult"? Looks pretty clear-cut to me. > > I have some questions for those who feel that there are reasons > behind why James and Sirius do to Snape what we saw in the Pensieve: > > Why does Lily ask "What has he ever done to you?"? > > Why does Lupin ask "Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?"? > > Why does Sirius answer "Well you made us feel guilty sometimes" and > "...arrogant little berks, you mean"? > > Do those lines sound like there was some kind of feud-between-equals > going on or that there were extenuating circumstances? > > Magda (who would enjoy reading some good discussion of this issue > from the archives if she could get the damn yahoo search function to > work properly) I seem to have been unclear--I meant there simply that the scene was difficult for ME to read. It's very unpleasant--but I should hope my comments have never lead anyone to be in doubt that such was the case for myself. Perhaps one feels there are reasons because there are usually reasons for things, and one is loathe to be reductionist...yet. If we're giving one set of characters possible expansions for motivation beyond simply being nasty, we should give other characters the same, to be methodologically even-handed. And there's my personal reading of something like "It's because he exists" as having something to say ontologically. Should this all turn out to be idle speculation, I will be the first to bow to reality and admit that things *are* as simple as they appear. I have the sneaking suspicion that we're being set up for a reversal, but I could be completely wrong. That'll learn me to speculate. -Nora spends a Friday afternoon in the library, pleasantly cold From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 20:29:38 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:29:38 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113248 > Kneasy: > I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' dates > fall in August - the school holidays. Even more significantly the dates are > consecutive - so the book must have been returned and then taken out > again during the holiday period. The library at least is open. > Potioncat: I don't have a copy of QTTA. So I have some questions. Do we know who checked the book out over the holiday? And do we know which year it was? Seems a long way to go to get a book. This is going to be Harry's shortest summer with the Durleys...so could something be going on at Hogwarts over a portion of the holidays? Something that he might attend between 5th and 6th year? Let's see: prep classes for NEWTS? Remedial classes to get into NEWTS? Practice for the Toad Choir? Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 17 20:36:16 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:36:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113249 > > Magda (who would enjoy reading some good discussion of this issue > > from the archives if she could get the damn yahoo search function to > > work properly) Nora: > I seem to have been unclear--I meant there simply that the scene was > difficult for ME to read. It's very unpleasant--but I should hope my > comments have never lead anyone to be in doubt that such was the case > for myself. Potioncat: Magda (and anyone else) it might be fun to look at this scene objectively and pull in canon support to see what the heck was going on...but not from a good side--bad side point of view. Some "what ifs?" and "how abouts?" Going from the point of view that most of the characters in the scene eventually become good guys. Nora, I also found this incredibly hard to read. I found it very upsetting. From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 20:36:51 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:36:51 -0000 Subject: Why don't Ron and Ginny know? (WAS Gum Wrappers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113250 Potioncat: > Hi, Dumbledad, haven't seen your name in a while. > > I think McGonagall believes in the "Life is Tough Get Over It" > philosophy. Similar to Gram. She reminds me of Merilla(sp) > in "Anne of Green Gables." Eustace_Scrubb: Yeah, she's sort of like Marilla Cuthbert--though I think McGonagall is more truly hard-boiled than Marilla. And I doubt she makes her own Elderberry Wine and leaves it where enterprising students can find it! Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Sep 17 20:46:42 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:46:42 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113251 Kneasy: > > I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' > > dates fall in August - the school holidays. Even more > > significantly the dates are consecutive - so the book must have > > been returned and then taken out again during the holiday > > period. The library at least is open. Potioncat: > I don't have a copy of QTTA. So I have some questions. Do we know > who checked the book out over the holiday? And do we know which > year it was? Seems a long way to go to get a book. Yb now: We don't know the year, but the names are: E. Macmillan (presumably Ernie), due August 12 and T. Boot (presumably Terry, from OotP), due Aug. 21. The dates extend over April through March, so I think we can assume that this is over one year. But notice that the book is consecutively checked out from due June 22 to due Sept. 16. Maybe Madam Pince has a waiting list and an Owl Post setup. I've wondered about that too. ~Yb From tim at marvinhold.com Fri Sep 17 20:49:17 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:49:17 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 5 - veil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rsteph1981" wrote: > Did we ever come to a consensus on what the important bit from book > 2 was? > > Anyway, this essay speculates that the black curtain in the death > day party is the same as the veil in OOTP. > > Here's a link: http://harmony.portkey.org/theories/veilmystery.php > > > > Rebecca In my opinion, the important bit is the Hand of Glory. I always thought the Hand and the Invisiblility Cloak were meant for each other. Not only is it in both Book and Movie but in the movie the scene with Harry's Hand and the Lantern blazinig away while the rest of him is under the cloak is quite an illustration of the usefullness of the Hand of Glory. Tim From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 20:51:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:51:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113253 > > Potioncat: > Magda (and anyone else) it might be fun to look at this scene > objectively and pull in canon support to see what the heck was going > on...but not from a good side--bad side point of view. Some "what > ifs?" and "how abouts?" Going from the point of view that most of > the characters in the scene eventually become good guys. Alla: I think we will be able to do it soon, because next chapter discussion is "Snape's worst memory." Not that anything stops us from doing it earlier. :o) Potioncat: > Nora, I also found this incredibly hard to read. I found it very > upsetting. Alla: Yes. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 21:09:48 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:09:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > Should this all turn out to be idle speculation, I will be the first to bow to reality and admit that things *are* as simple as they appear. I have the sneaking suspicion that we're being set up for a reversal, but I could be completely wrong. That'll learn me to speculate. > Pippin: The trouble is, there's already been a reversal. Harry went from seeing his father as the man who represented (much as he did for Snape) everything he wanted to be, to someone whom even his friends admitted was an arrogant little berk. It seems to me what you suspect is an un-reversal, something that will put James, Lupin and Sirius back on the pedestal, leaving only Peter to have fallen from grace. Sirius and James are dead, so the only point I can see in giving Harry more back story about them is so that Harry can understand himself better. Does he need to see himself as as a saintly being who can do no wrong, or as a struggling mortal, guilty of sin and error, but not beyond redemption all the same? Pippin From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Sep 17 21:10:28 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:10:28 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113255 Julia: > It strikes me as odd that the basilisk attacked the "Squib's cat". > What for? Why did Riddle want to do it? And how did he know that > Filch is actually a squib. Was it some kind of revenge on Filch? > Maybe Riddle hated Filch and Mrs. Norris as much as everybody > else? But wait a second... wasn't there a different guy in > Hogwart's? Yb: Molly does remember Apollyon Pringle, the old caretaker. I doubt Filch was anywhere near on staff when TR was at Hogwart's. He may have been student age at the time, but being a Squib, he wouldn't be concerned with Hogwart's anyway. I've never seen him as an old man, more like younger than Hagrid. I suppose Squibs have the same extended life span wizards do, but there's no canon for it. Julia: > I thought that Filch being a Squib is some kind of a secret but it > turns out that even young Riddle knows it... Yb: I suppose.. I think... I DON'T KNOW! Maybe the basilisk heard about Filch's "problem" after the attack. Harry found out about it, told Ron (who probably told Ginny, Fred, and George: it's kinda funny to them after all) and Ginny told Diary!Tom sometime over the course of the year. Catching the cat was just luck, and the Basilisk probably heard someone coming and retreated immediately. Julia: > Another thought came to my mind while analyzing Tom's words. Why > did nobody actually get killed? Was it a coincidence that all five > of them saw the basilisk in some kind of refection? If it was > really Ginny setting the basilisk on them then she wasn't really > effective... Or maybe she has powers "that Dark Lord knows not"? Yb: Oh, don't you start too. Julia: > Maybe in some way she was protecting her schoolmates (and animals > by creating such situations in which nobody would get seriously > harmed? Even under Riddle's influence she could think properly... > very impressive. It's just my thought... What do you think? Yb: Well, all HP Sleuths know there's know such thing as a coincidence, but to explain how Ginny "created circumstances" so Hermione and Penelope wouldn't die is a stretch. I think: Mrs. Norris: bad luck. Tom probably didn't even know Filch was a Squib, as discussed above. Justin: Maybe he was chatting with Nick at the time? Maybe Nick dove in in the "nick" of time to save him? Ginny could be responsible for telling Nick to jump in JFF's line of vision. Colin: That was an odd one. He was holding grapes, and Dumbledore actually found him first... Maybe he wanted to take a picture of something else, and the Basilisk just slipped into view, or he heard a noise and turned around, still looking through the lens? I suppose one could have Ginny telling him to look through the camera, but it's doubtful. Hermione and Penelope: They were looking in a mirror around a corner. Ginny couldn't have had anything to do with it. It was Hermione's idea (we can assume that, I think) to use the mirror. I don't see Ginny being able to do these things. She'd probably have /some/ memory of the events she was doing if she was aware enough to yell or cast a spell or something. My guess is the Basilisk got scared after each attack because it heard someone coming. My thought. Any takers? ~Yb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 21:27:13 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:27:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113256 > > Pippin: > > The trouble is, there's already been a reversal. Harry went from > seeing his father as the man who represented (much as he did > for Snape) everything he wanted to be, to someone whom even > his friends admitted was an arrogant little berk. It seems to me > what you suspect is an un-reversal, something that will put > James, Lupin and Sirius back on the pedestal, leaving only Peter > to have fallen from grace. Alla: I don't know about Nora, but since me and her are thinking somewhat similar about that topic (I apologise, if I am wrong, Nora), but I definitely think that we are due for another reversal, simply because two more books are coming. I don't expect a complete reversal, Pippin, I DON'T WANT James and Sirius back on pedestal, but I definitely expect to see Snape behaving just as nasty towards Marauders as they were to him in that scene. It is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE as of today and just as Nora, I will bow to reality, if things will be simple and James and Sirius were just bullies for no reason at all ( No, I don't think that bullying person for a reason is right). But , so far I am convinced that hints are there and till I am proven to be wrong, I'll hold on to this. Yes, so far we only heard from Sirius that Snape knew more Dark Arts that a seventh year. Yes, we only heard from Sirius that Snape never missed a chance to curse James, but I think Sirius is just reliable canon witness as anybody else, because we don't have anybody else. yet. Sirius knew what the Darkness is from inside. He, after all, tried to escape it when he was sixteen. Come to think of it, I think he is very reliable witness despite his hatred of Snape. And, we actually have some objective evidence that Snape got involved with Dark Arts at one point of his life, because he DID become a DE. I don't think it is a big leap to assume that he got involved with them at quite early period of his life, although of course we don't know that yet. Pippin: Sirius and James are dead, so the only point I can see in giving > Harry more back story about them is so that Harry can > understand himself better. Does he need to see himself as as a > saintly being who can do no wrong, or as a struggling mortal, > guilty of sin and error, but not beyond redemption all the same? > Alla: Oh, no, no, no. Please let you be wrong. :o) I want a back story to know what happened between Sirius and Snape. I want to know what happened during the Prank night. If that helps Harry understand himself better, great, if not, I still want to know that. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 21:31:26 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:31:26 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle (Was: Colin Creevy/The Basilisk attacks) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juleczka wrote: > > DuffyPoo : > > In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin on four > > Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one setting the > > basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns and who were not > > > > Julia now: > > It strucks me odd that the basilisk attacked the "Squib's cat". What for? > Why did Riddle want to do it? And how did he know that Filch is actually a > squib. Was it some kind of revange on Filch? Maybe Riddle hated Filch and > Mrs Norris as much as everybody else? But wait a second... wasn't then in > Hogwart a different guy? I remember Molly saying something about him... > Maybe it isn't important but still interesting :) > I thought that Filch being a Squib is some kind of a secret but it turns out > that even young Riddle knows it... > > Another thought came to my mind while analyzing Tom's words. Why did nobody > actually get killed? Was it a coincidence that all five of them saw the > basilisk in some kind of refection? If it was really Ginny setting the > basilisk on them then she wasn't really effective... Or maybe she has powers > "that Dark Lord knows not"? :D Maybe in some way she was protecting her > schoolmates (and animals :) by creating such situations in which nobody > would get seriously harmed? Even under Riddle's influence she could think > properly... very impressive. > It's just my thought... What do you think? > > Julia By the time DiaryTom is speaking with Harry it will be clear that Filch is a squib because he admits it publicly. We don't know who, that heard it (Ron, Harry and Hermione IIRC), would have spread this to Ginny but once she knows it then so does DiaryTom - not because Ginny writes it to him but because when he's possessing her he can read her thoughts. I always felt in reading of CoS that Ginny was being used simply to open the chamber. DiaryTom could take it from there. If this ISN'T true then why would Ginny not get herself petrified like everyone else that came into the presence of the basilisk (excepting of course Fawkes who is immune and Harry who knows not to look). I don't think Mrs Norris was attacked purposely so much as (a) she's very nosy and anywhere that there might be trouble (so first on the scene) and (b) 'taking her out' means there's less prying eyes for subsequent basilisk roamings. Just some views. Shoot them down in flames if you disagree. Mac From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 21:44:53 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:44:53 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Well, note that she said "never MORE ashamed...before" not "NEVER > ashamed...before." She uses similar "never" lines several times in > the books. All I can figure is that each instance is worse than the > one before, so she's just "raising the bar" for being ashamed with > each new case! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Don't forget that MM was the source for 'never before' type statements (youngest quidditch seeker in a century, not won the cup in years etc) that seem suspiciously flint-like when analysed. Notwithstanding that, she should have had LOADS of prior reasons to admonish/punish James and Sirius (see Three broomsticks convo in PoA) who were notorious troublemakers, or even Fred & George. That, or she didn't used to check up anything like so rigorously on bad behaviour at night in the past compared with now. The fact that MPW&P were able to get up to their hi-jinks, more-or-less undetected, suggest that both she and DD were less vigilant in those pre-LV days. Perhaps all the teachers have learned to be jumpy and suspicious simply for their own survival (especially since so many must have something to do with, or owe allegiance to, OotP one way or another). From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 17 21:57:19 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:57:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113259 > Alla: > > I don't know about Nora, but since me and her are thinking somewhat similar about that topic (I apologise, if I am wrong, Nora), but I definitely think that we are due for another reversal, simply because two more books are coming. > > I don't expect a complete reversal, Pippin, I DON'T WANT James and Sirius back on pedestal, but I definitely expect to see Snape behaving just as nasty towards Marauders as they were to him in that scene.< Pippin: I think that would be anti-climactic...what I want to see is Snape behaving just as nastily as Marauders in that scene, but as a Death Eater, to people whom Snape considers guilty because they exist. Highly speculative, I grant you. I want to see Auden's poem in action: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return. http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1391 Pippin From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:02:44 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:02:44 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "evita2fr" wrote: > Mike wrote: > > I don't even remember Trevor being mentioned in the later books. > > Perhaps he decided it was safer after PS and left Trevor at home > > with his Gran? He may have had it in CoS, but I cannot remember > > for the life of me hearing about it in PoA or GoF... and of course > > he got his precious Mimbulus Mimbletonia in OotP so I doubt he'd > > care about Trevor then.... > > > We see Trevor again in POA, in Potion, when Snape use him for test > Neville's potion. (Now, what Trevor do there, and how Snape knew that > it's was Neville's...) > > I think he has a brief apparition in OOTP, when he show his plant. I > think that he gives Trevor to Harry to have his hand free or > something. > > Christelle Mac now: You're right Christelle - In the chapter 'Luna Lovegood' (basically the Hogwarts Express up to Hogwarts chapter) the text metions Trevor: "...Neville held the *mimbulus mimbletonia* up to his eyes, his tongue between his teeth, chose his spot, and gave the plant a sharp prod with the tip of his quill. Liquid squirted from every boil on the plant; thick, stinking, dark green jets of it. they hit the ceiling, the windows, and spattered Luna Lovegood's magazine; Ginny, who had flung up her arms in front of her face just in time, merely looked as though she was wearing a slimy green hat, but Harry, whose hands had been busy trying to prevent Trevor's escape, received a faceful ..." In checking this, btw I stumbled across (was reminded of) the Quibbler article on Fudge that accuses him of goblin terrorism (see my next post) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:11:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:11:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113261 > Pippin: > I think that would be anti-climactic...what I want to see is Snape > behaving just as nastily as Marauders in that scene, but as a > Death Eater, to people whom Snape considers guilty because > they exist. Highly speculative, I grant you. Alla: LOL! So, would you like to see Snape doing much worse things to Harry than he already did or doing nasty things in the past to James and Sirius as a Death Eater? I am sure he considered James and Black guilty just because they existed for many years. I am sorry, Pippin, I am not being sarcastic, but I am not as well- versed in English yet as you are and with this paragraph you lost me. Could you please clarify what did you mean? You can do it off - list, if this will turn out to be the repetition of your post, but in simpler words. :o) I suspect that you intended it to be sarcastic remark, but I am not quite sure. Pippin: > I want to see Auden's poem in action: > > > I and the public know > What all schoolchildren learn, > Those to whom evil is done > Do evil in return. > > http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1391 > > Alla: Well, Snape fits the profile well, right? So, does that justify him for what he does to Harry? See, that is the trouble I have with your line of reasoning (Again, you are entitled to it, of course). I see your arguments (correct me if I am wrong) as giving Snape "free pass" to do whatever he feels like, even if it is a bit sadistic, because he was hurt by James and Sirius so badly, BUT Harry is supposed to realise that at fifteen (even earlier) and behave as mature adult and disregard what Snape does to him, because he had seen much worse. Does Snape have any obligations at all in that scenario or only Harry? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:21:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:21:35 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113262 Hannah wrote: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way. > > If 1 or 2 were his ultimate aims, it wouldn't have mattered which > student he used. If 3 was his goal, he had to use Ginny (none of > the boys would have written in a diary). > > I doubt that 1 was his aim. Lucius doesn't seem to be suffering > from LV's absence, and if he really wanted him back, he could go and > find vapour!mort in Albania or wherever he is (Pettigew manages it, > so I'm sure Lucius could). Carol responds: I agree that Lucius seems to be doing quite well in Voldemort's absence, but I'm not so sure that he could have discovered Vapormort in Albania if he'd wanted to. Pettigrew had the advantage of being in rat form and being able to talk to other small animals, who told him about a terrible being that was possessing little creatures like themselves. True, Quirrell also found Vapormort (and was possessed by him--sort of--actually LV was more like a parasite who allowed his victim to keep his own identity as long as he did LV's will--sorry to go OT here). But I'm not sure that Quirrell was actually searching for him. There's no evidence that he was ever a Death Eater--just young, naive, and manipulable. Pettigrew, of course, went to LV because no one else wanted him. Malfoy, as you say, had no motive for going back to the vaporized Voldemort. But just possibly, he may have wanted to bring back a young, attractive Riddle!mort in place of the vaporized one, but it's hard to imagine Lucius taking orders from an apparent sisteen-year-old and the more I think about it, the more unlikely it seems. He must have opened the diary at some point and communicated with Tom, who gave him the idea of using it to kill Muggleborns. I doubt that Diary!Tom would have revealed the part about being restored to human form to slippery Lucius. (The part about discrediting the Weasleys may not have been part of the original plan; it was probably an afterthought on Lucius's part, an extra benefit for him that really had nothing to do with Diary!Tom. > Hannah (thoroughly snipped): > 2 is a possibility; death's of non-purebloods Carol: People keep talking about half-bloods possibly being killed off, intentionally or accidentally, perhaps because Dobby is concerned for Harry's safety. But it appears from Diary!Tom's own words that only genuine Muggleborns were targeted, along with "the Squib's cat." Tom himself is a half-blood, and he regards Harry, also a half-blood, as a worthy opponent. I know I'm in the minority in this, but I think Diary!Tom, while he was possessing Ginny, could see his potential victims and somehow identify them as "mudbloods"--maybe through Legilmency in some form. I don't think that Ginny, a brand-new first-year, would have known who was Muggleborn and who wasn't--unless Draco was right when he said in GoF that the DEs know a "mudblood" when they see one (and would target Hermione if they found her). Hannah wrote: > I think he was motivated by a combination of 2 and 3. The timing > suuggests that killing off muggle-borns was not his only aim - why > not do it beforehand if so? But at the start of CoS he has a > problem; Arthur Weasley's muggle protection act, and this is going > to affect the one thing that Lucius *really* cares about - himself. > He realises he has an ideal opportunity to prevent the muggle > protection act, remove DD, and maybe even kill off some children > (you can see why it was so appealing). Carol: Can you explain how you think that preventing the Muggle Protection from going on the books would benefit Lucius? Are you saying that Muggle torture and Muggle killing are legal in the WW? (Maybe they are; maybe Sirius was considered guilty of killing Pettigrew and regarded as an accessory to the murder of the Potters, and the Muggles weren't even considered. And no one seems to have tried to determine exactly who was tossing the Muggles around at the Quidditch World Cup, though the MoM officials did put a stop to the incident.) Not sure what I think about this. It's clear, though, that Malfoy Sr. and Mr. Weasley are personal enemies as well as being on opposite sides. Carol, with apologies for posting without having read all the responses From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:27:08 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:27:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > > The trouble is, there's already been a reversal. Harry went from > seeing his father as the man who represented (much as he did > for Snape) everything he wanted to be, to someone whom even > his friends admitted was an arrogant little berk. It seems to me > what you suspect is an un-reversal, something that will put > James, Lupin and Sirius back on the pedestal, leaving only Peter > to have fallen from grace. > > Sirius and James are dead, so the only point I can see in giving > Harry more back story about them is so that Harry can > understand himself better. Does he need to see himself as as a > saintly being who can do no wrong, or as a struggling mortal, > guilty of sin and error, but not beyond redemption all the same? Eh, I was actually thinking more of there being at least something of a Snapely reversal, in this regard: he has, in OotP, been set up as a character who carries the authorial imprimitur of sympathy--and I'm certainly not saying that it's undeserved, acolyte of Faith that I am. I just *suspect* that with Snape, having set him up as the oppressed one, the abused one, the wronged one, that she's going to smack us upside the head with a reversal in that respect--or at least a severe complication. There's also the question of simply trying to fill out the picture of MWPP and contemporaries' schooldays. The two halves of the data (the two+ perspectives we have, so far) don't talk to each other particularly well right now, as there's something we're missing in the middle. And, unlike the quest to make Schenker talk to resurrected Riemann, there *is* something that's already there that makes everything fit. We just don't know it yet. In that regard, finding some more good out about MWPP doesn't entail putting them back on a pedestal, as once you've been kicked off it's pretty much impossible to get back on. It involves fleshing out the characters even more, and getting a fuller picture of them in both good and bad. Same thing applies for Snape--we'll have a fuller picture, whether good or bad, when we find out more. But I could be wrong. You all have started to lure me into speculation. Full of shame, all around. -Nora sulks after having been evicted from her natural habitat From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:28:18 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:28:18 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113264 A newbie recently posted a 'don't you think Fudge might be evil?' post and I'm well aware both of being a relative newbie myself and that there has probably been a substantial debate and sets of theories about Fudge. I really can't imagine why readers don't see this guy as at the least deliberately obstructive and at worst a real ally of LV (or severely imperio'd victim). I am so glad he appears to be going, but I want him punished. He isn't bumbling and well-meaning, or even *simply* prepared to do anything to acqire and then retain power. I don't have the time to make the full case against him (and besides many must have already), but being reminded of the Quibbler article about his having goblins 'disappeared' for me was just the icing on the cake. He has repeatedly foiled any hope of Sirius having a normal life or of Harry being able to have him as a godfather and, via Umbridge (who I do NOT believe was acting independently) was positively malicious (see trial if you doubt this and his whispering campaign and briefing against Harry/DD in the Prophet). With Sirius he was the one to arrest him and, no doubt, did little to prevent him going to prison without trial. He then would not listen to the case at the end of PoA and did everything possible to have Sirius dementor-kissed asap, He again would not listen in GoF and had Barty Crouch rubbed out. Maybe he even heard from Sirius during his visit to Azhkaban the news about Pettigrew and wanted it hushed up as quick as can be (although Sirius only knew about Pettigrew after he'd read Fudge's prophet). The guy's bad, a badd'un. Good riddance (provided he doesn't go into a background role of great malice). I wish someone could remind me of where it was that something is said about Fudge 'cutting a deal' with the Dementors against DD's misgivings. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:37:23 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:37:23 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113265 "Nora Renka" wrote: > In that regard, finding some more good out about MWPP doesn't entail > putting them back on a pedestal, as once you've been kicked off it's > pretty much impossible to get back on. Alla: I suspect we do think similarly about this issue, Nora. Anybody, who was involved in bullying at one point of his life cannot be seen as a saint anymore, IMO. But there are could be mitigating circumstances for such bullying. Lawyers manage to find mitigating circumstances for much worse crimes than bullying, after all. :) Alla, who realises that she is pretty deep in the speculation realm too, but who does not want to leave it yet. From steve at hp-lexicon.org Fri Sep 17 22:53:02 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:53:02 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' dates > fall in August - the school holidays. Even more significantly the dates are > consecutive - so the book must have been returned and then taken out > again during the holiday period. The library at least is open. Those dates aren't correct. According to Rowling in an interview, the only one at Hogwarts during summer holidays is Filch. One way to excuse the dates on the library book is that this is a special edition created for Muggles, so the information for things like that library card slip were just made up by Dumbledore for the edition. But Rowling said no one was there during the break. > I'm still wondering if 'Keys' means more than we generally assume. Here's another thought. Why do the keys need a keeper? Could it be that the keys to Hogwarts, like the doors, are sentient? Perhaps they are just another magical "creature" that Hagrid must look after. I wonder what you feed a ring of keys? Steve From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 22:58:28 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:58:28 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > A newbie recently posted a 'don't you think Fudge might be evil?' > post and I'm well aware both of being a relative newbie myself and > that there has probably been a substantial debate and sets of > theories about Fudge. > > I really can't imagine why readers don't see this guy as at the > least deliberately obstructive and at worst a real ally of LV (or > severely imperio'd victim). I am so glad he appears to be going, but > I want him punished. He isn't bumbling and well-meaning, or even > *simply* prepared to do anything to acqire and then retain power. > > I don't have the time to make the full case against him (and besides > many must have already), but being reminded of the Quibbler article > about his having goblins 'disappeared' for me was just the icing on > the cake. He has repeatedly foiled any hope of Sirius having a > normal life or of Harry being able to have him as a godfather and, > via Umbridge (who I do NOT believe was acting independently) was > positively malicious (see trial if you doubt this and his whispering > campaign and briefing against Harry/DD in the Prophet). With Sirius > he was the one to arrest him and, no doubt, did little to prevent > him going to prison without trial. He then would not listen to the > case at the end of PoA and did everything possible to have Sirius > dementor-kissed asap, He again would not listen in GoF and had Barty > Crouch rubbed out. Maybe he even heard from Sirius during his visit > to Azhkaban the news about Pettigrew and wanted it hushed up as > quick as can be (although Sirius only knew about Pettigrew after > he'd read Fudge's prophet). The guy's bad, a badd'un. Good riddance > (provided he doesn't go into a background role of great malice). > > I wish someone could remind me of where it was that something is > said about Fudge 'cutting a deal' with the Dementors against DD's > misgivings. mhbobbin: I agree that Fudge is a bad'un. I think the real debate is whether Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt politician willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he is evil as in Death Eater. I'm not yet convinced he is a DE, but his actions / obstructions / attitudes are consistently helpful to DEs and Voldemort. On re-reading PoA, I was surprised to see how often Fudge coincidentally shows up at strategic moments. Surprised because back when I originally read PoA, it seemed like Fudge was a bumbling but benign figure. Only towards the end of GoF, and in OotP, does it become clear that Fudge is behaving suspiciously. In post 107368, I detail Fudge's strategic appearances in the PoA Sirius/Pettigrew saga. Without Fudge, much of what transpires in PoA would not happen. mhbobbin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 17 23:44:03 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:44:03 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" wrote: > > I'm still wondering if 'Keys' means more than we generally assume. > > Here's another thought. Why do the keys need a keeper? Could it be > that the keys to Hogwarts, like the doors, are sentient? Perhaps > they are just another magical "creature" that Hagrid must look > after. I wonder what you feed a ring of keys? > > Steve Tonks here: Well we had flying keys in the first book. Were they bewitched to fly or are they living things? Tonks_op From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 00:46:28 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:46:28 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113269 > Tonks wrote > > Well we had flying keys in the first book. Were they bewitched to > fly or are they living things? Sandy here: The flying keys were one of the various enchantments the Hogwarts teachers devised to protect the stone. Hermione lists (p353 in the paperback) who did what: Sprout -- Devil's snare, Flitwick charmed the keys, McGonagall transfigured the chessmen, Snape devised the logic/potion quiz.... So apparently, they are keys, bewitched to fly, not creatures. From meltowne at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 01:26:02 2004 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:26:02 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > -Keeper of Keys Riddle- > I am the keeper of keys that unlock no door, > And I am quite natural with my feet on the floor. > I'm proud and I'm perfect, and I look really grand, > And I can tickle your fancy if you lend me a hand. > > Who or what am I? (sorry, I don't actually have the solution) That would be a grand piano > > Not sure what that adds to the discussion, I guess primarily a > reminder to people that 'Keeper of Keys' is not a unique concept to > JKR, and I would suspect, but can't prove at the moment, that there > are people today who have the title 'keeper of keys'. It seems like a Sergeant at Arms type of position. At least,t hat's how I always thought of it. Security, in a sense; someone who protects the secrets (like a secret keeper?) or is in charge of the rituals. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 02:28:24 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040918022824.13466.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113271 > Alla: > > Yes, so far we only heard from Sirius that Snape knew more Dark > Arts > that a seventh year. Yes, we only heard from Sirius that Snape > never missed a chance to curse James, but I think Sirius is just > reliable canon witness as anybody else, because we don't have > anybody else. yet. > Well, as I pointed out in my post earlier today, we have three people who make comments indicating that the James-Snape feud wasn't an equal one: Lily ("What's he ever done to you?"), Lupin ("Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?") and Sirius himself ("Well you made us feel guilty sometimes..." and "...arrogant berks, you mean"). No one has addressed those comments or explained how they could jibe with a Snape who was could give as good as he got. Lily also points out that James hexed people "who annoyed you just because you can". Not "people who were bullies" or "people who were hassling little kids" - but just people who annoyed him. We're getting some clear signals here and I really think we're not supposed to be ignoring them. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 03:08:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:08:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040918022824.13466.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113272 Magda: >> Well, as I pointed out in my post earlier today, we have three people > who make comments indicating that the James-Snape feud wasn't an > equal one: Lily ("What's he ever done to you?"), Lupin ("Did I ever > tell you to lay off Snape?") and Sirius himself ("Well you made us > feel guilty sometimes..." and "...arrogant berks, you mean"). > > No one has addressed those comments or explained how they could jibe > with a Snape who was could give as good as he got. Lily also points > out that James hexed people "who annoyed you just because you can". > Not "people who were bullies" or "people who were hassling little > kids" - but just people who annoyed him. > Alla: Sorry, Magda. I was too involved into discussion with Pippin. :o) Well, Lily's comment is the easiest to address. Whatever ideology underlined James/Snape or Sirius/Snape possible conflict , she may not have known about it. She after all only started to go out with James in his seventh year and may not have known much about him except what was happening on the surface. What do you mean, " People, who are hassling little kids?" That is today related. Of course Lily could not know what kind of teacher Snape will turn out to be to her son. Lupin's comment is the hardest to address of course. I could have given you some possible speculative ideas, but it would be a bit too speculative even for me. I think I used my limit of speculations for today. :o) Sirius' "arrogant berks". Well, they were "berks". I am just saying that it is possible OR NOT that Snape was one too. I hope I am being clear that I am only exploring possibilities and it is also possible that Snape was a constant victim of Marauders throughout the school and eventually Marauders' bullying drove him to become a DE. No, sorry. When I wrote it, the second part of the sentence made me cringe. Even if we discover that Snape never fought back and Sirius' "Snape never missed a chance to curse James" was a lie, I will still dispute that anybody except Snape was responsible for him becoming DE. Unless of course, somebody literally kidnapped Snape and forced him to take the mark. Alla, who wants to complain about having absolutely no inspiration for writing work-related paper today and about the necessity of spending the whole day writing tomorrow. :( From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 18 02:39:19 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:39:19 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pettigrew_in_Hagrid's_hut_-_an_answer?= Message-ID: <012c01c49d2f$56ec3180$1b2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113273 Ok. Someone is bound to have come out with this, but I was annoyed at the posts suggesting the Marauders Map didn't sow inside of Hagrid's hut and only then it stroke me. I just couldn't stop myself from posting it - even if it's old news. >From PoA chap. 17, Lupin says: ""The point is, even if you're wearing an Invisibility Cloak, you still show up on the Marauder's Map. I watched you cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. Twenty minutes later, you left Hagrid, and set off back to the castle. But you were now accompanied by someone else."" Please follow my reasoning: Why was Lupin concern that Harry would visit Hagrid? Because Sirius Black the-mass-murder was after him. On discovering that he had gone to Hagrid's what would he do? He had two choices - stop him or not. Considering he realised he was under the IC (because the three kids were walking so close together) he might have decided to let him go. What would he do then? He would make sure the grounds were safe for him. He'd use the map to search around. What would he find?... >From PoA chap. 21: "They made their way silently through the trees, keeping to the very edge of the forest. Then, as they glimpsed the front of Hagrid's house, they heard a knock upon his door. They moved quickly behind a wide oak trunk and peered out from either side. Hagrid had appeared in his doorway, shaking and white, looking around to see who had knocked. And Harry heard his own voice." In the very edge of the forest, Lupin saw Harry and Hermione! We have two hypotheses: 1 - Lupin knew about the time turner and he figured out what was going on. In this case, what would he do? The intelligent thing, IMO, would be to run and tell DD what he'd seen, but that meant telling about the Map also. He couldn't have seen too sets of them since one set was under the IC. Hence, he would do what he'd done about Sirius being an animagus: he would stay put and hope for the best. Deciding not to tell DD, what would he do? He would continue to search the grounds for signs of Black. 2 - Lupin didn't know about the time turner or he didn't figure out what was going on. What would he do? Considering Harry's response to the possibility of seeing himself (I'd think I'd gone mad... or that there was some Dark Magic going on.) I'd say Lupin would swallow his shame and go to DD. But I am most sure Lupin didn't tell DD about the map: DD seams (to me) surprised about the map at the end of GoF when Barty Crouch mentions it (Map? What map is that?). So, in either hypothesis, I think Lupin found a way to tell DD about the two Harrys and Hermiones. He could have 'forgotten' about the IC and said he'd seen them from the window, for example. My point is, either way, as soon as Ron/Harry/Hermione arrived at Hagrid's, Lupin would have seen the Harry/Hermione in the forest, deleted the map, tossed it in his pocket and run to Dumbledore's office. When he tells he saw two Harrys near the hut, DD has a strange reaction: - Really? Now, why didn't I think of that? - And he tells Remus what Hermione and Harry are probably up to. Then the executioners arrive and DD leaves Lupin to go to Hagrid's. It's been twenty minutes. He goes back to his office and activates the map to see - he hoped - Harry and Hermione save Beaky. Instead, he sees Harry, Hermione and Ron leave the hut - with Peter Pettigrew! Those twenty minutes had bugged me since forever. If someone had waited 20 min for something, I'd expect s/he would say: "I watched you cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. *I waited*. Then twenty minutes later, you left Hagrid". Those were probably very upsetting twenty minutes: First he thought Harry was in trouble (Because of dark magic or because he would get caught trying to save Buckbeak); then he struggled with himself about the things he was keeping from DD as he told him what he had to; then he wanted to consult the map again to make sure every thing was ok but DD was making chitchat about how clever Hermione is and if her plan will work (and why wasn't Ron with them); then he had the displeasure of meeting Macnair; finely he was alone and couldn't consult the map in the corridor. I suppose he thought Sirius would freak out if he had gone into all that in the Shrieking Shack. Another thing that I wasn't happy about was my prior explanation to DD's lack of surprise regarding Buckbeak's escape and his convenient help keeping the committee inside the hut. Now I'm sure: Lupin told him! Susana -- always amazed at how carefully back stories are plotted in poterverse. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Sep 18 03:55:50 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:55:50 -0400 Subject: Snape enjoying the dictatorship (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. Message-ID: <20040918.002948.3348.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113274 Pippin said: > After all, he could > have used an authorized punishment, like whipping . Hey, ykno what I just realized? IIRC, when Umbridge allowed all those crazy extreme punishments, Snape apparently didn't take advantage of them. How odd. Unless he did, and we just didn't hear about it, but that sounds like the kind of thing that would get mentioned in the book. Which begs the question, why didn't he crack any Gryffindor knuckles with a wooden ruler? Is Snape all bark and no bite? (Kinda doubt that...) He's been called sadistic by many a person -- character and fan -- and I'm not going to get into *that* debate, but it's undeniable that Snape is at least cruel, and does have a nasty temper. Was it just that he refused to take advantage of priveledges given by a psycho nazi nearly-DE MoM tool? Is that beneath Snape's dignity? Or, is Snape just not the type to use corporal punishment in the classroom? Words have always been Snape's primary weapon, and his harsh, sarcastic wit (and it *is* wit, albiet cruel wit) has served him well these 15 years of teaching. Snape appreciates subtlety, intelligence, and manipulation; maybe blunt force *is* below his dignity. And, yes, we've seen Snape become physical -- like when Harry snooped on his Pensieve -- but (1) Snape had lost his temper in those moments and (2) he seemed to be embarrased by his behavior later (not to be mistaken with regretful), as if he was ashamed of loosing control. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From submarimon15 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 06:49:14 2004 From: submarimon15 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:49:14 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113275 mhbobbin: > > I agree that Fudge is a bad'un. I think the real debate is whether > Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt politician > willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he is evil as in > Death Eater. I'm not yet convinced he is a DE, but his actions / > obstructions / attitudes are consistently helpful to DEs and > Voldemort. > > On re-reading PoA, I was surprised to see how often Fudge > coincidentally shows up at strategic moments. Surprised because back > when I originally read PoA, it seemed like Fudge was a bumbling but > benign figure. Only towards the end of GoF, and in OotP, does it > become clear that Fudge is behaving suspiciously. In post 107368, I > detail Fudge's strategic appearances in the PoA Sirius/Pettigrew > saga. Without Fudge, much of what transpires in PoA would not happen. > > mhbobbin Mike: I'm afraid I've placed Fudge in the DE category already. After reading your posts I realized there are even more situations where Fudge turns up or does the "perfect thing" to help LV. It wouldn't surprise me if Umbridge was also a DE, maybe even controlling Fudge or vice versa. She's definitely ruthless enough. How many coincidences can there be before there is too many to overlook? Here's what I've thought of. 1. Fudge turning up all through PoA, seemingly running the whole Sirius-Pettigrew line. (thanks mhbobbin for that wonderul post detailing all the exact suspecious behavior spots for PoA) 2. Adamently refusing to believe LV has returned at the end of GoF, despite the fact that SOMETHING happened when Harry was taken away by portkey, Cedric Diggory was murdered, and a very loyal DE was proclaiming under vertiserum what truly happened. 3. Fudge's Dementor immediately ensures that Crouch Jr. keeps that story to those in Dumbledore's inner circle. It appears that he would have done this with Sirius too had Harry and Hermione not used the Time Turner... 4. Massively discrediting Harry and Dumbledore, forcing Dumbledore to resign his positions of power in the Ministry (Warlocks Council etc). Completely turing a "blind-eye" to all the things that point towards LV's return. (Bertha jorkins... disappeares in ALBANIA of all places... etc) 5. Appointing a very ruthless Umbridge to take over Hogwarts with the aid of his Educational Decrees. As if Umbridge wouldn't have had some really important Ministry work to do being Senior Undersecretary.... or was this more important? 6. Questionable people in higher places in the Ministry. Umbridge, Bagman, Imperio'd Percy? Some other points: -Appears to be incompetent and harmless.... kinda reminds me of Quirrell and Lockhart :) -Every move he makes appears to help LV -Most likely Umbridge is working with him However, there is one reason that I can think of that disproves his being a DE. Why would Lucius Malfoy have to continually bribe him if he was a DE and being ordered to do this by LV? Hopefully others can add into that. Mike From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 18 07:00:49 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:00:49 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "evita2fr" > wrote: Christelle: > > I think he has a brief apparition in OOTP, when he show his plant. > I > > think that he gives Trevor to Harry to have his hand free or > > something. Mac: > You're right Christelle - In the chapter 'Luna Lovegood' > (basically the Hogwarts Express up to Hogwarts chapter) the text > metions Trevor: > > "...Neville held the *mimbulus mimbletonia* up to his eyes, his > tongue between his teeth, chose his spot, and gave the plant a sharp > prod with the tip of his quill. > Liquid squirted from every boil on the plant; thick, stinking, > dark green jets of it. they hit the ceiling, the windows, and > spattered Luna Lovegood's magazine; Ginny, who had flung up her arms > in front of her face just in time, merely looked as though she was > wearing a slimy green hat, but Harry, whose hands had been busy > trying to prevent Trevor's escape, received a faceful ..." Geoff: In actual fact, Trevor has a bit of a field day in this chapter - he gets mentioned no fewer than five times, including the one Mac gives above. Prior to that one, we get: 'In the very last carriage, they met Neville Longbottom, Harry's fellow fifth-year Gryffindor, his round face shining with the effort of pulling his trunk along and maintaining a one-handed grip on his struggling toad, Trevor.' (OOTP "Luna Lovegood" p.168 UK edition) and 'He dug the hand that was not keeping a firm grip on Trevor into his school bag and after a little bit of rummaging pulled out what appeared to be a small grey cactus in a pot, except that it was covered with what looked like boils rather than spines.' (ibid. p.169) and '"Does it -er - do anything?" he asked. "Loads of stuff!" said Neville proudly. "It's got an amazing defensive mechanism. Here, hold Trevor for me..." He dumped the toad in Harry's lap and took a quill fom his schoolbag.' (ibid. p,169) Then comes Mac's reference and then we have: '"Oh... hi," said Harry blankly. "Um..." said Cho. "Well... just thought I'd say hello... bye then." Rather pink in the face, she cloased the door and departed. Harry slumped back in his seat and groaned. He would rather have liked Cho to discover him sitting with a group of very cool people laughing their heads off at a joke he had just told; he would not have chosen to be sitting with Neville and Loony Lovegood, clutching a toad and dripping in Stinksap.' (ibid. p.170) Interesting. When you look at this in this context, Trevor does seem to be getting rather an overkill with being mentioned. Five times in three pages seems quite a lot. Surely, one or two references would have sufficed to let us know that dear old Trev was alive and kicking? Is there more to him than meets the eye? I'll kick this one back to the conspiracy theorists. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 18 07:15:24 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:15:24 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy: > I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' dates > fall in August - the school holidays. Even more significantly the dates are > consecutive - so the book must have been returned and then taken out > again during the holiday period. The library at least is open. Geoff; Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition of "Quidditch through the ages"? My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others have mentioned. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 18 09:51:50 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:51:50 -0400 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle Message-ID: <001f01c49d65$1f02ee40$aec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113278 Julia said: "It strucks me odd that the basilisk attacked the "Squib's cat". What for? Why did Riddle want to do it? And how did he know that Filch is actually a squib. Was it some kind of revange on Filch? Maybe Riddle hated Filch and Mrs Norris as much as everybody else? " DuffyPoo: I think this is one incidence when poor Mrs. N. was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think Ginny reported to Diary!Tom that the cat was petrified and later the news that they found out Filch is a Squib (it happened at the time of the writing on the wall.). Diary!Tom said it took a long time for Ginny to stop trusting the diary. Or, maybe he did despise Filch/Mrs. N as much as everyone else - did they catch him out of his dungeon room late one night while investigating the whereabouts of the Chamber - and he just wanted to pay them back. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 18 09:51:42 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:51:42 -0400 Subject: Keeper of the Keys Message-ID: <001b01c49d65$1aa168e0$aec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113279 Kneasy: "I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. Two of the 'due back' dates fall in August - the school holidays. Even more significantly the dates are consecutive - so the book must have been returned and then taken out again during the holiday period. The library at least is open." DuffyPoo: If you check QTTA it shows Hermione's return date as 2 March. In PS she has the book in her possession - or Harry does at least - in Novermber. Kneasy: "And talking of vaults - Hagrid does have the care of other keys - he had the keys to DDs and Harrys vaults. Permanently? Maybe not, but maybe yes." DuffyPoo: IIRC DD's vault didn't require a key...it required a goblin. I can't imagine that Hagrid still has Harry's key as Harry now has personal access to his vault. How would Mr. Potter get in without his own key? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 10:48:50 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:48:50 -0000 Subject: Homorphus charm & Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > Hope this han't been discussed before, but I did not see any > reference to it in the archives. > > In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his students > including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga Werewolf > which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the village > from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. > > In POA Lupin tells the trio about his becoming a werewolf, and that > in those days there was no cure and that Wolfsbane potion is a > recent discovery which allows him to become a harmless wolf. > > While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus > charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or > he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so > resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for > someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or Dumbledore > helped their friend more. > > I'm sure the reason must be that the storyline requires Lupin to be > a werewolf for some upcoming event or possibly his own demise. > Anyone have any thoughts on this? Pat here: More than likely, your last comment is really the reason for Lupin still being a werewolf, but if you look at the part about the wizard that could perform the Homorphus charm, it seems that only this one wizard can do it. And thanks to Lockhart, who modified his memory, that isn't possible any longer. Pat From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 11:16:32 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:16:32 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and befuddlement draughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arienastera" wrote: > > > Page 383, OotP, American Version > "Midnight came and went while Harry was reading and rereading a > passage about the uses of scurvy-grass, lovage, and sneezewort and > not taking in a word of it.... > *These plantes are moste efficacious in the inflaming of the > braine, and are therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement > Draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot-headedness > and recklessness....* > ... Hermione said Sirius was becoming reckless cooped up in > Grimmauld Place.... > *... moste efficacious in the inflaming of the braine, and > are therefore much used...* > ... the *Daily Prophet* would think his brain was inflamed if they > found out that he knew what Voldemort was feeling... > *... therefore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement > Draughts...* > ... confusing was the word, all right; *why* did he know what > Voldemort was feeling? What was this wierd connection between them, > which Dumbledore had never been able to explain satisfactorily? > *... where the wizard is desirous...* > ... how he would like to sleep... > *... of producing hot-headedness...* > ... It was warm and comfortable in his armchair before the fire..." > > [snip] > > Could Snape have given Sirius a potion to make him more reckless > than normal? [snipped] > We all know that Snape tried his darndest to get Sirius in POA, so > whats stopping him now that he knows where Sirius is. Even if Snape > knows he's innocent, he still hates him with a fiery passion. > > > Thanks for listening to me, > ArienAstera Pat here: That passage always struck me as more than just a page filler too-- plus I don't think JKR puts much of that in the book. Especially when you think back to POA where Snape says that Harry and Hermione were under a Confundous Spell--sounds similar to the beffudlement one. However, as much as Snape hates Sirius, I really don't think even he would stoop so low--well, I hope not anyway. I'm not holding out for any redemption of Snape, but I think even he has some sense of ethics that would not allow him to give this potion to Sirius. I was thinking that Kreacher could have gotten the potion from the Malfoys when he went to visit, but that didn't happen till after this particular passage. The thing is, though, that Kreacher might have visited the Malfoys BEFORE Sirius told him to "Get out!" at Christmas. Given Sirius's constant annoyance with Kreacher, it's possible that he told him the same thing when there was no one around to hear it. If Kreacher had been visiting the Malfoys earlier, he could have been given the potion by Lucius. (Remember also that in CoS, Lucius makes a reference to having some potions that he wouldn't want the MOM to find--when he and Draco are in Borgin and Burkes in Knockturn Alley.) All that being said, I really believe that it has a lot more to do with the way Sirius has spent the last 14 to 15 years of his life. There is nothing in any of the time that he spent in Azkaban or during the time that he has been in hiding since, that would lead to being an emotionally healthy human being. Put those horrible experiences with his rather rash personality (as we witnessed in the Pensieve and in the recounting of his attempt to lure Snape into the Whomping Willow), and you have someone who is depressed and not emotionally balanced. Oh, and one more thing. If it were Snape feeding the potion to Sirius, I don't think he would continue with all the verbal barbs. I would think he'd want to appear to be on more friendly terms, so that he wouldn't be suspected of doing anything so blatant. Pat, who also wouldn't want to be in the Black house, but agrees it would be a great Haunted House at Halloween. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Sep 18 11:50:48 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:50:48 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113282 Mike wrote: >>How many coincidences can there be before there is too many to overlook? Here's what I've thought of. 1. Fudge turning up all through PoA, seemingly running the whole Sirius-Pettigrew line. (thanks mhbobbin for that wonderul post detailing all the exact suspecious behavior spots for PoA) HunterGreen: At the very least its clear that the Dementors are *specifically* interested in Harry in PoA. Either someone told them to go after Harry or they are acting on their own. So far, Fudge and Umbridge are the only people we've seen communitcating with Dementors. >>2. Adamently refusing to believe LV has returned at the end of GoF, despite the fact that SOMETHING happened when Harry was taken away by portkey, Cedric Diggory was murdered, and a very loyal DE was proclaiming under vertiserum what truly happened.<< And his refusal goes from reasonable to ridiculous over the course of his argument with Dumbledore, finally culminating in him outright ignoring the Dark Mark on Snape's arm. Whether or not Fudge is ESE! its very hard to believe that he really doesn't think Voldemort is back (he's either ESE! or *exteremely* corrupt, pretty much to the point of being a different type of evil). >>3. Fudge's Dementor immediately ensures that Crouch Jr. keeps that story to those in Dumbledore's inner circle. It appears that he would have done this with Sirius too had Harry and Hermione not used the Time Turner...<< Again, I ask, why did he have a Dementor with him that day? We know he wasn't really buying into the 'strange happenings' at Hogwarts, and a school contest hardly seems like a 'danger' to him. If he called the Dementor *after* Harry disappeared from the maze, how did he get one there so fast? >>4. Massively discrediting Harry and Dumbledore, forcing Dumbledore to resign his positions of power in the Ministry (Warlocks Council etc). Completely turing a "blind-eye" to all the things that point towards LV's return. (Bertha jorkins... disappeares in ALBANIA of all places... etc) 5. Appointing a very ruthless Umbridge to take over Hogwarts with the aid of his Educational Decrees. As if Umbridge wouldn't have had some really important Ministry work to do being Senior Undersecretary.... or was this more important? 6. Questionable people in higher places in the Ministry. Umbridge, Bagman, Imperio'd Percy?<< 7. His close relationship with known DE Lucius Malfoy (including a private meeting with him on the day of Harry's hearing), and his defense of Lucius (in GoF) having nothing to do with Lucius' claim of the imperius curse ("Malfoy was cleared!" said Fudge, visibly affronted. "A very old family - donations to excellent causes -" [GoF chpt 36]). 8. A point was made of him being a pure-blood enthusiast in GoF, even though it didn't have much to do with the argument him and Dumbledore were having (re-read that paragraph in GoF - also in chpt 36 - the purity of blood comment is very out of place). I would say being a proud blood purist is at least suscipcious. >>However, there is one reason that I can think of that disproves his being a DE. Why would Lucius Malfoy have to continually bribe him if he was a DE and being ordered to do this by LV?<< Well, Malfoy has two motivations, one being his own and one being Voldemort's. Bribing Fudge has to do with his own desire for power and a high place in society. I think that Fudge is not a death eater, but a sympathsizer with their cause, getting bribes from Lucius is just a fringe benefit. I doubt that Fudge has ever had direct contact with Voldemort, he seems better suited to work through Lucius and on his own. -HunterGreen AKA Rebecca (who bought The Sims 2 yesterday and noticed there's a lamp called 'Prisoner of Azkalamp') PS: Other threads on this subject: 'Over Kill with Dementors' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/98014 -Kneasy's reply in this thread is where the ESE!Fudge stuff steps in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/98040 'Something wrong with this Fudge' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106972 (that is the thread where mhbobbin posted the msg referenced upthread) From sri at devi.org Sat Sep 18 01:29:35 2004 From: sri at devi.org (Amanda) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:29:35 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113283 Kneasy: > Many have wondered what the staff do during holidays - do they have > homes elsewhere, or do they live permanently at the school? > No evidence either way, but I'd suspect that some at least stay in the > school and that means that the place is unlikely to bbe locked up > like a bank vault. I disagree. There is some evidence that at least some of the staff live permanently in Hogwarts: in OOP, Trelawney says Hogwarts is her home- and since it is likely that she is there for her own protection, I seriously doubt Dumbledore would let her wander out and live elsewhere during the vacations. However, this evidence is not conclusive. From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 02:13:38 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:13:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? References: Message-ID: <015801c49d25$1c5ec460$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113284 > Potioncat: > > I understand her being upset with them, but "never" been so > > ashamed? She's had the Marauders and the Weasley twins...come > > on... she's been ashamed before! ;-) I took this line as something of a standard authority-figure cliche ("Well, I never!") or personal idiom that she uses when she can't think of anything worse to say without cursing. So, I guess I'm on the fibbing side of the line. Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 03:27:58 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:27:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <01c401c49d2f$7ec65f50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113285 Just bits and pieces > Alla: > > It is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE as of today and just as Nora, I will bow to > reality, if things will be simple and James and Sirius were just > bullies for no reason at all ( No, I don't think that bullying person > for a reason is right). Feklar: I have to admit, to me, James does seem the exact image of someone who "bullies for no reason at all." He and Sirius admit as much. Little kids are generally amoral, and some are just vicious, unreasoning bastards, especially to things and people they perceive as weak or vulnerable. By OWLs, he hopefully would have outgrown that amoral stage. Maybe if he'd met Snape for the first time then, they would have just despised and ignored each other, but as it was, being a Big Man on Campus and abusing Snape (and others?) was an ingrained habit that generated positive reinforcement (attention and applause from most of his peers) and very little negative results (some from Lilly, little to none form authority figures). Why should he give it up under those circumstances? Alla: > Sirius knew what the Darkness is from inside. He, after all, tried to > escape it when he was sixteen. Come to think of it, I think he is > very reliable witness despite his hatred of Snape. Feklar: Actually, I think this is exactly why he's an unreliable witness about Snape's character. But I also think this is why Sirius is the only Marauder who might have had a reason to hate Snape on sight (though that reason may have been irrational). I think because SB grew up in a dark household and hated it (was possibly even abused?), he was predisposed to hate anything that reminded him of it. From the beginning, Snape seems designed to trigger that predisposition -- he even looks like Mrs. Black (coloringwise at least). Snape may well have known as much as a 7th year, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with precocious knowledge, even if it's of curses (note, SB didn't accuse Snape of knowing things not even a 7th year should know). However, I can see how that knowledge combined with Snape's looks and demeanor would make SB preemptively hate him without any real, or at least objective, reason. I can see a first year scenario where James may have been the purposeless bully-in-waiting, just looking for someone to attack, but sirius was the one who chose the target. Then again, James may have just chosen Snape because he was ugly. It's a lot easier to get away with abusing an ugly kid than a pretty one. There was acrually a study done showing that teachers pay less attention to and are less likely to help "unattractive" children. Personally, I don't like SB. I was dismayed in GOF when he admitted his solution to the dragons was the Conjuctivitus Curse (ironically, the "dark" contestant's solution) and he kind of went downhill from there. I'm inclined to give him a pass on his early years because he was presumably raised to be vicious and mean from an early age. And I can see why he might have feared and hated Snape from the get go. But ultimately, while he may have decided he disagreed with his family's politics, he doesn't seem to have any problem with their methods. That is, he doesn't see anything wrong with being vicious and abusive, so long as it's for a cause he likes. Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 03:54:44 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:54:44 -0400 Subject: house elves Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <026901c49d33$3bdd2c60$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113286 > > Pippin: > > Excuse me? There are at least 100 House Elves owned by > > Hogwarts, and I have never heard Dumbledore treat any of them > > the way Sirius treated Kreacher. > > > > Alla: > > Oops, sorry. I concede of course. Dumbledore does treat house elves > better than anybody else, but still it is the exception, not the rule. Actually we don't know what the rule is. Of the four examples, Lucius and Sirius (both raised in dark magic families) are abusive. Barty Crouch is cold and mean, but not so much abusive as indifferent -- arguably he treats the elf much as he treated his son. Dumbledore is apparently nice to house elves and claims to think the magic world should treat other creatures with more respect. This implies they're not treated as well as they could be, but that could mean anything from "they're slaves but generally treated ok" to "they're all abused horribly." I must admit, at times I worry that the HEs represent some weird classist philosophy, along the lines of " the servant class wishes to be a good servant above all else." At the end of COS, when Dobby turns on Lucius, I wondered if the magic users enslaved them because they feared them (didn't want elf rebellions to go with the goblin rebellions) and included a "Stockholm Syndrome Charm" as a bonus. Winky seems to support the former theory more than the latter, though. Feklar From emrsing at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 03:54:53 2004 From: emrsing at yahoo.com (emrsing) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:54:53 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113287 Kneasy said: > I'm still wondering if 'Keys' means more than we generally assume. This is more of what I had in mind. Do we underestimate Hagrid because of his more notorious escapades: Aragog, Fluffy, dragon eggs, blast-ended skrewts and "baby brother"? Is there more there than meets the eye (excuse the pun). We know Hagrid is not the HBP. I keep going over the line of Dumbledore's "I would trust Hagrid with my life." He was at Hogwarts at the time of Tom Riddle. Does he know something we still have to discover? Could he have something to do with the discovery in BK 2 that gets expanded in BK6? I wasn't aware of the vastness of references to title "Keeper of the Keys". I do remember Mr. Jingaling who was the Keeper of the Keys at Halles toy department at Christmas time when I was a kid. I still tend to think there is something more symbolic than an actual ring of keys. (I agree HP is not an allegory, but please! don't try to say JKR doesn't use symbolism. HP is full of symbolism even if it is a coming of age, adventure, mystery, etc. story.) "emrsing" From empooress at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 05:00:45 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: <1095459715.15572.76704.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040918050045.27558.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113288 Rebecca: > Did we ever come to a consensus on what the important bit from book > 2 was? Having read on JKR's web site that the connection involves something that Harry "discovers" in COS is important in HBP, I reread COS the one thing that Harry discovers is Percy roaming the dungeons. And considering that Scabbers was Percy's pet, well I'm thinking that Percy is gonna turn out to be a bad seed even more so than in OotP. Empooress From jenbobb at hotmail.com Sat Sep 18 05:06:15 2004 From: jenbobb at hotmail.com (endrewsmommy) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:06:15 -0000 Subject: Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers) In-Reply-To: <003b01c49c4b$9bde3d90$482f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113289 Angie wrote: I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and perhaps a sign of things to come. Wouldn't it be amazing, after all the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a wand?" --------------- Then Susana replied: Any wizard can do magic without his/her wand. But the outcome is not always predictable - Anyway, no-wand-magic (I like to call it hysterical magic) it's probably more common in children because they have their emotions at the surface and they can't control them. I don't think it means a wizard is powerful. ---------------- ---------------- I tend to agree with Angie that this is an important sign of things to come. For 2 reasons: (1) JKR said she saw foreshadowing of future events in the way Cuaron made the POA movie. The number one thing that stood out to me when I saw it was how much "wandless magic" was in it. (2)If Harry does indeed have an ability (although untrained) to perform wandless magic, it fits in very nicely with the prophecy (powers the dark lord knows not.) Obviously most wizards need wands to do anything of consequence. It may also be emotion-related as seen with children. This too coincides with DD's statement in OOP about the most mysterious power that Harry possesses and Voldemort doesn't at all - love. (OK, well, she says heart.) In last month's interview JKR she stated that LV has never loved anyone, if he had he couldn't be what he is. I think brooms, and the car etc are simply enchanted items, and that's something entirely different than casting spells without a wand. What perplexes me though is the ability to be an animagus. Sirius did not need his wand while he was in Azkaban to do it. The mauraders all learned how to do it. Did they need wands in the learning process maybe? Is it even relevant? But notice, there are very few animagi out there! I don't know, maybe I'm just too tired, but I think we'll see more in this arena with the next book.... From empooress at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 05:08:57 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Nevillie's Memory (WAS Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: <1095445633.16943.6165.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040918050857.68513.qmail@web52101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113290 Alla: We don't know whether Snape is responsible for ALL Neville's problems, but I am pretty sure that his cruelty is resposible for making Neville's problems worse. I am sure you remember the theory that Snape was there when Neville's parents were tortured and Neville subconciously may be afraid of him because of that. That if Neville indeed was memory-charmed, Snape maybe the one who did it. I find such theory do be quite plausible, but the question is if Snape was there, what was he doing - torturing the Longbottoms with others or coming to save Neville? I really want it to be the first one, personally and if all of those speculations are indeed true, I really want to read the scene int he books , when Neville remembers all that and lets Snape have it. It just doesn't make sense that Snape was present or that he altered Neville's memory. I think that perhaps some well meaning (but misguided) family member (Uncle Algie?) perhaps altered his memory as a child after the attacks on his parents. It seems to me that as he was a baby at the time, he would have been present when his parents were tortured. And that seeing the spider tortured in the same way would have jogged the memory charm lose a bit. And he did improve greatly after the escape from Azkaban of his parents tortures, I think was simply a matter of resolve on his part. I do think getting his own wand may also help. Empooress _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From katiefaye at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 05:19:15 2004 From: katiefaye at comcast.net (Kate) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:19:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? References: Message-ID: <000901c49d3f$0b09f940$4c27aa43@s1100331568> No: HPFGUIDX 113291 gelite67 wrote: > Would anyone else like to know how the Marauder's Map came to be in > Filch's possession? Filch apparently confiscated it from MWPP or > from whomever they left it to. It is never actually stated where Filch got the map from. it does say that Fred and George nicked it from filches office. My guess is yes, one of the Mauraders was caught with it, but Finch never figured out how to activate it, so didn't notice the loss when the twins stole it. I do have two questions, 1) what year are Crabbe and Goyle? its assumed they are the same year as Harry and Draco, Yet during the sorting ceremony in book one thier names are suspiciously absent! 2)Could the half blood price be Salazar Slytherin? JKR says the Half blood prince is only a passing mention in book two by which Harry makes a discovery. she cut out all story to the HBP in book two to accomodate the story and Harry's maturity later. There were two major discoveries Harry found out in book two. 1- godric and salazar had a fight that drove Salazar from hogwarts, It was not the other three wizards disagreeing with him(Reread it! I was stunned when prof Binns let THAT slip!) and 2- Voldemorte passed much of his abilities onto harry with the final curse. As Dumbledore said, Tom Riddle was the last descendant of Slytherin, this leads me to beleive only Salazar could be the HBP. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 13:35:47 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:35:47 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: <20040918050045.27558.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kim McGibony wrote: > Rebecca: > > > Did we ever come to a consensus on what the > important bit from book > > 2 was? > > > Having read on JKR's web site that the connection > involves something that Harry "discovers" in COS is > important in HBP, I reread COS the one thing that > Harry discovers is Percy roaming the dungeons. And > considering that Scabbers was Percy's pet, well I'm > thinking that Percy is gonna turn out to be a bad seed > even more so than in OotP. > Empooress I think the implication in Percy roaming the dungeons was that he was off on an illicit tryst with his Ravenclaw girlfriend Penelope Clearwater. I could be wrong. Meri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 14:19:14 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:19:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <01c401c49d2f$7ec65f50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113293 > Feklar: > Personally, I don't like SB. I was dismayed in GOF when he admitted his > solution to the dragons was the Conjuctivitus Curse (ironically, the "dark" > contestant's solution) and he kind of went downhill from there. I'm > inclined to give him a pass on his early years because he was presumably > raised to be vicious and mean from an early age. And I can see why he might > have feared and hated Snape from the get go. But ultimately, while he may > have decided he disagreed with his family's politics, he doesn't seem to > have any problem with their methods. That is, he doesn't see anything wrong > with being vicious and abusive, so long as it's for a cause he likes. Alla: Let's forget about likes and dislikes for a second, because then we'll have to agree to disagree right away. :o) You said you are willing to give Sirius a pass for his early years, because of his family upbringing am I correct? So, do we have any examples of Sirius applying his family methods or being vicious and abusive in his later years? (except slashing fat Lady portrait, please). About Sirius unreliability, well, some posters did argue precisely what you said that Sirius cannot be reliable because of his Dark upbringing and I just flipped it backwards that precisely because of his upbringing he is quite reliable. I mean sure, it could be shown all around later that he was a liar, but so far he was not caught lying yet and I will give his words same weight which I give... say Dumbledore (actually I consider Dumbledore less reliable canon witness than Sirius, because JKR already said that Dumbledore is hiding something ) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 14:25:58 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:25:58 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > Kneasy: > > I wonder. Check the frontispiece of QTTA. > > Geoff; > Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition > of "Quidditch through the ages"? > > My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others have mentioned. Tonks: They are using the U.S. Scholastic edition. You must have a U.K. edition. Wonder if there are any more differences? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 14:33:57 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:33:57 -0000 Subject: Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "endrewsmommy" wrote: > What perplexes me though is the ability to be an animagus. Sirius > did not need his wand while he was in Azkaban to do it. The > mauraders all learned how to do it. Did they need wands in the > learning process maybe? Is it even relevant? But notice, there are > very few animagi out there! > > Tonks: A Shaman can transform into an animal just as an animagus does. An animagus does not need a wand to do it. It is done by other means. Tonks_op From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Sep 18 15:07:16 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:07:16 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113296 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > > > Geoff; > > Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition > > of "Quidditch through the ages"? > > > > My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others > have mentioned. > > Tonks: > > They are using the U.S. Scholastic edition. You must have a U.K. > edition. Wonder if there are any more differences? Nope. True blue Bloomsbury Brit edition here, bought on Red Nose Day 2001 (if my memory can be trusted that far back). I suggest you go and thump a counter or two at your local bookshop. Kneasy From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 16:12:19 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:12:19 -0000 Subject: Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers) In-Reply-To: <003b01c49c4b$9bde3d90$482f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > > Angie wrote: > [snipped] ... and I don't > remember any other wizard except DD performing magic without a wand. > Does anywone? > I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and > perhaps a sign of things to come. Wouldn't it be amazing, after all > the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a wand?" > --------------- > > > [more snipping] > Any wizard can do magic without his/her wand. But the outcome is not always > predictable - Harry feels sorry for the snake and angry at his cousin -zap- > a glass vanishes; Harry is furious at his aunt -zap- he insufflates her (his > wand has in the trunk, inside the cupboard); Harry needs his things from the > cupboard -zap- the door sprang open (his hand inside his trunk, inside the > cupboard); Harry needs light to save his life -zap- his wand ignited; and my > very favorite: > > A very young Fred Wesley (about 5 or 6) is furious at his little brother Ron > and -zap- he TRANSFIGURES A TEDDY INTO A SPIDER! Now, that's pretty advance > magic for a six-year-old and I'm sure he didn't have a wand. > > I will always imagine an eight year old Hermione writing on a black board in > front of a muggle class and an envious classmate throwing a piece of paper > to her hair, making her turn. But, of course, nothing would be more > important to her than finishing the answer. I imagine the chalk finishing > the sentence on its own while she glares at the astonished class, eyes with > tears of sadness and fury. (A full day for the MoM obleviators) > > Anyway, no-wand-magic (I like to call it hysterical magic) it's probably > more common in children because they have their emotions at the surface and > they can't control them. I don't think it means a wizard is powerful. > > Other possible examples of hysterical magic: > > Flying Ford Anglia - the car was dismantled and put back together by Mr. > Weasley who bewitched it to fly, be invisible and probably to run without > gas (considering it was still running after months in the forest). It was > never (willingly) bewitch to have a mind of his own. Wet, it *decides* to > drive into the forest when *upset* with the beating and *decides* to rescue > Ron and Harry from the spiders. Could Mr. Weasley have put in something else > out of excitement? Or maybe Ron could have done it before breaking his wand. > He *was* in a life threatening situation. > > Lily's sacrifice - I'd rather think she was smart enough to trick Voldy into > signing a contract (her life for Harry's - I read this theory somewhere in > this site. Sorry for not quoting). But my second favourite theory is that > she did hysterical magic: in *intending* to stop Voldemort from EVER killing > Harry, she cast a blood protection spell that she didn't even know existed > (an ancient form of magic that is powerful enough to stop an AK). > > Marauders Map - given the size of the castle and surroundings, I always > imagined the map as a *small* piece of parchment that shows the paths that > the wizard *intends* to see. (Explaining the 'why wasn't Pettigrew spotted > before' and the 'how can it show several floors' things.) So, after > activating the map with a wand, there would be some magical interaction > between the wizard and the map that doesn't require a wand (though I admit > the map could guess the wizards intent, since it guesses passwords). > > Flying in brooms - though a broom is bewitch to fly, it requires a wizard to > do it (magic carpets don't - that's why they're illegal). But no wand is > required. > > The list could go on, but it's late. > > > > Susana > > 1h30 - I have to stop doing this to myself... Pat here: I have some topic #s for you to check out that go along nicely with what you've said here. Start with #109379 (Wands and Spells). I won't repeat what I said about Wandless Magic (#109601), as it's long. The main thing is that if you talk about Wandless Magic as opposed to Hysterical Magic (and maybe they should be separate), then you also include all the magic done sans wands by the likes of Dumbledore, the house elves, Snape--well, he tells Harry about it in a passing comment...just to give you some ideas. I do think that it is very important that Harry is able to do Wandless Magic. But how that will play out by the end of the 7th book, I have no idea. Pat From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 16:38:48 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:38:48 -0000 Subject: CoS - Lucius' Intent for TMR's Diary (was: What Malfoy's doing there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, message 113015 "Hannah" wrote: > Hannah now: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way. Mac: You've not listed a 4th possibility which to me seems even likelier and IMO better supported by canon, namely to generate trouble aimed directly and specifically at Harry Potter (i.e. with intent to kill, badly harm or otherwise disable/diminish him). Why else would Dobby appear at Privet Drive? - long before the Malfoy's visiting Knockturn Alley with 'important business elsewhere' that may or may not have been to go to Flourish and Blott's and slip the diary into Ginny's cauldron (or to anyone else who could predictably set its magic in motion at Hogwart's). From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 18 17:08:21 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:08:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I hope I am being clear that I am only exploring possibilities and it is also possible that Snape was a constant victim of Marauders throughout the school and eventually Marauders' bullying drove him to become a DE. < > > No, sorry. When I wrote it, the second part of the sentence made me cringe. Even if we discover that Snape never fought back and Sirius' "Snape never missed a chance to curse James" was a lie, I will still dispute that anybody except Snape was responsible for him becoming DE. Unless of course, somebody literally kidnapped Snape and forced him to take the mark. < Pippin: Snape's involvement in the dark arts, whatever it consisted of in his Hogwarts days, seems to be the reason James didn't like him, but there's a big difference between not liking someone and picking on them. There's something a little too uncomfortably like religious persecution in picking on somebody because you think their beliefs are satanic. I really hope James wasn't like that. In any case, James *changed*, and I am frankly more interested in what made that happen than in learning more about what a wart Snape was at school. Whatever he was at school, he became worse when he joined the Death Eaters (surely you don't think Voldemort would be a positive influence?) Snape was responsible for his own choices, but does that mean that he must have been someone who would choose to be a Death Eater before the marauders got to him? Snape could have chosen to deal with his pain in another way, but IMO that does not make James and his friends in any way less responsible for the pain they caused. If this is a story about good and evil, what does that mean? Is it only about rewarding the good and punishing the wicked? Or does it mean that every act that's done for the sake of the power behind the door brings more goodness in its wake, and every act that is done in despite of it brings more evil? We know what Dumbledore thinks, that Snape acts the way he does because his wounds have not healed, and that returning good for evil is a noble thing, something that James, whom Dumbledore knew "at Hogwarts *and later*" (emphasis mine) would have done. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Sep 18 17:12:37 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:12:37 +0100 Subject: The Keeper of the Keys. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113300 I don't know about you, but after his introduction in PS/SS I expected Hagrid to play a more central role in the HP story than he has. Still time for a stellar appearance and I have a sneaking suspicion... no, not quite - more a hope that his moment will come. So, what do we know about him? Rubeus Hagrid. Half Giant - mother Wulfrida, wizard father (no name), both deceased. Half-brother Grawp. (Just a thought - if Hagrid'd had a sister, would she be called Rubella?) Attended Hogwarts until stitched up by Tom Riddle. Expelled; wand officially broken, eventually taken on by DD in the post of Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts. I wonder how DD got him the job? So far as I can see nobody ever questioned the assumption that Hagrid had been responsible for releasing a monster on the school, resulting in the death of a student, yet he gets a job back at the scene of the crime. So did no-one object to his appointment? Did no-one suggest that letting Hagrid play with nasty beasties might bring on a relapse and with it the temptation to let his enthusiasm run away with him once again? In CoS he tells Harry and Ron to "follow the spiders" if they wanted to learn more - he knows that Aragog has information regarding the beast that terrorised the school even though Aragog had refused to tell Hagrid its name or nature. How likely is it that he hadn't told DD everything he knew back in Tom's time? Falsely accused, he'd tell all that he knew in protesting his innocence. DD would be inclined to believe him I think, but DD wasn't the Headmaster; it was Dippet who was probably responsible for Tom getting his award. Hagrid knows that it was Tom that shopped him, but does he know that it was Tom that was to blame for the monster and the death? I'd be surprised if DD hadn't put two and two together; spiders terrified; a death, petrifications. Not specifically mentioned, strangely enough; other students were attacked, but the results of those attacks aren't described. What other result could there be? Basilisks either kill with a look, a bite or petrify with the glance indirect. And survivors of attacks would identify the monster that attacked them. It's worth noting that there is no indication that anyone in Tom's time knew that the Chamber had been found and opened; so far as they were aware a dangerous monster had run riot, Hagrid had been apprehended and it had all been cleared up, though why they should assume that when the monster wasn't caught or killed, seems a bit odd. Except for DD - after Colin Creevey is attacked in CoS: "It means that the Chamber of Secrets is indeed open again." And he is well aware of "who", but not "how". Just "what" the monster is must also be known to him, whether he admits it or not. He knows that it was opened before and he knows who did it the first time. No indication that he shared his knowledge or suspicions with anyone - surprise, surprise. He never seems to tell anyone anything unless it can't be avoided. When you think about it, with all that he's likely to know about the events in Toms time, his demeanor during CoS is inexplicable. He acts as if he hasn't a clue with how to deal with the situation and allows himself to be deposed as Headmaster. Why? What was the point? The business with Hagrid's wand puzzles me a bit. It's strongly hinted in the books that he keeps the pieces of his wand in a pink child's umbrella, performing surreptitious magic when no-one important is watching. So why don't the spells go wrong, as they did when Ron's wand was broken? Maybe the wand in there isn't broken; his father's wand perhaps? He's obviously trusted by Dumbledore, picking up Harry from Godric's Hollow, the hut on the rock, collecting the Philosophers Stone, the embassy to the Giants. Though it's worth noting that when he's sent to do something that might need a little tact or subtlety DD sends someone along with him. And yet DD says quite openly that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Interesting. A clue to the future, or a reference to something that's already happened? It's obvious that Hagrid reveres DD, trusts him completely, would do anything for him, but would you trust Hagrid to curb his enthusiasm and rely on his brains? DD does, it seems. I wonder more about his title - Keeper of Keys... What keys? He has been seen with exactly one key - the one to the Potter bank vault. Keys to the school? Wouldn't Filch have those? Hagrid hardly ever has reason to enter the school buildings and I wouldn't expect Filch to allow Hagrid to keep the keys to his precious domain. Keys to the school gates? Possible. Mind you, Hagrid takes his pride in his official title, and if he actually had some keys I'd expect them to be flourished on a regular basis. There are a number of meanings for the word 'key', one of which is:- "a solution or explanation of what is unknown, mysterious or obscure". How appropriate for a tale like Harry Potter. From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 17:27:24 2004 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:27:24 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: She uses similar "never" lines several times > >in the books. All I can figure is that each instance is worse >>than the one before, so she's just "raising the bar" for being >>ashamed with each new case! > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan A. Goldfeesh here: Or, perhaps simply, she found it'd be less effective to say: "I've never been more ashamed! Well, except that time Fred and George , and that time James and Sirius did and, I can't believe I forgot about that time in my first year as Head of Gryffindor House, when Marsha Jennings !" The guilting just doens't have quite the same ring, ya know? A Goldfeesh (who thinks that people should just take a step back every once in a while) From WriterKim at comcast.net Sat Sep 18 17:39:51 2004 From: WriterKim at comcast.net (Kim) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:39:51 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: <20040918050045.27558.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113302 Empooress writes: >the one thing that > Harry discovers is Percy roaming the dungeons. And > considering that Scabbers was Percy's pet, well I'm > thinking that Percy is gonna turn out to be a bad seed > even more so than in OotP. 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. I also think that the fact Harry discovers that Lucius Malfoy is hanging on to a bunch of Voldemort's old stuff will resurface and become quite important. Sure, it marks Lucius as a prime supporter of Voldemort and is highly important to CoS in the end, but I would be surprised if it didn't also turn out to be one of those "clues" that ends up more important in later books. Kim From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Sep 18 18:12:25 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:12:25 -0400 Subject: Keeper of the Keys Message-ID: <002001c49dab$0da2fb90$7fc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113303 Tonks: "They are using the U.S. Scholastic edition. You must have a U.K. edition. Wonder if there are any more differences?" DuffyPoo: Mine is actually the Canadian edition from Raincoast books. It shows H. Granger's due back date as 2 March and H. Potter's due back date as 11 March although they clearly had the book in their possession in November. HP went to get the book back from Snape after the troll incident on Hallowe'en. That's when he saw Filch doctoring Snape's leg. C. Diggory, A. Johnson, E. Macmillan and T. Boot all have due dates of July or August. Between Boot and Hermione are nine more names, S. Fawcette, K. Bundy, K. Ball (looks like), C. Warrington, J. Dorny, T. Nott, S. Capper, M. Bulstrode and F. Weasley, with due dates ranging from 16 Sept to 15 Feb. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 18:12:33 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:12:33 -0000 Subject: Bill Weasley and curse breaking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Re-reading POA, I noticed that Bill Weasley works as a curse breaker > for Gringotts bank in Egypt. This has probably been discussed long > ago, but I can't find anything. Why would Gringotts need a curse > breaker? I know that there are old Wizard tombs with curses on > them, like old Pharos tombs. But why would Gringotts be involved > in .. grave robbing?? Or are they working for family members trying > to get the old family fortune out of the tombs? Can there be that > many old dead wizards in Egypt that Gringotts needs a full time > curse breaker? After awhile there seem to be clues everywhere to > God knows what. .. > > Tonks_op bboyminn: Think of Bill as a combination treasure hunter and archeologist. In real life there are fulltime treasure hunters that travel the world in search of lost treasure whether it be sunken shipwreaks or lost tombs. When they find treasure in this day and age the local government usually lays claim to everything they find, because these represent historical artifacts and national treasure. However, these governments usually pay a pretty handsome bounty on this recovered treasure. Frequently, nations will even hire treasure hunters with good reputations to search for treasures for them. Again, these treasure hunters are paid handsomely both in immediate fees and expense money, and in a percentage of the booty. Extending that to the wizard world, I suspect that Gringott's and it money loving goblins engage in a full range of treasure hunting from plundering and stealing the treasures of ancient cultures to cooperating with governments in return for a share of the treasure. I also suspect that many of the tombs and treasures that wizards find are things that muggles could never have found. In Bill's case, I think he was in Egypt in cooperation with the Egyptian wizarding government helping them break cures so they could recover the historic artifacts and treasures. In return, Gringotts makes millions for their help, and Bill is paid a handsome salary and various treasure recovery related bonuses. Also, keep in mind that it is not just Egypt that has ancient tomes and lost treasure. Africa, Central Asian, South Asian, East Asia, South and Central America, many island nations, all have ancient sights of archeological, historical, and financial importants. Ancient runes in Central & South America, as well as Africa and the Middle East, have been discovered in recent times and are currently under excavation. So, we certainly haven't found everything there is to find. I think from an authorial perspective, it's common knowledge and a frequently literary device for tombs and treasures to be cursed, so logically, some author somewhere was bound to come up with the idea of professional tomb/treasure curse breakers. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From ROWAN6MAYFAIR at AOL.COM Sat Sep 18 15:34:05 2004 From: ROWAN6MAYFAIR at AOL.COM (ROWAN6MAYFAIR at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:34:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP (Was: Marauder's Map, A History) Message-ID: <9b.4d626c96.2e7daf6d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113305 Katiefaye wrote: )Could the half blood price be Salazar Slytherin? JKR says the Half blood prince is only a passing mention in book two by which Harry makes a discovery. she cut out all story to the HBP in book two to accomodate the story and Harry's maturity later. There were two major discoveries Harry found out in book two. 1- godric and salazar had a fight that drove Salazar from hogwarts, It was not the other three wizards disagreeing with him(Reread it! I was stunned when prof Binns let THAT slip!) and 2- Voldemorte passed much of his abilities onto harry with the final curse. As Dumbledore said, Tom Riddle was the last descendant of Slytherin, this leads me to beleive only Salazar could be the HBP. ) My theory is that Neville's toad/frog Trevor, is an animagus, and it is he who is the real Half Blood Prince. Remember the fairy tale The Frog Prince? Same idea for JKR. Rowan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 18:47:09 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:47:09 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113306 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > Empooress writes: > 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. > > I also think that the fact Harry discovers that Lucius Malfoy is > hanging on to a bunch of Voldemort's old stuff will resurface and > become quite important. Sure, it marks Lucius as a prime supporter of Voldemort and is highly important to CoS in the end, but I would be surprised if it didn't also turn out to be one of those "clues" that ends up more important in later books. > > Kim Tonks: There is a necklace in Borgin and Burkes too. A cursed opel necklace that has killed 19 Muggles. Also on JKR's website (it is not there today, but has been in the past) on the Rumors pages there is an ad for Borgin and Burkes. I can't remember the wording and it is not there today. But they buy old items from the best wizarding families. Maybe Malfoy has something from his or his wife's family that he will need to get rid of. I was going to link him to Tom Riddle's mother, but as I am typing I realize that it will not work.. Tonks_op From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 18:50:50 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:50:50 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113307 To go with three suggestions by Hannah (see message 113015 Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there?), I've just posted a 4th possible motivation behind Lucius Malfoy putting Riddle's diary into circulation at the start of CoS, namely as a means to attack Harry. Hannah's suggestions were: Hannah now: The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way. Killing Harry may have arisen by success in option 1 and perhaps this WAS LM's thinking. It all begs the question of what LM knows/knew about how the diary works and what it could do. Thinking about this leads me (brainstorming here) to a range of thoughts (probably not all original) LM may simply have known that the diary could be a means to open the chamber, but if so how was that a *direct* threat to Harry and why should Dobby choose Harry to warn rather than all Hogwart's students? Does LM really want Voldemort back? (not my original idea I freely acknowledge). But if not, what is his own agenda for wanting to kill harry and/or open the chamber and/or reincarnating Tom Riddle? WOULD *the* Voldemort, as opposed to *a* Voldemort, have come back had Harry not gone to the rescue and TMR managed to regain a physical body? Clearly Diary!Tom knows what his future self, as LV, had achieved to that point and what went on with Harry at GH, although maybe (as others have pointed out) only Ginny's knowledge in these respects. Would a reincarnated Tom know all the magic etc that Vapor!Mort knew or would he have to go through it all again - with LM as mentor - now there's an interesting reversal. I don't think this is clear because of Diary!Tom stating that Voldemort is 'my past, present and future'. In GoF LV, when he *does* finally return to physicality, makes a comment along the lines of how come you never looked for me Lucius? Does *that* LV not know what LM did (or tried to do) in CoS? Why does he single out Avery for punishment, not Lucius? LV goes on to mention his thwarting as Quirrel!Mort by Harry, but skips then to Pettigrew's return and does not mention CoS or Diary!Tom. So, is he aware of what went on in CoS? Seemingly not, at least in the graveyard scene. Did LV leave bits of his persona in other objects (possibly what JKR means by what he did to make himself immortal - assuming he is, which isn't clear) or in other ways. Some of his power certainly seems to have been ceded to Harry at GH, so has this been lost or was it gained back at his rebirthing etc etc? Was it necessary to have the chamber and its magic (secret*s*) involved in order for the diary to regenerate Tom? If not, then why hadn't LM simply used the diary earlier to bring back his 'master'? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 18:50:57 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:50:57 -0000 Subject: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: <002001c49dab$0da2fb90$7fc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > DuffyPoo: > Mine is actually the Canadian edition from Raincoast books. It shows H. Granger's due back date as 2 March and H. Potter's due back date as 11 March snip > C. Diggory, A. Johnson, E. Macmillan and T. Boot all have due dates of July or August. Between Boot and Hermione are nine more names, S. Fawcette, K. Bundy, K. Ball (looks like), C. Warrington, J. Dorny, T. Nott, S. Capper, M. Bulstrode and F. Weasley, with due dates ranging from 16 Sept to 15 Feb. Tonks: Yes, the U.S. version has the same names and dates. Tonks_op > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 16:07:56 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <00b801c49d99$a94c6610$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113309 > Feklar: > > > Personally, I don't like SB. I was dismayed in GOF when he > admitted his > > solution to the dragons was the Conjuctivitus Curse (ironically, > the "dark" > > contestant's solution) and he kind of went downhill from there. > I'm > > inclined to give him a pass on his early years because he was > presumably > > raised to be vicious and mean from an early age. And I can see > why he might > > have feared and hated Snape from the get go. > Alla: > > You said you are willing to give Sirius a pass for his early years, > because of his family upbringing am I correct? Feklar I should specify, I menat 'til he was about 13. By that point, he'd been at Hogwarts a couple of years, in Gryffindor, no less. He would have learned from the bahavior of teachers and other students that there were different ways of dealing with frustration, conflict and opposition. He was hitting the point where he should have begun to understand the moral import of his actions. So where an 11 yo Sirius might not know a different way to react or that there was even anything wrong with reacting to things he didn't like with abuse, by 13 he had to have known he was behaving badly. By 15 and 17, there is really no excuse IMO. Alla: > So, do we have any examples of Sirius applying his family methods or > being vicious and abusive in his later years? (except slashing fat > Lady portrait, please). Feklar: In school, there are indications he was abusive not only to Snape but also other students (and the Shack incident showed he was not only murderous, but indifferent to the well-being of others, namely Remus). In GOF, the dragon. In POA, dragging Ron off and breaking his leg--like with the dragon, he chose a violent solution without regard to innocent victims. 1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there were innocent bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't in the "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and waited, but chose to attck without regard to the safety of others. Treatment of Kreacher, as with Snape, he prefers to be abusive and attack first with things he doesn't like. It's possible it's standard in dark households to treat house elves like that, but again, he had 7 years of Hogwarts (and sneaking into the kitchens there) to learn there was a different way. In OOTP, I had the feeling that ultimately, Sirius would have rejected Harry as viciously as he lovingly embraced him in POA -- he was already edging into snide insults -- because Harry wasn't what he wanted. Alla: > About Sirius unreliability, well, some posters did argue precisely > what you said that Sirius cannot be reliable because of his Dark > upbringing and I just flipped it backwards that precisely because > of his upbringing he is quite reliable. Feklar: I specified he was unreliable about Sanpe's character. We don't know about the facts, but I do think he immediately saw Snape as a stand-in for his family and was probably incapable of seeing the reality of Snape's personality and character. Indeed, Sirius seems so eager to attack and express his hatred of his family that Snape's real character was probably irrelevant. In other words, I think Snape would have been his target no matter what. Feklar From Snarryfan at aol.com Sat Sep 18 16:58:37 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:58:37 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: <000901c49d3f$0b09f940$4c27aa43@s1100331568> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113310 > gelite67 wrote: > > Would anyone else like to know how the Marauder's Map came to be > in > > Filch's possession? Filch apparently confiscated it from MWPP or > > from whomever they left it to. > > Kate: > It is never actually stated where Filch got the map from. it does say that Fred and George nicked it from filches office. My guess is yes, one of the Mauraders was caught with it, but Finch never figured out how to activate it, so didn't notice the loss when the twins stole it. I think Remus said something about this *search the book*. Yes, in POA: "I happen to know that this map was confiscated by Mr Filch many years ago" Ok, it don't say exactly that its' from a Marauder, but it seem very probable. > I do have two questions, > 1) what year are Crabbe and Goyle? its assumed they are the same year as Harry and Draco, Yet during the sorting ceremony in book one thier names are suspiciously absent! > They're there, hidden by Draco: (after his sorting) "Malfoy went to join his friends Crabbe and Goyle, looking pleased with himself." Christelle From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 18:59:51 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:59:51 -0000 Subject: Homorphus charm & Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Pat" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" > wrote: > > Hope this han't been discussed before, but I did not see any > > reference to it in the archives. > > > > In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his > students > > including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga > Werewolf > > which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the > village > > from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. > > > > In POA Lupin tells the trio about his becoming a werewolf, and > that > > in those days there was no cure and that Wolfsbane potion is a > > recent discovery which allows him to become a harmless wolf. > > > > While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus > > charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or > > he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so > > resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for > > someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or > Dumbledore > > helped their friend more. > > > > I'm sure the reason must be that the storyline requires Lupin to > be > > a werewolf for some upcoming event or possibly his own demise. > > Anyone have any thoughts on this? > > > Pat here: > > More than likely, your last comment is really the reason for Lupin > still being a werewolf, but if you look at the part about the wizard > that could perform the Homorphus charm, it seems that only this one > wizard can do it. And thanks to Lockhart, who modified his memory, > that isn't possible any longer. > > Pat Mac now: I took this to mean that the charm will revert a werewolf to its human form, but transiently only - not permanently. It would have been a useful charm on that fateful night in PoA when Pettigrew escaped, but might not be long-lived/irreversible. On this same charm, what spell did Lupin and Sirius use on Scabbers to force Pettigrew's appearance in the shrieking shack? Might that have been homorphus too? That is, is it a spell that turns any animal back to its formerly human form (a bit frog-princeish - aha! Trevor? just joking). Presumably it doesn't turn ANY animal into a human (e.g. Crookshanks who I think JKR has said is NOT an animagus). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 19:31:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:31:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113312 > Pippin: > > Snape's involvement in the dark arts, whatever it consisted of in > his Hogwarts days, seems to be the reason James didn't like > him, but there's a big difference between not liking someone and > picking on them. > > There's something a little too uncomfortably like religious > persecution in picking on somebody because you think their > beliefs are satanic. I really hope James wasn't like that. Alla: Oh, I agree, I definitely agree. If we learn that James and Co started picking on Snape simply because they knew that he liked Dark Arts, I would dislike that immensely. I guess I did not make myself clear again. The situation which would mitigate James guit (Not absolve , but mitigate) for me would be when he or his family suffered direct hurt from Death Eaters and based on that James hated Dark Arts and anybody who likes them Pippin: >> Snape was responsible for his own choices, but does that > mean that he must have been someone who would choose to > be a Death Eater before the marauders got to him? Snape could > have chosen to deal with his pain in another way, but IMO that > does not make James and his friends in any way less > responsible for the pain they caused. Alla: We don't know that. My answer would be yes,Snape would have become DE even if he never met Marauders, your answer, I am guessing would be no. That I cannot even speculate on. I don't see even smallest inferences to build anything on in canon. I held James and Sirius 100% responsible for what they did to Snape in pensieve scene. Nothing more, nothing less. That was horrible. But right now, I don't even know if anything remotely close to such scene ever happened again (except Prank, of course, but was not someone speculating that prank happened that night?) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 18 20:23:25 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:23:25 -0000 Subject: McGonagall ashamed or fibbing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113313 Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > She uses similar "never" lines several times in the books. All > > I can figure is that each instance is worse than the one before, > > so she's just "raising the bar" for being ashamed with each new > > case! A. Goldfeesh here: > Or, perhaps simply, she found it'd be less effective to say: "I've > never been more ashamed! Well, except that time Fred and George > , and that time James and Sirius did heinous thing> and, I can't believe I forgot about that time in my > first year as Head of Gryffindor House, when Marsha Jennings another horrible mortifying thing>!" > > The guilting just doens't have quite the same ring, ya know? > > A Goldfeesh > (who thinks that people should just take a step back every once in > a while) SSSusan: You *do* know my statement above was tongue in cheek, right? :-) I don't REALLY believe Harry's behavior was worse than what came before. In fact, I think you're right on target--McGonagall simply engages in hyperbole to make a point. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 18 20:28:50 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:28:50 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113314 macfotuk at y... wrote: > In GoF LV, when he *does* finally return to physicality, makes a > comment along the lines of how come you never looked for me > Lucius? Does *that* LV not know what LM did (or tried to do) in > CoS? Why does he single out Avery for punishment, not Lucius? LV > goes on to mention his thwarting as Quirrel!Mort by Harry, but > skips then to Pettigrew's return and does not mention CoS or Diary! > Tom. So, is he aware of what went on in CoS? Seemingly not, at > least in the graveyard scene. SSSusan: NO, Voldy isn't aware, I don't think. In fact, I keep trying to use this "Voldy didn't ask about/Lucius didn't offer up info about the diary" scene as evidence that Lucius was attempting to use the diary to advance his own agenda, *not* to bring Voldy back. I'm not sure anyone's listening, but that's what I've been trying to say for months. Siriusly Snapey Susan From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Sat Sep 18 19:34:35 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:34:35 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113315 Empooress writes: > >the one thing that > > Harry discovers is Percy roaming the dungeons. And > > considering that Scabbers was Percy's pet, well I'm > > thinking that Percy is gonna turn out to be a bad seed > > even more so than in OotP. If my memory is correct, that was shortly after Ron and Harry had run into Percy's girlfriend Penelope Clearwater. As was pointed out earlier, and explained by Ginny (I think?) near the end of CoS, they had been meeting dowen there for a bit of lovers' privacy, and I don't think there is any ecidence extant to suggest anything else. Kim writes: > I also think that the fact Harry discovers that Lucius Malfoy is > hanging on to a bunch of Voldemort's old stuff will resurface and > become quite important. Sure, it marks Lucius as a prime supporter > of Voldemort and is highly important to CoS in the end, but I would > be surprised if it didn't also turn out to be one of those "clues" > that ends up more important in later books. I think Kim is begging the question here. That Malfoy has a bunch of LV's stuff wasn't just "highly important to CoS," it was fundamental to the plot. Given that we now know Malfoy is a DE and Voldemort is alive, I see no clue here. At best JKR can use this as a stash of DA gizmos for future colour. For example: RW: I can't believe we made it out of there alive! HG: What I wan't to know is where Malfoy could have got that thing. HP: I bet you he got it from his Dad's stash of... [Darn, the scene practically writes itself!] Anyway, I'm sure you'll get the gist of what I'm saying here! Rob From ExSlytherin at aol.com Sat Sep 18 20:37:01 2004 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Mandy) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:37:01 -0000 Subject: QTTA: US vs UK and older US editions. Was: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113316 > Geoff; > Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition > of "Quidditch through the ages"? > My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others > have mentioned. Mandy here: There must be as I have a US (Scholastic) edition of QTTA purchased in 2001 and it does have the 'Property of Hogwars School Library' frontispiece. Perhaps it is only the newer editions that are different? From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Sep 18 20:49:44 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Homorphus charm & Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040918204944.5375.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113317 Luckdragon: > > In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his > students > > including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga > Werewolf > > which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the > village > > from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. > Pat wrote: > > More than likely, your last comment is really the reason for Lupin > still being a werewolf, but if you look at the part about the wizard > that could perform the Homorphus charm, it seems that only this one > wizard can do it. And thanks to Lockhart, who modified his memory, > that isn't possible any longer. > Mac now: I took this to mean that the charm will revert a werewolf to its human form, but transiently only - not permanently. It would have been a useful charm on that fateful night in PoA when Pettigrew escaped, but might not be long-lived/irreversible. (e.g. Crookshanks who I think JKR has said is NOT an animagus). Luckdragon again: Didn't the nurse at St.Mungo's say Lockhart appeared to show signs of regaining his memory. If so the wizard who first performed the homorphus charm may regain his memory as well. Also according to canon the homorphus charm allowed the village to stop fearing the monthly attack of the werewolf thanks to Lockhart which sounds rather permanent. Lastly Crookshanks is not animagus, but a kneazle which is part cat, part magical creature. Brenda, who doesn't want to see Lupin get his heart ripped out by Peter. 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 Lynx412 at AOL.com Sat Sep 18 21:12:15 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:12:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113318 In a message dated 9/18/2004 3:10:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Snarryfan at aol.com writes: > Kate: > >It is never actually stated where Filch got the map from. it does > say that Fred and George nicked it from filches office. My guess is > yes, one of the Mauraders was caught with it, but Finch never figured > out how to activate it, so didn't notice the loss when the twins > stole it. > > I think Remus said something about this *search the book*. Yes, in > POA: > > "I happen to know that this map was confiscated by Mr Filch many > years ago" > > Ok, it don't say exactly that its' from a Marauder, but it seem very > probable. I've always thought that the confiscation of the map and the prank are linked. My theory, admittedly unsupported by any cannon a present, is that Snape caused the confiscation, possibly from Lupin [hence his comment] and Sirius, in retaliation told Shape something along the lines of..."So you want to know what we were up to? Just go push the knot on the Whomping Willow tonight and follow the tunnel you'll find" The Prank also explains Snape's ease at believing Harry was off Hogwarts grounds, after all Snape KNEW about the Willow tunnel and that Harry's dad knew about it. Of course, there's no way Harry could have know of the tunnel without the Map and F&G, but Snape has proven to be not very logical and cool where Harry is concerned. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 21:12:44 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:12:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <00b801c49d99$a94c6610$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113319 > Feklar > > So where an 11 yo Sirius might not know a different way to react > or that there was even anything wrong with reacting to things he didn't like > with abuse, by 13 he had to have known he was behaving badly. By 15 and 17, > there is really no excuse IMO. > Alla: Well, he did learn that his family way was no good eventually, didn't he? At sixteen he did leave and never came back. So, he did learn few years later. > > Feklar: > > In school, there are indications he was abusive not only to Snape but also > other students (and the Shack incident showed he was not only murderous, but > indifferent to the well-being of others, namely Remus). Alla: I won't go into Prank now. Let me just say again - too much of eveidence missing for me to conclude that he was murderous and indifferent to the well-being of others. Let me ask you one question though. In the PoA, in the Shack does Remus sound too ... upset to you when he talks about Prank. Does he sound like someone who was incredibly hurt by Sirius? Nope, I want to find the missink link first. But of course you maybe right and I am wrong. Feklar. > In GOF, the dragon. Alla: I don't understand. Why would you think that Solution that Sirius offered was more violent than what other contestants did? Feklar: > In POA, dragging Ron off and breaking his leg--like with the dragon, he > chose a violent solution without regard to innocent victims. > 1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there were innocent > bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't in the > "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and waited, but > chose to attck without regard to the safety of others. Alla: Well, of course when I interpret those situations my subjective liking of the character kiks in. I interpet Sirius' behaviour in PoA as very realistic display of someone with PTSD. Someone who just escaped twelve years of hell and completely focused on revenge for the murder of his best friends. I do not think he was thinking very clearly when he went after Peddigrew either. I do understand that it is just a valid for you to intepret those incidents as Sirius' general tendency to be violent. So, let's just agree to disagree on those. Feklar> > In OOTP, I had the feeling that ultimately, Sirius would have rejected Harry > as viciously as he lovingly embraced him in POA -- he was already edging > into snide insults -- because Harry wasn't what he wanted. Alla: Obviously, I did not get that feeling. I geta feeling that being stuck in that house made Sirius' depressed and when he would have been able to do useful things, he would have been better. Rejected Harry? Well, he had some James flashbacks, true, but I never doubted that he loved Harry for Harry and died for Harry(That is the partial reason why I like him so much and still hope that he will come back in some shape or form) > > Feklar: > > I specified he was unreliable about Sanpe's character. Alla: And I was talking about his specific relaibility about Snape's character. he and Snape are similar in so many ways. Theat is why I think he is reliable, regardless whether he hates Snape or not. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Sep 18 21:23:49 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:23:49 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > mhbobbin: > > > > I agree that Fudge is a bad'un. I think the real debate is > whether > > Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt politician > > willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he is evil as in > > Death Eater. I'm not yet convinced he is a DE, but his actions / > > obstructions / attitudes are consistently helpful to DEs and > > Voldemort. There is a concept that our Marxist friends used to promote that I can best illustrate by using a quote from Lenin (Source: Lenin's Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 30) "That is how the German Independents and the French Longuetists act. These parties' repetition of the petty-bourgeois democrats' phrases about the majority of the "people" (deceived by the bourgeoisie and crushed by capital) places them objectively on the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat." End quote So what Lenin is saying is that though these French and German Commie-wannabes may think that they're doing their bit to promote world revolution and the dictatorship of the proles, but: because they're advocating reformation rather than abolition of the corrupted capitalist system, they merely are letting themselves be used by the bourgeoisie to perpetuate aforementioned system. Therefore the German/French groups, though they may fancy themselves true-blue supporters of the Revolution, their announced goals and ideals, even if achieved, would actually facilitate the perpetuation of bourgeoisie establishment. Hence, they are "objectively on the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat" So what does this have to do with Cornelius Fudge? Fudge through his actions is certainly objectively on the side of the Death Eaters. He has allowed the Voldemort and his minions to rise to renewed power pretty much undisturbed by anyone other than the OOP, and has done his best to harass the opponents of the Dark Lord, Dumbledore and Harry in particular. But this does not mean that Fudge is consciously advocating a DE agenda. He is merely (IMO) a dull complacent man who does not see the imminent threat rising against the WW (it would be of course impossible to think of a contemporary parallel, since none exist). If Fudge were a conscious agent of the Dark Lord, why hasn't this spot of dialogue taken place? THE TIME: Beginning of Book Five. THE SCENE: Minister of Magic's office. VOLDEMORT & FUDGE are discovered enjoying a cognac and smoking long Havana cigars VOLDEMORT: It sure feels good being resurrected. I can hardly wait to unleash all my fell plans. FUDGE: Mi casa es su casa, Lord Voldemort. Anything I can do to assist, you just lay it on me, bro. VOLDEMORT: As a matter of fact, I'm glad you bought that up. There's this prophecy in the Ministry of Magic about me and the Potter lad I'm simply dying to hear. I've only heard snippets of it here and there up to now. I suspect it might contain some very useful information that would assist me in my ? I mean, of course, our campaign. Do you think some Legilimency against the Potter lad might assist in this? FUDGE: Oh, I'm sure it would, but I hate to see you go through all that bother. Hey, here's an idea ? I've got clearance for all the top-security areas, being Minister and all that ? why don't we just pop down to the Dept. of Mysteries, and you can pluck it off the shelf yourself. VOLDEMORT: Ripping idea, Minister, just ripping. Lead on, my friend. (The two exit to the Dept. of Mysteries to hear the Prophecy. THE END) If we assume ESE!Fudge, we have to assume there's some obstacle that prevents Fudge from accessing the DOM ? something that even the DA was able to easily do. > 6. Questionable people in higher places in the Ministry. Umbridge, > Bagman, Imperio'd Percy? > JKR has already said that Percy was not Imperio'd but was acting on his own bigheaded volition. - CMC (singing the old activist anthem, "Which side are you on, objectively?/which side are you on?" From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 18 21:31:45 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:31:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I guess I did not make myself clear again. The situation which would mitigate James guit (Not absolve , but mitigate) for me would be when he or his family suffered direct hurt from Death Eaters and based on that James hated Dark Arts and anybody who likes them< Not that there's the slightest indication in canon of that...but even if there was... It's a good thing for Remus that James's family wasn't injured by Death Eater werewolves, I suppose, and a good thing for Hagrid it wasn't Death Eater giants. And a good thing for Hermione that she wasn't around back then, since she disagrees with a Ministry approved textbook about which spells ought to be considered dark, and has been known to raid the restricted section herself. Does the fact that Gryffindors treated him badly when he was in school make you think better of Snape for treating Gryffindors badly now? Pippin From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 18 21:45:08 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:45:08 +0100 Subject: Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers) References: Message-ID: <00ae01c49dc8$e9cf3f30$722f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113322 Angie wrote: "I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and perhaps a sign of things to come. Wouldn't it be amazing, after all the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a wand?" --------------- Then Susana replied: "Any wizard can do magic without his/her wand. But the outcome is not always predictable - Anyway, no-wand-magic (I like to call it hysterical magic) it's probably more common in children because they have their emotions at the surface and they can't control them. I don't think it means a wizard is powerful." ---------------- endrewsmommy wrote: "I tend to agree with Angie that this is an important sign of things to come. For 2 reasons: (1) JKR said she saw foreshadowing of future events in the way Cuaron made the POA movie. The number one thing that stood out to me when I saw it was how much "wandless magic" was in it. (2)If Harry does indeed have an ability (although untrained) to perform wandless magic, it fits in very nicely with the prophecy (powers the dark lord knows not.) Obviously most wizards need wands to do anything of consequence." -------------------- -------------------- Oh, I didn't mean Harry is not powerful or that his powers aren't growing. Just that wandless magic is not a sign of it. On the other hand, far from me not realizing what a tremendous asset would be to do controlled magic without a wand! Let me add: JKR said Harry will have to learn how to control his emotions in book 6. I suspect that's because Voldy can access his mind through his emotions (the same way Harry can see through Voldy's eyes when Voldy is 'upset' - that would be a whole new subject) but if Harry controls his emotions he might get the hang of wandless magic. I have the feeling he'd show a talent for it! ----------------------------- endrewsmommy also wrote: "I think brooms, and the car etc are simply enchanted items, and that's something entirely different than casting spells without a wand." ------------------------------- Correct. They are *enchanted*. I meant they were 'accidently' enchanted. I might not have explained my 'hysterical magic' concept quite well. Let me try again: magic is done by focus and *intent*. Take the accio spell. You have to focus on the object and intend for it to come. 'Hysterical magic' is when your unconscious take over your powers and a wizard does magic without intending to. I meant Mr. Weasley enchanted the Ford to have a mind of its own and I'm sure he didn't intend to (but he was so excited about the possibility of turning the car into a pet!). With brooms and the map, I meant they serve their users out of an unconscious intent (you don't tell a broom to turn right or left - wet it does). The fact the brooms seem to be of no concern for the Department of Muggle Artifacts makes me think only a wizard can fly them - because he *does* use his powers to control the broom. I call it 'hysterical' because I believe the 'intent' comes from that place were you keep extra energy to save your life (I've been in two very ugly car accidents - I know that place and the energy stored in it quite well). ----------------------------- endrewsmommy also wrote: "What perplexes me though is the ability to be an animagus. Sirius did not need his wand while he was in Azkaban to do it. The mauraders all learned how to do it. Did they need wands in the learning process maybe? Is it even relevant? But notice, there are very few animagi out there!" ----------------------------- This might be relevant for the 'lost wands' discussion. If they keep their clothes when they transform it's reasonable to assume they keep everything inside their pockets too, right? And if they're holding a wand to do it that would be part of the animal too, right? But back to wandless magic, the fact Sirius didn't have a wand in Azkaban (we assume) makes me think animagus *is* Hysterical Magic. That would explain why it's so difficult: that 'place' within where reason doesn't enter wet everything makes sense is not easy to access on will. ----------------------------- endrewsmommy also wrote: "I don't know, maybe I'm just too tired, but I think we'll see more in this arena with the next book.... ----------------------------- Yes, let's hope so! Susana From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 18 22:30:57 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:30:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > I wonder how DD got him the job? So far as I can see nobody ever questioned the assumption that Hagrid had been responsible for releasing a monster on the school, resulting in the death of a student, yet he gets a job back at the scene of the crime. So did no-one object to his appointment? Did no-one suggest that letting Hagrid play with nasty beasties might bring on a relapse and with it the temptation to let his enthusiasm run away with him once again?< Pippin: "A story was put out that the girl had died in a freak accident" --CoS ch 13. Hagrid may never have been officially connected with the death. At aged thirteen he was no doubt apprenticed to his predecessor, and eventually proposed to succeed him. The Board of Governors wouldn't want that old scandal dredged up, now would they? Kneasy: > I'd be surprised if DD hadn't put two and two together; spiders terrified; a death, petrifications. Not specifically mentioned, strangely enough; other students were attacked, but the results of those attacks aren't described. What other result could there be? Basilisks either kill with a look, a bite or petrify with the glance indirect. And survivors of attacks would identify the monster that attacked them.< Pippin: Myrtle was a survivor of sorts, but she only remembers the great big yellow eyes. No doubt there was some sort of disillusionment charm on the monster. Someone would have seen it otherwise. Wizarding accounts do not mention the basilisk's ability to petrify,so it's possible that Tom learned of this forgotten ability in the muggle world. That would make it difficult even for Dumbledore to figure out what was really going on. Kneasy: > It's worth noting that there is no indication that anyone in Tom's time knew that the Chamber had been found and opened; so far as they were aware a dangerous monster had run riot, Hagrid had been apprehended and it had all been cleared up, though why they should assume that when the monster wasn't caught or killed, seems a bit odd. Except for DD - > after Colin Creevey is attacked in CoS: > "It means that the Chamber of Secrets is indeed open again." > And he is well aware of "who", but not "how". Just "what" the monster is must also be known to him, whether he admits it or not.< Pippin: Draco knows that the Chamber was opened before and that the Heir was responsible. Tom also says that he thought someone would realize Hagrid couldn't have been the Heir, so maybe there were messages on the wall that time also. Of course the governors would be very anxious to think it was all a hoax by a disturbed student. Kneasy: > When you think about it, with all that [Dumbledore]'s likely to know about the events in Toms time, his demeanor during CoS is inexplicable. He acts as if he hasn't a clue with how to deal with the situation and allows himself to be deposed as Headmaster. Why? What was the point?< Pippin: Dumbledore was suspended from office, but we have no idea whether he actually left the castle. (He's not as gone as you might think.) DD was not entirely unprepared. He was obviously expecting the attacks since Professor Sprout has laid in mandrake. Best to grow them on site, since plants can easily be disguised. Dumbledore knows he is unable to locate the chamber, and that the real danger is not the basilisk but Voldemort. Deprive him of his weapon and LV will merely seize another. DD will know that Voldemort does not want the school shut down, so no student will die until LV has gained his objective, which is undoubtedly Harry Potter. The student body as a whole is safe, for the present. Since Dumbledore himself cannot destroy Voldemort, and Harry already has on him all the magical protections that Dumbledore can give, what else is Dumbledore to do, except watch and hope that Harry can discover where the chamber is before Voldemort gets careless or impatient and somebody else gets killed? Pippin who thinks that Hermione would never write on a library book, and that the 'pipes' clue was forged by Riddle From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 18 22:32:50 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:32:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > I wonder how DD got him the job? So far as I can see nobody ever questioned the assumption that Hagrid had been responsible for releasing a monster on the school, resulting in the death of a student, yet he gets a job back at the scene of the crime. So did no-one object to his appointment? Did no-one suggest that letting Hagrid play with nasty beasties might bring on a relapse and with it the temptation to let his enthusiasm run away with him once again?< Pippin: "A story was put out that the girl had died in a freak accident" --CoS ch 13. Hagrid may never have been officially connected with the death. At aged thirteen he was no doubt apprenticed to his predecessor, and eventually proposed to succeed him. The Board of Governors wouldn't want that old scandal dredged up, now would they? Kneasy: > I'd be surprised if DD hadn't put two and two together; spiders terrified; a death, petrifications. Not specifically mentioned, strangely enough; other students were attacked, but the results of those attacks aren't described. What other result could there be? Basilisks either kill with a look, a bite or petrify with the glance indirect. And survivors of attacks would identify the monster that attacked them.< Pippin: Myrtle was a survivor of sorts, but she only remembers the great big yellow eyes. No doubt there was some sort of disillusionment charm on the monster. Someone would have seen it otherwise. Wizarding accounts do not mention the basilisk's ability to petrify,so it's possible that Tom learned of this forgotten ability in the muggle world. That would make it difficult even for Dumbledore to figure out what was really going on. Kneasy: > It's worth noting that there is no indication that anyone in Tom's time knew that the Chamber had been found and opened; so far as they were aware a dangerous monster had run riot, Hagrid had been apprehended and it had all been cleared up, though why they should assume that when the monster wasn't caught or killed, seems a bit odd. Except for DD - > after Colin Creevey is attacked in CoS: > "It means that the Chamber of Secrets is indeed open again." > And he is well aware of "who", but not "how". Just "what" the monster is must also be known to him, whether he admits it or not.< Pippin: Draco knows that the Chamber was opened before and that the Heir was responsible. Tom also says that he thought someone would realize Hagrid couldn't have been the Heir, so maybe there were messages on the wall that time also. Of course the governors would be very anxious to think it was all a hoax by a disturbed student. Kneasy: > When you think about it, with all that [Dumbledore]'s likely to know about the events in Toms time, his demeanor during CoS is inexplicable. He acts as if he hasn't a clue with how to deal with the situation and allows himself to be deposed as Headmaster. Why? What was the point?< Pippin: Dumbledore was suspended from office, but we have no idea whether he actually left the castle. (He's not as gone as you might think.) DD was not entirely unprepared. He was obviously expecting the attacks since Professor Sprout has laid in mandrake. Best to grow them on site, since plants can easily be disguised. Dumbledore knows he is unable to locate the chamber, and that the real danger is not the basilisk but Voldemort. Deprive him of his weapon and LV will merely seize another. DD will know that Voldemort does not want the school shut down, so no student will die until LV has gained his objective, which is undoubtedly Harry Potter. The student body as a whole is safe, for the present. Since Dumbledore himself cannot destroy Voldemort, and Harry already has on him all the magical protections that Dumbledore can give, what else is Dumbledore to do, except watch and hope that Harry can discover where the chamber is before Voldemort gets careless or impatient and somebody else gets killed? Pippin who thinks that Hermione would never write on a library book, and that the 'pipes' clue was forged by Riddle From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 18 22:47:41 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:47:41 -0000 Subject: QTTA: US vs UK and older US editions. Was: Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mandy" wrote: > > Geoff; > > Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition > > of "Quidditch through the ages"? > > My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others > > have mentioned. > > Mandy here: > There must be as I have a US (Scholastic) edition of QTTA purchased > in 2001 and it does have the 'Property of Hogwars School Library' > frontispiece. > > Perhaps it is only the newer editions that are different? Geoff; Just to complicate the last two messages, I bought my edition through Amazon last year on the Net here in the UK. My edition is listed as Arthur A.Levine books, am imprint of Scholastic Press on the title page. In miniscule print on the next pag, it declares that it is first American edition February 2001. No frontispiece bits and bobs. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Sat Sep 18 23:02:10 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:02:10 -0000 Subject: QTTA: US vs UK and older US editions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113326 Geoff wrote: > > > Bit of a side issue here. Is there more than one edition > > > of "Quidditch through the ages"? > > > My edition hasn't got the frontispiece which Kneasy and others > > > have mentioned. > > Mandy: > > There must be as I have a US (Scholastic) edition of QTTA purchased > > in 2001 and it does have the 'Property of Hogwars School Library' > > frontispiece. > > > > Perhaps it is only the newer editions that are different? > Geoff; > Just to complicate the last two messages, I bought my edition through > Amazon last year on the Net here in the UK. > > My edition is listed as Arthur A.Levine books, am imprint of > Scholastic Press on the title page. In miniscule print on the next > pag, it declares that it is first American edition February 2001. > > No frontispiece bits and bobs. Yb now: That's a shame. I have the First Hardcover Boxed Set edition, September 2001, and it has the frontispiece, with a little note at the bottom from Irma Pince threatening consequences to anyone who mishandles the book. I don't think it matters that much, since someone already pointed out a FLINT with Hermione and Harry's checkout dates. But it shows who has a bit of an interest in learning about Quidditch (nearly all of the Gryffindor Q Team checked it out). I think that was all the purpose the frontispiece was meant to serve, to give it a "library book" look. ~Yb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 18 23:10:48 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:10:48 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113327 Pippin: > Not that there's the slightest indication in canon of that...but even > if there was... Alla: Of course there is no mention of it in canon. Pippin: > It's a good thing for Remus that James's family wasn't injured by > Death Eater werewolves, I suppose, and a good thing for Hagrid > it wasn't Death Eater giants. And a good thing for Hermione that > she wasn't around back then, since she disagrees with a > Ministry approved textbook about which spells ought to be > considered dark, and has been known to raid the restricted > section herself. Alla: Pippin, you are starting to make me feel very insecure about my English skills. :) Let me reiterate again. There is no justification for what James did. None. But there are could be events, which we don't know yet, which will help us to understand better why James disliked Snape and from the eye of objective observer those events could make James' character more fleshed out. And yes, if James family was injured by werewolves, I would understand that he would be very afraid of them. :o) Pippin: > Does the fact that Gryffindors treated him badly when he was in > school make you think better of Snape for treating Gryffindors > badly now? Alla: It makes me think much worse of Snape as you probably know by now. Because he was unable to overcome those dynamics and became the same bully to Harry , which James was to him. But no matter how I dislike Snape's behaviour, I realise that there are reasons for it. I think that we will learn that James may have had reasons for his behaviour, no matter how much I dislike it. You know, significant part of me reading the posts with the opposite POV is to try and understand where other poster is coming from. That is why I usually love your posts so much. No matter how strongly I disagree with you most of the times, you make me understand perfectly, where you are coming from. Your arguments are strong, your canon inferences are unusual, but very believable, when you explain them. You honestly lost me with this argument. You are coming so hard on James because of ONE scene, but you are giving Snape a free pass for five years of emotional torture he endured on Harry and Neville (Yes, in the process saving Harry's life, but not stopping to torture him. James also saved Snape's life once). Again, I am not talking about our likes and dislikes of the characters. You like Snape. I am very fond of Sirius (I also like Snape, when he is away from Harry, but that is beside the point) But looking at the parallels between situations objectively, are you are unwilling to even assume for a second that James reasons to dislike Snape may be just as strong and just as justifiable in his mind, as Snape's reasons for doslking Harry? Alla From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Sep 18 23:19:25 2004 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:19:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <414CC27D.9070404@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113328 Nora Renka wrote: > In that regard, finding some more good out about MWPP doesn't entail > putting them back on a pedestal, as once you've been kicked off it's > pretty much impossible to get back on. But for some of us Sirius and James had never been on a pedestal. Even before OoTP appeared, they gave me a very strong vibe of being popular bullies - rich, good-looking, athletic, pureblood boys. And if yahoo search was worth a knut, I'd give you some message numbers to back it up. No, really, for me the Pensieve scene wasn't surprising at all. More of "Aha! Thought so". Irene From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 18 23:46:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:46:25 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: > LM may simply have known that the diary could be a means to open the > chamber, but if so how was that a *direct* threat to Harry and why > should Dobby choose Harry to warn rather than all Hogwart's > students? > > Does LM really want Voldemort back? (not my original idea I freely > acknowledge). But if not, what is his own agenda for wanting to kill > harry and/or open the chamber and/or reincarnating Tom Riddle? Geoff: As I wrote in message 113085, I think that Malfoy was merely trying to climb to the top in the absence of Voldemort. I do not think that getting him rebodied [sounds like an old bus! :-)] was on his agenda if he could avoid it. However, what does he know in full about the Chamber? We know from Draco's comments that the Chamber was opened 50 years ago and that a girl died. We know from Binns that the Chamber was supposed to contain a monster (the horror within). How much more detailed information does Lucius have or do we have for that matter at that point in the story? Is Malfoy working in the dark just knowing that the Chamber contains something which could be used in an attempt to unseat Dumbledore and destabilise the Ministry but not knowing the specifics? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From ABadgerFan2 at msn.com Sat Sep 18 22:12:48 2004 From: ABadgerFan2 at msn.com (abadgerfan2) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:12:48 -0000 Subject: Does Percy Reconcile w his Parents? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113330 This is an interesting question for me in the upcoming book 6. He said some very nasty things about his Dad in Book 5 that turned out to ultimately backfire on him at the end with the validation that LV has returned. "abadgerfan2" From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 01:01:01 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:01:01 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Mac: > > > LM may simply have known that the diary could be a means to open > the > > chamber, but if so how was that a *direct* threat to Harry and why > > should Dobby choose Harry to warn rather than all Hogwart's > > students? > > > > Does LM really want Voldemort back? (not my original idea I freely > > acknowledge). But if not, what is his own agenda for wanting to > kill > > harry and/or open the chamber and/or reincarnating Tom Riddle? > > Geoff: > As I wrote in message 113085, I think that Malfoy was merely trying > to climb to the top in the absence of Voldemort. I do not think that > getting him rebodied [sounds like an old bus! :-)] was on his agenda > if he could avoid it. > > However, what does he know in full about the Chamber? We know from > Draco's comments that the Chamber was opened 50 years ago and that a > girl died. We know from Binns that the Chamber was supposed to > contain a monster (the horror within). > > How much more detailed information does Lucius have or do we have for > that matter at that point in the story? Is Malfoy working in the dark > just knowing that the Chamber contains something which could be used > in an attempt to unseat Dumbledore and destabilise the Ministry but > not knowing the specifics? > It's VERY unclear what Malfoy Sr 'knew. How can he have known about the chamber unless LV told him or else he communicated with the diary? But if he *did* speak with Diary!Tom wouldn't he have found out that LV is a dreaded half-blood? Does this matter to Malfoy? It does seem very clear, however, from Dobby's warning that he (Dobby) is convinced that Malfoy Sr is about to hatch " ... A plot to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry this year ... " " ... 'Dobby has known about it for *months* ..." (asterisks my emphasis) and just before this " ... If Harry Potter goes back to Hogwarts, he will be in *mortal* danger ..." (again my emphasis). He wasn't just using the diary on an off-chance. I'm intrigued by how Binns knew so much when, as kneasy points out, DD *apparently* knows so little. DD knows everything, including to get in a supply of mandarakes. None of this seems to get us closer to the half-blood prince, though I note that one only has to have a single non-wizard/witch grandparent to be considered half-blood (i.e. Hermione's kids with a wizard would still be half-blood). From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 01:25:45 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:25:45 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK (was: Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greatelderone" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" > wrote: > > Snow: > > I don't want this to sound bad but wouldn't a counter (curse) be > > during a curse not after one? To counter ones intention would be > > before or during not after, wouldn't it? Curse and Charm seem to > be > > the bigger issue. I suspect that there is no counter of any type > to > > an AK what so ever, whether it is a countercurse or a > countercharm. > > GEO: What was used at GH was hardly a countercharm. It was a wide > blanketing protection against Voldemort and his powers created by > the act of Voldemort killing Lily. Countercharms and curses are more > like spells that are spoken or used by the wand. What happened there > was more of an unconscious magical act by Lily and definitely not a > countercharm or curse. > > > If this were true then whatever killing curse was used (on Harry) > at > > GH could not have been an AK, which cannot be countered. > > GEO: And the spell wasn't countered. Remember it left a scar on > Harry and rebounded and destroyed Voldemort's body and quite a bit > of the house. AK *has* been 'countered' - three times by Dumbledore at the climax of OotP - despite what Barty Jr!Moody said in GoF about its being unblockable: First, the wizard statue gets in the way to protect Harry (and subsequently pushes him out of the way of the 'high noon' scene between DD and LV). Then, a 2nd AK from LV (at DD) hits the security guard's desk and blitzes it (like the destruction in GH but unlike the idea from Ch.1 GoF that AK 'leaves no mark'). The last (3rd AK) is swallowed by Fawkes, who dies as a result, but this is OK because he can regenerate (intersting btw since Fawkes gave the feather that allowed this spell to be produced!). All of this shows, and not for for the first time (since HP avoids LV's AK by virtue of an intervening headstone in the graveyard scene of GoF), that the 'unblockable' curse is, in fact, countered three times, albeit by the most powerful wizard ever (DD I mean, though you can substitute HP as possibly being even more powerful, not LV) - the chapter is called 'the only one he ever feared' - though this may mean HP take on LV rather than LV's on DD (or even HP?). From steve at hp-lexicon.org Sun Sep 19 01:31:22 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:31:22 -0000 Subject: Open Letter to Jo Rowling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "garybec" wrote: > > Becki (who is very excited to see the open letter to Jo from Steve > (Lexicon) > and Emerson (Mugglenet) asking some wonderful questions about the > book. If you haven't seen it yet, it is posted at Mugglenet) It's also published on the Lexicon. In fact, it was there for a week when Emerson saw it and suggested that we put it on both sites. The two versions of the letter should be pretty much identical, though. Emerson and I spent a couple of hours in an IM editing session the other night, going over my letter to make it more inclusive of both sites. He had a couple of questions he really wanted to add, too. Well, to be fair, we BOTH have a LOT of questions we'd love to add, but decided that they wouldn't get answered anyway. It's funny how many of the questions are things which fans have assumed they knew the answer to. For example, everyone assumes that Snape was in Slytherin. I know it seems glaringly obvious, but it never actually says so in the books... Steve The Lexicon From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 01:34:46 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:34:46 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113334 Tim wrote: To me that attack and the attack by the fake Moody on Drago in book 4 have > similarities. > Angie replies: Hmmm . . . interesting. I never thought about why Moody attacked Draco; I thought he was trying to get on Harry's good side. But wasn't it FakeMoody who said if there was one thing he couldn't stand it was a Death Eater who got away? Thus, his attack on Draco could have been intended as signal to Lucius because Lucius pretended to go back to the "good side." But then again, Lucius didn't know that Barty Jr. was masquerading as FakeMoody, so any message to Lucius would have appeared to have come from Moody??? From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 01:39:31 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:39:31 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- similarity to Scabbers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113335 -- > > > Christelle wrote > I think he has a brief apparition in OOTP, when he show his plant. I > think that he gives Trevor to Harry to have his hand free or > something. > Angie remembers: You're right. OOP says something about Harry not being able to block the sap from the plant because he had Trevor in one hand, and I remember is saying something about his Trevor-free hand, or something like that. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 01:58:03 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:58:03 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: <20040918050045.27558.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113336 Rebecca asked: > > > Did we ever come to a consensus on what the > important bit from book > > 2 was? > > Angie notes: Harry discovered several things in book 2, including 1) Ginny's crush 2) Existence of house elves and the rules governing them 3) That DD has powers no decent wizard would use 4) Lucius Malfoy's possession of Dark Arts stuff, especially poisons (discussed elsewhere, I believe) 5) That Filch is a Squib 6) That ghosts can enter and leave Hogwarts apparently at will (Deathday Party and Moaning Murtle) Now, what any of these might have to do with HBP is anyone's guess. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:03:02 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:03:02 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113337 When a wizard dies, is there any kind of ceremony held? There was no mention of any ceremony for Sirius that I recall. I also wonder if Harry's parent's are buried. If so, it looks like someone would tell him where, so he could visit his parent's graves. Also, it's always bothered me that Harry never seems to think about his parents on Halloween, the day that they died. I know that he thinks about them at other times, but it just seems odd to me. Most people who are old enough to understand what the anniversary of a death is acknowledge it in some way. Angie From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 19 02:08:56 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919020856.93253.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113338 gelite67 wrote: Also, it's always bothered me that Harry never seems to think about his parents on Halloween, the day that they died. I know that he thinks about them at other times, but it just seems odd to me. Most people who are old enough to understand what the anniversary of a death is acknowledge it in some way. Luckdragon: I find that odd as well, particularly when he attended Nick's deathday party on Halloween. It drives me crazy that he does not seem more interested in his parents as so many adults around him knew them. He doesn't show any interest in what they did, where they lived before hiding at Godric's hollow, etc; but I suppose it would give too much away that is meant to be revealed at a later time. 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 luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 19 02:13:38 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919021338.8246.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113339 gelite67 wrote: Rebecca asked: > > > Did we ever come to a consensus on what the > important bit from book > > 2 was? > > Angie notes: Harry discovered several things in book 2, including 1) Ginny's crush 2) Existence of house elves and the rules governing them 3) That DD has powers no decent wizard would use 4) Lucius Malfoy's possession of Dark Arts stuff, especially poisons (discussed elsewhere, I believe) 5) That Filch is a Squib 6) That ghosts can enter and leave Hogwarts apparently at will (Deathday Party and Moaning Murtle) Now, what any of these might have to do with HBP is anyone's guess. Luckdragon: I think it has more to do with the founders of Hogwarts. While we learned a bit about Salazar and Riddle being his heir we did not get much info. on the heirs of the other founders. ie) will we find out in book 6 that Harry is the true heir of Gryffindor? --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:16:26 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:16:26 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113340 I keep wondering why LV is so evil. I mean, OK, his Muggle dad rejected his mother because she was a witch, but is that really a sufficient reason to totally go off the deep end and want to wipe out everyone who is not pure blood (which, ironically, would include LV himself)? I've thought about DD's comment to Harry in SS that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror of Erised, and have even gone mad. Is is possible that Tom Riddle discovered the mirror and saw his family, the way that Harry did? Only it wasn't a source of comfort to Riddle -- it made him bitter because he didn't want that to be the desire of his heart? And that he visited the mirror so often that his bitterness turned to insanity? This smacks of something else DD told Harry, about our choices rather than our abilities determining who we are. Harry choose to see his family in the mirror as a good thing. Harry could have deeply resented the fact that he had to see his family in the mirror (as opposed to really having them in his life), but he didn't; perhaps Riddle took the other route, again emphasizing the similarities/differences between the two. Angie, going off the deep end again. (Anyone care to join me? The water's fine!) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:17:09 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:17:09 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: <20040919020856.93253.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113341 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > gelite67 wrote: > > Also, it's always bothered me that Harry never seems to think about his parents on Halloween, the day that they died. I know that he thinks about them at other times, but it just seems odd to me. Most people who are old enough to understand what the anniversary of a death is acknowledge it in some way. > Tonks: He was only a year old at the time and at least 10 or more years have past. I don't agree that most people acknowledge the anniversary in some way, not after all of that time. The day comes and goes and maybe you think of it, maybe you don't. Time and life goes on. Harry does not have a morbid preoccupation with his parents death and this is healthy. I do not see anything odd about it. Tonks_op From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:24:05 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:24:05 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: <20040919021338.8246.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113342 --- Luckdragon wrote ie) will we find out in book 6 that Harry is the true heir of Gryffindor? > > Angie wonders: What do you mean, exactly "true heir"? > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 19 02:29:55 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919022955.57924.qmail@web52009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113343 gelite67 wrote: I keep wondering why LV is so evil. I mean, OK, his Muggle dad rejected his mother because she was a witch, but is that really a sufficient reason to totally go off the deep end and want to wipe out everyone who is not pure blood (which, ironically, would include LV himself)? I've thought about DD's comment to Harry in SS that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror of Erised, and have even gone mad. Is is possible that Tom Riddle discovered the mirror and saw his family, the way that Harry did? Only it wasn't a source of comfort to Riddle -- it made him bitter because he didn't want that to be the desire of his heart? And that he visited the mirror so often that his bitterness turned to insanity? This smacks of something else DD told Harry, about our choices rather than our abilities determining who we are. Harry choose to see his family in the mirror as a good thing. Harry could have deeply resented the fact that he had to see his family in the mirror (as opposed to really having them in his life), but he didn't; perhaps Riddle took the other route, again emphasizing the similarities/differences between the two. Angie, going off the deep end again. (Anyone care to join me? The water's fine!) Luckdragon: Maybe he was born without a soul, or conscience. I remember learning about something similar years and years ago in psychology. Something about the Id, the ego, and the superego. That would explain his lack of empathy, powertrip, and possibly even why he didn't die when the AK curse backfired. 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 gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:31:15 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:31:15 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113344 --\ > Tonks stated > Harry does not have a morbid preoccupation with his parents > death and this is healthy. I do not see anything odd about it. > > Angie replies: There is a huge difference in acknowledging the anniversary of your parents' deaths and having a morbid preoccupation with it. I'm not even remotely suggesting the latter. Harry only found out the truth of his parents' deaths at age 11. He couldn't really acknowldge the anniversary (or really, even the fact of) of their deaths while at the Dursleys. It just seems to me like he would, at some point, think about them on that day. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:35:37 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:35:37 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: <20040919022955.57924.qmail@web52009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113345 > Luckdragon wrote: > > Maybe he was born without a soul, or conscience. I remember learning about something similar years and years ago in psychology. > Angie replies: Do you mean a sociopath? It most certainly could be, but I've always felt like something drove TR to respond in the way that he did. I believe any number of us could be evil, or at least, really bad, given the right conditioning and motivation. From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 02:38:04 2004 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:38:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Percy Reconcile w his Parents? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113346 On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:12:48 -0000, abadgerfan2 wrote: > This is an interesting question for me in the upcoming book 6. He > said some very nasty things about his Dad in Book 5 that turned out > to ultimately backfire on him at the end with the validation that LV > has returned. > > "abadgerfan2" > I think he will; I think he must. If nothing else, he knows now that he was wrong, dead stinking horribly wrong, and the Weasleys aren't going to shun him should he come back. And in fact, I can't imagine Arthur not making a peace offering of sorts. Nothing dramatic, just a "Your mother's making meatballs tonight, and we'd love to have you by." or something like that. -- Gregory Lynn From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 19 02:49:04 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919024904.63595.qmail@web52009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113347 Luckdragon: In COS when Professor Binns explains about the legend of the chamber he says "none would be able to open it until his own "true heir" arrived at the school. Perhaps Harry is LV's counterpart in being the "true heir" of Gryffindor. I would imagine this would be a direct descendency from the original founder as opposed to an heir via some other kind of relationship. > > Angie wonders: What do you mean, exactly "true heir"? > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals > > > [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 luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 19 02:54:34 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Percy Reconcile w his Parents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919025434.18440.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113348 Gregory Lynn wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:12:48 -0000, abadgerfan2 wrote: > This is an interesting question for me in the upcoming book 6. He > said some very nasty things about his Dad in Book 5 that turned out > to ultimately backfire on him at the end with the validation that LV > has returned. > > "abadgerfan2" > I think he will; I think he must. If nothing else, he knows now that he was wrong, dead stinking horribly wrong, and the Weasleys aren't going to shun him should he come back. And in fact, I can't imagine Arthur not making a peace offering of sorts. Nothing dramatic, just a "Your mother's making meatballs tonight, and we'd love to have you by." or something like that. -- Gregory Lynn Luckdragon: I don't know if it will be so easy for Percy to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong. He is already teased by his siblings and he doesn't seem the type to look back on his stupidity and laugh at it. I think if he does go back to the fold it will take some time. 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 gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 03:08:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:08:13 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: <20040919020856.93253.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113349 > Luckdragon: > It drives me crazy that he does not seem more interested in his parents as so many adults around him knew them. He doesn't show any interest in what they did, where they lived before hiding at Godric's hollow, etc; but I suppose it would give too much away that is meant to be revealed at a later time. > > Angie replies: Just because Harry can't find out now (b/c it is to be revealed at a later time) doesn't mean he couldn't ask about it or wonder about it. I mean, I know he can only take so much and he had a lot dumped on him at one time, but it doesn't ring true that he doesn't even ask. For example, when Sirius reveals that he knew James' parents (prime opening) Harry doesn't ask about them! He seems much more interested in Sirius's heritage (re the Black's ancestral tapestry) than his own. I guess there is an argument to be made that the whole subject is too painful for Harry. After all, the more that is revealed about his past, the worse things seem to become for him. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 19 03:19:24 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:19:24 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Pippin, you are starting to make me feel very insecure about my English skills. :) Let me reiterate again. There is no justification for what James did. None. But there are could be events, which we don't know yet, which will help us to understand better why James disliked Snape and from the eye of objective observer those events could make James' character more fleshed out. > > And yes, if James family was injured by werewolves, I would > understand that he would be very afraid of them. :o) Okay. I guess I was taking that for granted. I don't think any of Rowling's characters are evil just because. It is always because they want something they can't easily get by being good, and the thing that they want needn't be evil itself. Barty Crouch Jr only wanted his father to care about him, Wormtail only wanted to go on living, Kreacher only wanted Sirius to leave him in peace. Alla: > You honestly lost me with this argument. You are coming so hard on James because of ONE scene, but you are giving Snape a free pass for five years of emotional torture he endured on Harry and Neville (Yes, in the process saving Harry's life, but not stopping to torture him. James also saved Snape's life once).< Pippin: I am not sure what I said to make you think I want Snape to have a free pass. McGonagall was not advising Harry to give Umbridge a pass when she told him to keep his head down, she was saying he had chosen an ineffective way to defend himself. I think that Harry's defiance is not an effective way for him to defend himself against Snape's verbal abuse and so I suggest he abandon it. That doesn't mean I think verbal abuse is okay, or that Harry should buy into Snape's low opinion of him. I come down hard on James because I see very evil consequences coming from his actions, though I admit this is not proven and I realize that you see more evil coming from Snape's treatment of Harry than I do. JKR told us on her website about Theo Nott, who doesn't feel he needs to join a gang. Snape seems to be a similar kind of person. He doesn't seem to be a joiner, and yet Sirius tells us he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all became Death Eaters. After the pensieve scene it no longer seems inconceivable to me that Snape honestly thought James and his friends might want him dead, and I can see him joining that Slytherin gang because he felt he needed protection from James and *his* gang, and later joining the DE's because he felt he owed it to his friends. McGonagall keeps stressing that Gryffindors should never gang up on another person, and I can't think that JKR isn't going to show us why. But I could be wrong;-) Pippin From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 19 03:44:06 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:44:06 -0000 Subject: Arthur & Molly Powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113351 In message 113206, Tangent writes "the Weasley parents haven't struck me as particularly powerful". IMO Molly Weasley needs to be a very powerful witch. First Molly ... In COS, "Ginny wept as Harry helped her to her feet. 'I've looked forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since B-Bill came ...'". Ginny, Ron, Fred, George, Percy, and Charlie were all at home when Bill started Hogwarts. We know that WW children do unexpected magic when angry. JKR stated (do not remember the interview) that Molly had home schooled her children before they attended Hogwarts. Molly taught 5 young wizards and 1 witch. One of them powerful enough to transfigure a teddy bear into a spider. I am sure F&G did not turn into pratical jokers after they came to Hogwarts but were a handful when they were at home with Molly. For Ginny to remember when Bill went to Hogwarts means that when she was an infant, Molly had 6 young wizards and a baby witch to protect at home. Remember that in the WW children's magic comes out when they are angry or have trouble handling their emotions. For those of you with children, think about the number of "his touching me" or "stop looking at me that way" or "that's my toy I want it back" arguements that try your patience. Now image that these are escalated by magic, it is only because Molly is powerful that her children didnot do serious harm to each other before they learned to control their magic. lot of wizards respect Arthur Weasley. With his backing, Muggle protection laws have been passed. Arthur deals with Muggle baiting wizards. What kind of wizards bait Muggles? Not law abiding, blood doesn't matter wizards but those who probably support the pure blood philosopy of Voldemort. Recently there has been a lot of posts about "mollycoddling", we met Molly briefly in PS/SS but really did not get to know her until she was dealing with the "empty nest". She is trying to hold onto the role she has had for a large number of years. She is undergoing a life crisis and struggling to find a place in the WW now that her task as primary teacher, nurse, disciplinarian, nurturer is no longer needed. Now on to Arthur... In COS, Mungdungus tries to put a curse on Arthur when his back was turn. Arthur's work is extremely dangerous as he often deals with the darker (no pun intended) side of life. Arthur does what he thinks is right in POA telling Harry about that Sirius Black may be trying to kill him. In GoF, he is forces Vernon to say goodbye to Harry. Arthur has the Quidditch Cup tickets in the top box. He uses those memory charms as part of his work. As we know from CoS, memory charms are not the easiest magic to do correctly. Arthur is one of those rare individuals whose careers are exactly what they want to do. He is content with who he is and does not seem to envy others. In Cos, he is not afraid of Lucius Malfory. He stands up to Lucius Malfoy in Borgin & Burkes. He quizzes Harry about Lucius' actions in Knockturn Alley hoping to "get Lucius Malfoy for something..". Dumbledore uses Arthur as part of his threat to Malfoy at the end of book. If we look at their childern, assuming power to be hereditary, Bill has been ancient Egyptian charm breaker for Gringotts. Charlie works with dragons. Not occupations for below average wizards. 4 of their 6 sons were Perfects (My guess is that Ginny will be a Perfect in Book 6.) Two have been Head Boys. Bill & Percy both got twelve owls. Fred & George are very clever inventors (Flitwick leaves a piece of their swamp as a testimony to their skill.) On to Ginny, and I will just quote George from chapter 6 OotP: "'Yeah, size is no guarantee of power,' said George. 'Look at Ginny'. 'What d'you mean?' said Harry. 'You've never been on the receiving end of one of her Bat-Bogey Hexes, have you?'". I purposely left Ron out of the discussion above because he has been analyzed in many posts and I wanted to use the rest of the Weasley's for this discussion. IMO Arthur and Molly are very secure and powerful wizards, who have no need to prove themselves. - kmc From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 19 04:41:35 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:41:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > Luckdragon: > > > It drives me crazy that he does not seem more interested in > his parents as so many adults around him knew them. He doesn't show > any interest in what they did, where they lived before hiding at > Godric's hollow, etc; but I suppose it would give too much away that > is meant to be revealed at a later time. > > > > Angie replies: > Just because Harry can't find out now (b/c it is to be revealed at a > later time) doesn't mean he couldn't ask about it or wonder about > it. I mean, I know he can only take so much and he had a lot dumped > on him at one time, but it doesn't ring true that he doesn't even > ask. For example, when Sirius reveals that he knew James' parents > (prime opening) Harry doesn't ask about them! He seems much more > interested in Sirius's heritage (re the Black's ancestral tapestry) > than his own. > > I guess there is an argument to be made that the whole subject is too > painful for Harry. After all, the more that is revealed about his > past, the worse things seem to become for him. >From kmc: It depends on the age of the child when the parent dies and the "rituals" established by the remaining parent or guardian. My father died when I was in 4th grade on Mother's Day/my sister was in kindergarten. I attended the funeral but my sister did not attend. Because my Mother could not deal with a small child's questions about death, my sister was not told about my father's death until weeks later. I still think of my father on Mother's Day but my sister does not. Harry was a baby when his parent's died. When he learns about their death, he has no memory of them. I am sure Vernon and Petunia did not show interest in remembering James and Lily for Harry during his time at Privet Drive. I would find it strange if Harry did associate Halloween with his parents death. He was too young. I will be surprised if at the end of Book 6 and 7 if Harry does not remember Sirius' death at the end of exams or during the NEWTs. - kmc From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 19 04:45:17 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:45:17 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > Luckdragon: > > > It drives me crazy that he does not seem more interested in > his parents as so many adults around him knew them. He doesn't show > any interest in what they did, where they lived before hiding at > Godric's hollow, etc; but I suppose it would give too much away that > is meant to be revealed at a later time. > > > > Angie replies: > Just because Harry can't find out now (b/c it is to be revealed at a > later time) doesn't mean he couldn't ask about it or wonder about > it. I mean, I know he can only take so much and he had a lot dumped > on him at one time, but it doesn't ring true that he doesn't even > ask. For example, when Sirius reveals that he knew James' parents > (prime opening) Harry doesn't ask about them! He seems much more > interested in Sirius's heritage (re the Black's ancestral tapestry) > than his own. > > I guess there is an argument to be made that the whole subject is too > painful for Harry. After all, the more that is revealed about his > past, the worse things seem to become for him. >From kmc: The first rule that Harry learned at the Dursley's was not to ask questions. This was drummed into him for 10 years. - kmc From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 19 06:49:46 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:49:46 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: Angie: > Also, it's always bothered me that Harry never seems to think about > his parents on Halloween, the day that they died. I know that he > thinks about them at other times, but it just seems odd to me. Most > people who are old enough to understand what the anniversary of a > death is acknowledge it in some way. Geoff: But how do you know that Harry doesn't think about them? The books do not record every minute of Harry's day nor every thought he has. It is quite possible that when it crosses his mind he doesn't necessraily make a remark or it may be while he is on his own tinking quietly. I suddenly remembered when I read this post that in November, it will be 10 years since my father died. But I'm not going to jump up and phone people or say to everyone I meet today "I've just remembered that I'm coming up to the 10th anniversary of my father's death." It's something I think about quietly from time to time, often when I'm on my own. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 19 06:56:31 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:56:31 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: > All of this shows, and not for for the first time (since HP avoids > LV's AK by virtue of an intervening headstone in the graveyard scene > of GoF), that the 'unblockable' curse is, in fact, countered three > times, albeit by the most powerful wizard ever (DD I mean, though > you can substitute HP as possibly being even more powerful, not LV) - > the chapter is called 'the only one he ever feared' - though this > may mean HP take on LV rather than LV's on DD (or even HP?). Geoff: I have always taken the reference to being "unblockable" as referring to a counter-curse and that when the curse hit the headstone or the statue etc., its force was released on those and therefore, in a sense, the curse was fulfilled. A silly analogy perhaps but suppose that someone drives a car at someone they hate with the intention of running them down and for some reason, they drive into a wall instead, then there was a result; damage was done but not the damage intended by the perpetrator. Do I make my thinking clear? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From ryokas at hotmail.com Sun Sep 19 08:31:23 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 08:31:23 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > A silly analogy perhaps but suppose that someone drives a car at > someone they hate with the intention of running them down and for > some reason, they drive into a wall instead, then there was a result; > damage was done but not the damage intended by the perpetrator. I'm with Geoff. If the AK's unblockability would mean that an AK always succeeds, then the battle in the Department of Mysteries would have consisted entirely of people pointing their wands around and yelling "Avada Kedavra!" Worse - taking the implications to their logical conclusion - someone could become an extremely effective assassin by sitting around on the opposite side of the planet, spying on people via some magical means and firing AK's at them clear through the Earth's crust. An AK's 'unblockability' might mean that no protegos, deflections or reductions in power work. It quite definitely means that if one connects there's nothing to be done. What it clearly doesn't seem to mean is that it cannot be dodged or absorbed by something else. Which lends more power to my idea of enchanting stones to swirl around you and throw themselves in the path of incoming curses, but that's another story entirely. - Kizor From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 19 11:36:12 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:36:12 -0400 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: <001d01c49e3c$de3cf620$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113357 Angie "I keep wondering why LV is so evil. I mean, OK, his Muggle dad rejected his mother because she was a witch, but is that really a sufficient reason to totally go off the deep end and want to wipe out everyone who is not pure blood (which, ironically, would include LV himself)?" DuffyPoo - who is not much of a swimmer but I'll join you anyway! ;-) Especially since, IMO, TR's mother is much more in the wrong, yet TR doesn't seem to include her in his wrath. He appears to hold her in higher regard in this situation. Considering that she deceived Riddle, Sr for at the least, some weeks and at the most, possibly a couple years, then once they were married, and she was pregnant, she informed her Dear Hubby that 'oh, by the way, I'm a witch and I've been lying to you for all this time.' LV, in GoF, says "My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... he didn't like magic, my father ..." To TR the proof that Riddle, Sr didn't like magic is simply that he abandoned his wife when he found out she was a witch, but he doesn't take into account that the witch had been deceitful to the husband. What I see is not so much a man who disliked magic (which he may well have), but one who didn't appreciate being lied to for whatever length of time is in question. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sewabearbear at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 02:32:58 2004 From: sewabearbear at yahoo.com (sewabearbear) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:32:58 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113358 --- Angie wrote: > I keep wondering why LV is so evil. Me too. I've often wondered what his ultimate motive is. Purge the world of mudbloods & muggles and then what? There would be like 10 people left in the world. --- Angie then wrote: > I've thought about DD's comment to Harry in SS that men have wasted > away in front of the Mirror of Erised, and have even gone mad. Is is > possible that Tom Riddle discovered the mirror and saw his family, > the way that Harry did? Only it wasn't a source of comfort to > Riddle -- it made him bitter because he didn't want that to be the > desire of his heart? And that he visited the mirror so often that > his bitterness turned to insanity? But then how come LV & Quirrell had difficulty in working the mirror in the end of PS? I recall Quirrell asking Harry what he sees in the mirror. And if the mirror caused Riddle's madness, why wouldn't DD have it destroyed? At the very least, he wouldn't leave it around Hogwarts. I think he intended for Harry to find the mirror and how could DD be so sure of Harry's response to the it if it had turned Riddle mad before? From feklar at verizon.net Sun Sep 19 02:47:04 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:47:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <007d01c49df2$f2b19fb0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113359 > > Feklar > > > > So where an 11 yo Sirius might not know a different way to react > > or that there was even anything wrong with reacting to things he > didn't like > > with abuse, by 13 he had to have known he was behaving badly. By > 15 and 17, > > there is really no excuse IMO. > > > > > Alla: > > > Well, he did learn that his family way was no good eventually, > didn't he? At sixteen he did leave and never came back. > So, he did learn few years later. feklar: As I said earlier, there is a difference between rejecting his family and rejecting their ways; to me, he never seems to have turned from their ways -- or at least the "ways" I have imputed to them. > > Feklar: > > > > In school, there are indications he was abusive not only to Snape > but also > > other students (and the Shack incident showed he was not only > murderous, but > > indifferent to the well-being of others, namely Remus). > > > Alla: > I won't go into Prank now. Let me just say again - too much of > eveidence missing for me to conclude that he was murderous and > indifferent to the well-being of others. feklar: Umm, that's true for just about everything about the Marauders and Snape. Why ask a question about a topic with little objective evidence if you don't want to get answers based on little objective evidence? > Let me ask you one question though. In the PoA, in the Shack does > Remus sound too ... upset to you when he talks about Prank. Does he > sound like someone who was incredibly hurt by Sirius? Feklar: I think he sounds very uncomfortable and some of the awkward pauses, like the one before "amusing," read like an adult trying to put the best face he can on something he is forced to tell children he thinks of as innocent. I do think it's telling that he did believe Sirius betrayed the Potters and that he was using dark magi he "learned from Voldemort" to get into the castle. Remus clearly thought Sirius had a lot of darkness in him and was fully capable of being evil. > Nope, I want to find the missink link first. But of course you maybe > right and I am wrong. Feklar: I don't think there is any such thing as right or wrong in literary analysis. Even if JKR has a character affirmatively say something, it's always possible it will be an unreliable narrator and the world can continue to debate it. Actually, I tend to think the more fully realized a character is, the more unreliable a narrator they will be, because they will always give a subjective view. > Feklar. > > In GOF, the dragon. > > Alla: > > I don't understand. Why would you think that Solution that Sirius > offered was more violent than what other contestants did? Two contestants used distraction, Harry used evasion, Durmstrang used Sirius' suggested attack which harmed the dragon and destroyed its eggs. I would think it's pretty clear how it was more violent. > Feklar: > > In POA, dragging Ron off and breaking his leg--like with the > dragon, he > > chose a violent solution without regard to innocent victims. > > 1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there > were innocent > > bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't > in the > > "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and > waited, but > > chose to attck without regard to the safety of others. > > > Alla: > > Well, of course when I interpret those situations my subjective > liking of the character kiks in. I interpet Sirius' behaviour in PoA > as very realistic display of someone with PTSD. Someone who just > escaped twelve years of hell and completely focused on revenge for > the murder of his best friends. I don't know that much about PTSD, but I do know that violence towards others is not a primary symptom of PTSD. Flashbacks, dissociative states, nervousness, avoidance, panic, hyper-alertness and paranoia, yes. But I suspect how a person responds to those states (do they barricade themselves and their 19 cats behind 20 years worth of newspapers in a 1 bedroom apartment or do they attack others?) probably has more to do with their underlying personality than the PTSD. Alla: > I do not think he was thinking very clearly when he went after > Peddigrew either. Feklar: If your kid is caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting, are you going to be ok with it if you learn the shooter had a good reason for wanting the other dead? Sirius had a responsibility for the bystanders' lives and by chosing to engage in a firefight in the midst of them, he shared responsibility for their deaths. He should have been put away for reckless endangerment, even if he caught Pettigrew and everyone knew he was innocent of the Potter's deaths. > Alla: > > Rejected Harry? Well, he had some James flashbacks, true, but I > never doubted that he loved Harry for Harry and died for Harry(That > is the partial reason why I like him so much and still hope that he > will come back in some shape or form) Feklar: How could he love Harry for Harry? They didn't even know each other. In fact, the more they got to know each other, the less they actually liked each other. For Sirius, Harry was the ideal youth that he lost and hoped to relive. For Harry, Sirius was his last chance at leaving the Dursleys and having a semblance of a "normal" family life. At Grimauld Place Harry seems to clue in a bit, that that dream would never happen, even if Sirius could adopt him, but when Sirius dies and the dream is gone for good, he reverts to his pre-Grimauld Place vision of Sirius and that's what he grieves for. > > Feklar: > > > > I specified he was unreliable about Sanpe's character. > > Alla: > And I was talking about his specific relaibility about Snape's > character. he and Snape are similar in so many ways. Theat is why I > think he is reliable, regardless whether he hates Snape or not. I don't think anyone who has strong feelings about someone can possibly be a reliable judge of their character. Whether they love or hate, their evaluation is always going to be tainted. Above and beyond that, I think Sirius never truly saw Snape in the first place, which makes him even more unreliable. but that is my theory to explain Sirius' apparently irrational hatred of Snape. Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sun Sep 19 03:00:21 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:00:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE!Fudge References: Message-ID: <009301c49df4$cd541fc0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113360 >>>>>>>>>> CMC: VOLDEMORT: As a matter of fact, I'm glad you bought that up. There's this prophecy in the Ministry of Magic about me and the Potter lad I'm simply dying to hear. I've only heard snippets of it here and ... FUDGE: Oh, I'm sure it would, but I hate to see you go through all that bother. Hey, here's an idea - I've got clearance for all the top-security areas, being Minister and all that - why don't we just pop down to the Dept. of Mysteries, and you can pluck it off the shelf yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feklar: Fudge's assistance or no, I've been wondering why LV didn't just walk in and get it himself in the first place. The Deatheaters certainly had no problems getting right to the prophecy when Harry went for it. He would have had to face one unofficial OP guard, instead he got harry to do it and he riled up DD and the OP. But if he hadn't, we wouldn't have a book...then again, my major gripe with OOTP was how too much of it seemed too trumped up. Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sun Sep 19 03:22:36 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:22:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard's Death Rituals References: Message-ID: <011001c49df7$e940d680$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113361 > > Angie replies: > > Harry only found out the truth of his parents' deaths at age 11. He > couldn't really acknowldge the anniversary (or really, even the fact > of) of their deaths while at the Dursleys. It just seems to me like > he would, at some point, think about them on that day. This is exactly the reason I think he doesn't think much about his parents or their deaths. He may not have even know for sure when they died. Why would he suddenly start thinking about something on a particular day when he never did before? Also, I think since Harry never knew his parents, he doesn't really mourn them, what he does mourn is the general idea of parents and the loss of a normal family life. I think that is what ERISED really showed him, his desire wans't so much for his parents in particular as to be part of a loving family. Feklar From CariadMel at aol.com Sun Sep 19 10:58:55 2004 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:58:55 -0000 Subject: When worlds collide . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113362 Beg me your indulgence but I have read Books 1-5 of the Harry Potter series and although my knowledge is not as deep as all of you who post regularly here, I have developed a thought of my own and hope to have a response from you. In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's(Sorceror's)Stone I felt that the Wizarding World and Muggle-world were very seperate entities. In fact when I first read the book,the fantasy world of Hogwarts felt almost like a dream-state world.An escapist place where poor,abused Harry would find love and contentment.I almost felt that Harry would wake up back at the Dursleys after his adventure, back in reality. The Dursleys are aware of the wizarding world but are so in contempt of it they have chosen to forget it.The glimpses of magic in the Muggle world are very few, maybe a giant Hagrid walking in London and riding the tube may be a bit odd, but nothing extraordinary. Probably passed off by muggles as a 'rather large chap' in a very British, unassuming way. Hogwarts remains firmly closed to muggle eyes and the WW is protected. In Chamber of Secrets, however, there is a loosening of boundaries between the WW and Muggleworld (MW). The Flying Ford Anglia incident, reported by muggles and dealt with swiftly by the MOM, indicates that the world of Harry Potter is widening the scope of the possibilities of WW/MW interaction. In Prisoner of Azkherban, the muggle world are alerted to the escape of Sirius Black, apparently the Prime Minister is aware of the WW!! and discusses affairs with the MOM. Seeing how the Government of Britain is as capable of leaking as much info. as a dodgy Mundungus cauldron, the secrecy of the WW is in peril! The muggle baiting in Goblet of Fire shows even greater laxity in the WW/MW boundary. Holding the Quidditch World Cup in such an insecure environment, despite all the protective charms and jinxes, seems to give the DEs a playground for their muggle hatred. Memory charms are very hard to perform, the MOM employees had their work cut out after this little spectacle. The Dark Mark may have been passed over by muggles as peculiar lightening ( as another postee reckoned ) but putting the WW at risk of exposure was very dangerous. Finally, the interaction of WW and MW are more evident in Order of the Pheonix.Travelling to and from HQ, brooms over the southeast of England, an empty shop front as St. Mungo's entrance. Are muggles supposed to be that ignorant of what is going on around them ? My theory is that all along the WW has been present among us. We (muggles) have been blinded by years of misinformation and deception to believe we have extinguished the world of magic. Burning witches and focusing on our petty wars we have ignored the greater power to do good through magic. The birth of Harry Potter is a great event in both the WW and the MW. The boy who lived will reveal the world of witchcraft and wizardry once again to the Muggles and this is the reason for LV's vendetta. LV is only powerful in the WW. Harry has the potential to bring those worlds closer and become more powerful than can be imagined. The cruelty that Harry sustained at the hands of the Dursleys and has to endure each summer holiday is his training for the battle with LV. He knows how muggles think, he is aware of their impotence, but he is a powerful wizard and will bring his wizardry to completion by being the first fully integrated wizard accepted in the world. ... just a thought. Annette. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 12:44:17 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:44:17 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113363 Macfotuk wrote: > A newbie recently posted a 'don't you think Fudge might be evil?' > post > I really can't imagine why readers don't see this guy as at the > least deliberately obstructive and at worst a real ally of LV (or > severely imperio'd victim). I am so glad he appears to be going, but I want him punished. He isn't bumbling and well-meaning, or even *simply* prepared to do anything to acqire and then retain power. Hannah now: Personally I hope that Fudge doesn't turn out to be a DE, or even imperio'd. Otherwise it's like saying; there is only one type of evil. You're either good, or you're a death eater (or controlled by them). I think JKR is writing a multilayered book and will try to show that evil is not just one thing. There is LV and the death eaters, who are evil in a cut-and-dried, can-do-no-right kind of way. But there's also Crouch Sr., who was fighting for 'good' but embraced techniques that could be considered 'evil.' There's Umbridge (and IMO she isn't a DE either) who also did evil things, for different reasons. I think Fudge is there to show that you can do evil indirectly, through laziness, indifference, and self-interest. Just my opinion. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 13:31:58 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:31:58 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113364 > Hannah wrote: > The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way. > > I think he was motivated by a combination of 2 and 3. The timing suuggests that killing off muggle-borns was not his only aim - why not do it beforehand if so? But at the start of CoS he has a >problem; Arthur Weasley's muggle protection act, and this is going >to affect the one thing that Lucius *really* cares about - himself. He realises he has an ideal opportunity to prevent the muggle protection act, remove DD, and maybe even kill off some children (you can see why it was so appealing). > > Carol replied: > Can you explain how you think that preventing the Muggle Protection > from going on the books would benefit Lucius? Are you saying that > Muggle torture and Muggle killing are legal in the WW? >Not surewhat I think about this. It's clear, though, that Malfoy >Sr. and Mr.Weasley are personal enemies as well as being on >opposite sides. Hannah again now: Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear in the original post. I don't think that muggle protection act is being enacted to prevent muggle killing or torture - I'm sure these are already illegal in the WW. I think if they were legal, wizards like Malfoy would be at it all day! We know that Malfoy has already been adversely affected by Arthur Weasley's actions at the ministry. He has had to sell off some of his dark magic playthings and has suffered the indignity of having his manor searched. He clearly isn't at all happy about this. I get the impression that if the Protection Act were to go through then there would be more raids, maybe harsher penalties, perhaps some loopholes in the law closed up, giving Malfoy less chance to enjoy whatever muggle-baiting is legal/ he can get away with under the current laws. Malfoy also refers to the act as 'ridiculous' and calls for it to be scrapped in the newspaper article Draco reads to polyjuiced!Harry and Ron. While we can't be sure of exactly how the Act is going to affect him, it's pretty clear that he's not in favour. Perhaps most compellingly, IMO, this seems to be what DD believes was his ultimate aim, from what he says to Lucius at the end of CoS. I also liked Mac's idea, that the whole plot was specifically aimed at killing Harry Potter. I don't know how much this would benefit Malfoy personally, but it is certainly another possibility. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 14:03:35 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:03:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: <20040919020856.93253.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113365 > gelite67 wrote: > Also, it's always bothered me that Harry never seems to think about his parents on Halloween, the day that they died. I know that he thinks about them at other times, but it just seems odd to me. Most people who are old enough to understand what the anniversary of a death is acknowledge it in some way. Luckdragon replied: > I find that odd as well, particularly when he attended Nick's deathday party on Halloween. It drives me crazy that he does not seem more interested in his parents as so many adults around him knew them. He doesn't show any interest in what they did, where they lived before hiding at Godric's hollow, etc; but I suppose it would give too much away that is meant to be revealed at a later time. Hannah now: I agree that his lack of curiosity does seem odd - especially since he's generally quite a curious person in other respects. The thing which is also odd, is that none of the adults around him who knew Lily and James ever offer him information. The most he gets is some sort of vague mention of what nice/decent people they were, and that he looks like them. But they never seem to talk about little irrelevant things - what they enjoyed, what their jobs were, funny anecdotes... I suppose the root of the problem is that Harry doesn't ask questions about his parents because he finds it hard to cope with and becomes emotional. When he does get to talk about them, he often becomes upset, and he doesn't like to show that in front of people. Also, I think he worries that asking is somehow inappropriate, or that he will distress the adults, who knew and still grieve for his parents. And vice versa, Hagrid, DD, McGonagall, Lupin etc. don't offer much information because they are worried about upsetting Harry/ becoming upset themselves. Hannah From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 19 14:12:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:12:23 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113366 I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he torments Harry. Consider the similarities in their situations. Harry is confined at Privet Drive, a place full of bad memories where everybody except Hedwig is afraid of him. He has a deadly enemy, and he has no idea what that enemy is doing. He's seething with rage at his own helplessness and ignorance while everybody else seems to be doing something useful and important. He's cut off from his friends, and Dumbledore is giving him the mushroom treatment*. He's haunted over the murder of his old rival, the fellow who beat him out of everything, including the girl he fancied, though he knows intellectually that the death wasn't his fault. He neglects his appearance and his duty to Hedwig, and spends his time prowling around at night. Then Dudley crosses his path. Harry doesn't really have much insight into what Dudley's life has been like recently. He knows that Dudders has been suffering on that diet, but that's all over now. Harry observes that Dudders , now a championship boxer, is very pleased with his new talent. Harry's not at all sure that Dudley's new talent is a good thing. Harry has heard that Dudley has been doing some things he shouldn't do, and he, Harry, thinks it would be a very good thing, his duty as a concerned citizen, you understand, to put a stop to it. So Harry starts riding Dudley and is amazed at how good it feels, as if all his rage and frustration is being siphoned off. Of course most of the rage and frustration Harry is conscious of has to do with his anxiety over Voldemort, but psychologically, the pleasure has to come from all those suppressed memories of how Dudley treated him. He does remember that Dudley was miserable to him, of course, but most of it is buried in his subconscious and he doesn't dwell on it, any more than he dwells on the times he and his friends managed to get even: the boa constrictor, the pig's tale or the ton-tongue toffee. Harry doesn' t have the insight into himself to realize this, he just knows it feels good to make Dudley feel bad. Dudley is amazed, bewildered and very frightened; he's not sure what Harry means to do to him, and Harry finds he enjoys knowing that very much. Harry adds some unfair taunting to his justified complaints against Dudley, just because it feels so good. Anybody who didn't know better might think Harry was actually jealous of Dudley's success as a boxer. Harry has no intention of using any magic, much less dark magic, but he doesn't mind letting Dudley think that he would. Harry does think of how good it would feel to send Dudley crawling home as something with feelers, but to give Harry credit, he is trying with all his might not to act on those feelings, though it is more from fear of punishment than a sense that it would be morally wrong. And then the dementors arrive. Harry goes instantly, without a second thought, into full heroic defense mode. Dudley doesn't get it. As far as he's concerned this invisible menace and Harry must be on the same side, and he not only doesn't listen to Harry, he socks him one. Harry saves him any way. If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it sounds like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories are of James, not Harry. But as it's all in the subconscious anyway, and Snape wouldn't *know* that's why it feels so good to taunt Harry, it wouldn't signify. Thoughts? Pippin * the mushroom treatment, ie to keep someone in the dark and feed them bovine waste product From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 14:39:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:39:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <007d01c49df2$f2b19fb0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113367 > > > > Alla earlier: > > I won't go into Prank now. Let me just say again - too much of > > eveidence missing for me to conclude that he was murderous and > > indifferent to the well-being of others. > > feklar: > > Umm, that's true for just about everything about the Marauders and Snape. > Why ask a question about a topic with little objective evidence if you don't > want to get answers based on little objective evidence? Alla: Who said I did not want want to get such answers? I was just disagreeing with your example, that is all. Not even disagreeing, just saying that FOR ME Prank is too incomplete an event to be an evidence of anything YET. Except the fact that Sirius hated Snape and vice versa. As you could see, I was doing quite a bit of speculation in this thread last couple of days. It is only fair to expect from you to do the same, but FOR ME Prank is a canon event , which is already happened, that is why I want to know what really happened. My liking of speculation has its limits , you see. :) Alla: > > Nope, I want to find the missing link first. But of course you maybe > > right and I am wrong. > > Feklar: > > I don't think there is any such thing as right or wrong in literary > analysis. Even if JKR has a character affirmatively say something, it's > always possible it will be an unreliable narrator and the world can continue > to debate it. Actually, I tend to think the more fully realized a character > is, the more unreliable a narrator they will be, because they will always > give a subjective view. Alla: I meant right or wrong in light of what JKR intended it to be. I think at the end of the series we we will know among other things what truly happened that night and then either your interpretation of Sirius' character or mine will be closer to what JKR intended it to be. Does not mean that either you or me have to abandon our interpretation even if it is totally different from what the author intended. Feklar. > I don't think anyone who has strong feelings about someone can possibly be a > reliable judge of their character. Whether they love or hate, their > evaluation is always going to be tainted. Above and beyond that, I think > Sirius never truly saw Snape in the first place, which makes him even more > unreliable. but that is my theory to explain Sirius' apparently irrational > hatred of Snape. Alla: That is begs the question, though. How many of the canon characters can we really trust? Can we trust Snape, when he says that Sirius was capable of murder at the age of sixteen? Can we trust McGonagall, when she say that Sirius and James were were her best students? Can we trust Snape when he says that Harry is just like his father? (well, this one I actually think already had been proven wrong in canon) Can we trust anything, which Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of OOP? After all Dumbledore confessed of loving Harry, maybe he still did not tell him everything. You know, what I am saying? If we are to disregard the characters testimony completely , we won't be able to support our arguments with canon at all, IMO Of course, I will take Sirius testimony as to Snape with some grain of salt, since they do have strong feelings about one another , but I won't disregard it completely From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 19 14:47:42 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:47:42 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: <009301c49df4$cd541fc0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "feklar" wrote: > > Feklar: > > Fudge's assistance or no, I've been wondering why LV didn't just walk in and get it himself in the first place. The Deatheaters certainly had no problems getting right to the prophecy when Harry went for it. He would have had to face one unofficial OP guard, instead he got harry to do it and he riled up DD and the OP. But if he hadn't, we wouldn't have a book...then again, my major gripe with OOTP was how too much of it seemed too trumped up.< Indeed he could have gotten it himself. But as Bella tells us, that would have proved he was back, which the Ministry was engaged in denying. That explanation doesn't make sense if Fudge is a DE, because he could have blamed the theft on Harry and gone right on denying Voldemort's return. But if Fudge is not a DE, and Harry obviously can't have stolen the prophecy because he was at Hogwarts, then Fudge will be faced with undeniable neutral evidence of Voldemort's return and he will be forced to act. The solution for Voldemort was to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries to lift the prophecy. Once Harry had accomplished that little chore, the Death Eaters would have seized the prophecy and returned to Voldemort, leaving Harry to account for his presence and the absence of the prophecy the best he could. Something about Voldemort torturing his ally Sirius Black right in the middle of the MoM? Sure, kid. Harry would have found himself locked up at St Mungo's with Lockhart for company. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 19 15:02:42 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 19 Sep 2004 15:02:42 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1095606162.16.52961.m25@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113369 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 19, 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 Sep 19 15:04:00 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919150400.51711.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113370 --- pippin_999 wrote: > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what > is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he > torments Harry.... > > And then the dementors arrive. Harry goes instantly, without a > second thought, into full heroic defense mode. Dudley doesn't > get it. As far as he's concerned this invisible menace and Harry > must be on the same side, and he not only doesn't listen to > Harry, he socks him one. Harry saves him any way. > > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it sounds > like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories are of > James, not Harry. But as it's all in the subconscious anyway, and > Snape wouldn't *know* that's why it feels so good to taunt Harry, > it wouldn't signify. > > Thoughts? > > Pippin Works for me, Pippin. Excellent analysis. Of course, no two situations are identical and as you say it's James not Harry that Snape is "remembering". I'll toss out another similarity: in OOTP, a lot of Harry's capslock rage dissipates after the DA lessons start. Once he actually has something positive to do, he feels better and more productive. Ditto Snape after GoF? Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 15:08:02 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:08:02 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what > is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he > torments Harry. snip. > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it sounds > like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories are of > James, not Harry. But as it's all in the subconscious anyway, and > Snape wouldn't *know* that's why it feels so good to taunt Harry, > it wouldn't signify. > Alla: That was beatiful , Pippin. Absolutely beatiful. See what I meant? I doubt I ever would be able to find comparison between Snape and Harry in such unexpected place. Unfortunately, you said it yourself - Snape's old memories are of James, not of Harry. Harry's desire to torment Dudley is quite understandable, because Dudley participated quite actively in tormenting Harry over the years. Harry... well did not torment Snape. When Harry defends Dudley, it is to his credit, because he is able to overcome his rational and legitimate feelings over childhood tormentor. When Snape defends Harry, it is also to his credit, but he has to overcome feelings, which are irrational in the first place, because Harry is not James. But I definitely see your point, because on subconcious level it does work. And you can even argue that for Snape it is much harder to overcome his feelings of confusion between James/Harry than for Harry to defend Dudley. Agan, thanks for sharing. Alla From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Sep 19 15:14:37 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:14:37 -0000 Subject: When worlds collide . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annette" wrote: The boy who lived will reveal the world of > witchcraft and wizardry once again to the Muggles and this is the > reason for LV's vendetta. LV is only powerful in the WW. Harry has > the potential to bring those worlds closer and become more powerful > than can be imagined. The cruelty that Harry sustained at the hands > of the Dursleys and has to endure each summer holiday is his training > for the battle with LV. He knows how muggles think, he is aware of > their impotence, but he is a powerful wizard and will bring his > wizardry to completion by being the first fully integrated wizard > accepted in the world. > Carolyn: Alas, Annette, JKR knocked this one on its head in her 4th March livechat: Q: Are the muggle and magical worlds ever going to be rejoined? A: No, the breach was final, although as book six shows, the Muggles are noticing more and more odd happenings now that Voldemort is back. However, I am sure there is wiggle room here. They may never be going to be rejoined, but that doesn't mean there haven't been attempts at doing so. See a labyrinthine thread starting post 86517, and going on to post 87488 and beyond, known as the Vauxhall Rd theory. A more sinister variant is that in killing Voldemort, Harry not only dies himself, but magic dies with him. This would also mean the two worlds need not be reconciled. Many people have wondered whether this is what the two bits of broken prophecy mean, that came from the smashed orbs at the MoM battle: '..at the solstice will come a new...' said the figure of an old bearded man. '..and none will come after..' said the figure of a young woman. How about the old man was Godric Gryffindor, and the young woman was Trelawny's ancestor, the seer Cassandra ? No wonder Dumbledore is looking a bit old and tired, if this is what he suspects. Carolyn From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 15:21:30 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:21:30 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > JKR told us on her website about Theo Nott, who > doesn't feel he needs to join a gang. Snape seems to be a > similar kind of person. He doesn't seem to be a joiner, > and yet Sirius tells us he was part of a gang of Slytherins who > nearly all became Death Eaters. > > After the pensieve scene it no longer seems inconceivable to me > that Snape honestly thought James and his friends might want > him dead, and I can see him joining that Slytherin gang because > he felt he needed protection from James and *his* gang, and > later joining the DE's because he felt he owed it to his friends. > McGonagall keeps stressing that Gryffindors should never gang > up on another person, and I can't think that JKR isn't going to > show us why. But I could be wrong;-) The gang comment is one of the most confusing for me, and it's because we've got *such* little chronological evidence to hang anything on. Here's the stumbling block for this one, for me: Bellatrix Lestrange (nee Black) was one of the 'gang of Slytherins'. However, Sirius says to Harry, when they are looking at the tapestry, "I haven't seen her since I was your age". This would, then, put Bella as older than Sirius--she, being older, leaves school while Sirius is still there, and he doesn't see her after that. Now, this could, of course be an "Oh dear, maths" situation. There's also the 'lapdog' comment, when we have an age on Lucius Malfoy (41), and we know that Snape is 35-36 at the time of GoF (in a reading that can be slightly disputed--I know it's not clear)...so we also here have a case of an age differential. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, a young!Snape was close to this 'gang of Slytherins' (I keep wanting to type Gang of Four, for some reason), amongst whom we have at least one person that a young! Black would have known and probably disliked/feared even back then. (I don't think we're going to get much or anything sympathetic on Bellatrix. She's a full-blown sadist, and deeply invested in both personal loyalty to Voldemort *and* the blood ideology. I can't see her exactly being a sweetheart in school.) Then, just maybe, we have a situation where the fifth-year scene we got was one in a series of some kind of revenge attempts, now that the older protectors are gone? I have absolutely no idea. Just throwing out ideas to try to figure out some motivations. -Nora starts to have a distressing number of white hairs From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 15:42:54 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:42:54 -0000 Subject: Does Percy Reconcile w his Parents? In-Reply-To: <20040919025434.18440.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113374 abadgerfan2 wrote: > > This is an interesting question for me in the upcoming book 6. He > > said some very nasty things about his Dad in Book 5 that turned out > > to ultimately backfire on him at the end with the validation that LV > > has returned. > > > Gregory Lynn wrote: > I think he will; I think he must. > If nothing else, he knows now that he was wrong, dead stinking > horribly wrong, and the Weasleys aren't going to shun him should he > come back. And in fact, I can't imagine Arthur not making a peace > offering of sorts. Nothing dramatic, just a "Your mother's making > meatballs tonight, and we'd love to have you by." or something like > that. > > > Luckdragon wrote: > I don't know if it will be so easy for Percy to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong. He is already teased by his siblings and he doesn't seem the type to look back on his stupidity and laugh at it. I think if he does go back to the fold it will take some time. > **********Marcela writes now: I agree with Luckdragon. Percy showed signs of sadism when he was at Dumbledore's office with Fudge, Aurors and Umbridge, he was really enjoying Harry's capture, as well as DD's ... Just two quotes from OoTP, The Ceuntaur and the Sneak Chapter: "...Percy Weasley let out a hearty laugh. 'Oh, very good, Minister, very good!' Harry could have kicked him. "...'Yes, sir, I think so, sir!' said Percy eagerly, whose nose was spattered with ink from the speed of his note-taking. 'The bit about how he's been trying to build up an army against the Ministry, how he's been working to destabilize me?' 'Yes, sir, I've got it, yes! said Percy, scanning his notes joyfully. ..." There are more examples in that chapter of Percy's sick joy at being part of the group that caught Harry/Dumbledore in the 'wrong'. I do not think that he will be able to swallow his pride and be the 'prodigal son'. From an authoritorial POV, I think that Jo wrote him that 'sick' for a reason, she was building up Percy's character as an 'unlikable' one since the very beginning, I think it would be very hard to change his image now... had she put Percy (in OoTP) with Fudge but not acting like such a j**k, I could believe in the possibility of a 'prodigal son' scenario. Yet, I do not think that Percy would jump into the dark side either, like some theories I've read in this site say so. Marcela From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 19 16:03:21 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:03:21 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113375 Nora: > Bellatrix Lestrange (nee Black) was one of the 'gang of Slytherins'. However, Sirius says to Harry, when they are looking at the tapestry, "I haven't seen her since I was your age". This would, then, put Bella as older than Sirius--she, being older, leaves school while Sirius is still there, and he doesn't see her after that.< > > Now, this could, of course be an "Oh dear, maths" situation. There's also the 'lapdog' comment, when we have an age on Lucius Malfoy (41), and we know that Snape is 35-36 at the time of GoF (in a reading that can be slightly disputed--I know it's not clear)...so we also here have a case of an age differential. > > Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, a young!Snape was close to this 'gang of Slytherins' Then, just maybe, we have a situation where the fifth-year scene we got was one in a series of some kind of revenge attempts, now that the older protectors are gone? I have absolutely no idea. Just throwing out ideas to try to figure out some motivations.< > Pippin: Sirius might not have meant that 'when I was your age' so literally--he could have meant that he last saw Bella when he was a sixth year--which would make sense since he was sixteen when he ran away from home. Suppose Bella is one year ahead of Sirius at school. Snape, who knew all those curses to start with, was able to hold off James (I nearly wrote Draco) and his gang up until fifth year, but then they caught up to him in knowledge, and their advantage in numbers started to pay off. Not only that, they're all capable of serious magic now and it's not just shooting sparks at each other any more. Snape is outnumbered four to one. He needs protection, and Bella the seventh year is willing to provide it, quid pro quo. Of course Sirius would loathe Snape for taking up with his despised relatives. That's the situation in sixth year, which probably culminates with the prank. In seventh year, James is made Head Boy, gets his head deflated, and doesn't feel the need to flout rules or show off by picking on Snape in front of an audience. Still, he carries on their hexing contest in private one on one. Snape, who thinks that James would've killed him if he hadn't lost his nerve, never misses a chance to throw a hex at him, and James really can't take that lying down. Bella has left, but Snape doesn't need her protection anymore, since James is fighting fair. He drifts apart from the remnants of the gang, but he finds his connection with Bella useful--she's Lucius Malfoy's sister-in-law. She gets Lucius to find him a job when he leaves Hogwarts. So when she asks Snape to join her new gang, he feels doubly obligated. Pippin, also speculating From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 16:34:23 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:34:23 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > > Sirius might not have meant that 'when I was your age' so > literally--he could have meant that he last saw Bella when he > was a sixth year--which would make sense since he was sixteen > when he ran away from home. I can buy that. > Suppose Bella is one year ahead of Sirius at school. Snape, > who knew all those curses to start with, was able to hold off > James (I nearly wrote Draco) and his gang up until fifth year, > but then they caught up to him in knowledge, and their advantage in > numbers started to pay off. Not only that, they're all capable of > serious magic now and it's not just shooting sparks at each > other any more. > > Snape is outnumbered four to one. He needs protection, and > Bella the seventh year is willing to provide it, quid pro quo. Of > course Sirius would loathe Snape for taking up with his > despised relatives. That's the situation in sixth year, which > probably culminates with the prank. > > In seventh year, James is made Head Boy, gets his head > deflated, and doesn't feel the need to flout rules or show off by > picking on Snape in front of an audience. Still, he carries on their > hexing contest in private one on one. Snape, who thinks that > James would've killed him if he hadn't lost his nerve, never > misses a chance to throw a hex at him, and James really can't > take that lying down. > > Bella has left, but Snape doesn't need her protection > anymore, since James is fighting fair. He drifts apart from the > remnants of the gang, but he finds his connection with Bella > useful--she's Lucius Malfoy's sister-in-law. She gets Lucius to > find him a job when he leaves Hogwarts. So when she asks > Snape to join her new gang, he feels doubly obligated. Very interesting--I do like the ideas. But...hmmm. How do we fit the lapdog comment in? We have a Lucius Malfoy who is 5-6 years older. We have this comment made, admittedly in OotP when Black *does* know that Snape was a DE, but which seems to be referring to something that was going on back then that Black would have seen himself. That is to say, referring to schooldays stuff, not afterwards, as Black doesn't seem to really know or make too many references that imply any post-Hogwarts deep awareness of what was going on there. I'm expressing this absolutely horribly, but I think the hints may point to an earlier, rather than a later (your scenario) connection with the gang of Slytherins and other related persons. We have the rest of the gang, not just Bella, to keep track of, too. This seems to have possibly been a cross-year grouping of students, but I'm not sure about that, and I really do hope this is something where JKR has all the years and times drawn out. It's not hard to envision an almost 'gang war' in Hogwarts, though--MWPP as one group, and the group of Slytherins as another. If you want to make a Draco connection, shades of Inquisitorial Squad? The past Slytherins as self-appointed guardians of proper wizarding attitudes at Hogwarts? Who knows? -Nora stops the slide down the slippery slope of speculation From maritajan at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 16:54:17 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arthur & Molly Powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919165417.59507.qmail@web12102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113377 --- kmcbears1 wrote: > In message 113206, Tangent writes "the Weasley parents haven't struck > me as particularly powerful". IMO Molly Weasley needs to be a very > powerful witch. > > First Molly ... > > In COS, "Ginny wept as Harry helped her to her feet. 'I've looked > forward to coming to Hogwarts ever since B-Bill came ...'". > > Ginny, Ron, Fred, George, Percy, and Charlie were all at home when > Bill started Hogwarts. We know that WW children do unexpected magic > when angry. JKR stated (do not remember the interview) that Molly > had home schooled her children before they attended Hogwarts. Molly > taught 5 young wizards and 1 witch. One of them powerful enough to > transfigure a teddy bear into a spider. I am sure F&G did not turn > into pratical jokers after they came to Hogwarts but were a handful > when they were at home with Molly. > > For Ginny to remember when Bill went to Hogwarts means that when she > was an infant, Molly had 6 young wizards and a baby witch to protect > at home. Remember that in the WW children's magic comes out when > they are angry or have trouble handling their emotions. For those of > you with children, think about the number of "his touching me" > or "stop looking at me that way" or "that's my toy I want it back" > arguements that try your patience. Now image that these are > escalated by magic, it is only because Molly is powerful that her > children didnot do serious harm to each other before they learned to > control their magic. > > lot of wizards respect Arthur Weasley. With his backing, Muggle > protection laws have been passed. Arthur deals with Muggle baiting > wizards. What kind of wizards bait Muggles? Not law abiding, blood > doesn't matter wizards but those who probably support the pure blood > philosopy of Voldemort. > > Recently there has been a lot of posts about "mollycoddling", we met > Molly briefly in PS/SS but really did not get to know her until she > was dealing with the "empty nest". She is trying to hold onto the > role she has had for a large number of years. She is undergoing a > life crisis and struggling to find a place in the WW now that her > task as primary teacher, nurse, disciplinarian, nurturer is no longer > needed. > > Now on to Arthur... > > In COS, Mungdungus tries to put a curse on Arthur when his back was > turn. Arthur's work is extremely dangerous as he often deals with the > darker (no pun intended) side of life. > > Arthur does what he thinks is right in POA telling Harry about that > Sirius Black may be trying to kill him. In GoF, he is forces Vernon > to say goodbye to Harry. Arthur has the Quidditch Cup tickets in the > top box. He uses those memory charms as part of his work. As we > know from CoS, memory charms are not the easiest magic to do > correctly. Arthur is one of those rare individuals whose careers are > exactly what they want to do. He is content with who he is and does > not seem to envy others. > > In Cos, he is not afraid of Lucius Malfory. He stands up to Lucius > Malfoy in Borgin & Burkes. He quizzes Harry about Lucius' actions in > Knockturn Alley hoping to "get Lucius Malfoy for something..". > Dumbledore uses Arthur as part of his threat to Malfoy at the end of > book. > > If we look at their childern, assuming power to be hereditary, Bill > has been ancient Egyptian charm breaker for Gringotts. Charlie works > with dragons. Not occupations for below average wizards. 4 of their > 6 sons were Perfects (My guess is that Ginny will be a Perfect in > Book 6.) Two have been Head Boys. Bill & Percy both got twelve > owls. Fred & George are very clever inventors (Flitwick leaves a > piece of their swamp as a testimony to their skill.) On to Ginny, > and I will just quote George from chapter 6 OotP: > > "'Yeah, size is no guarantee of power,' said George. 'Look at Ginny'. > 'What d'you mean?' said Harry. > 'You've never been on the receiving end of one of her Bat-Bogey > Hexes, have you?'". > > I purposely left Ron out of the discussion above because he has been > analyzed in many posts and I wanted to use the rest of the Weasley's > for this discussion. > > IMO Arthur and Molly are very secure and powerful wizards, who have > no need to prove themselves. > > - kmc > > I know we're not supposed to post one-liners, but I just had to say "Here! Here!" and clap loudly for this post. EXCELLENT overview of Molly and Arthur! I've never been on the bandwagon of Molly-dislikers. I think she provides a mother figure for Harry that he desperately needs. She may be a little too intense and mother him a little too much sometimes, but that's also a natural, mothering reaction. Great post. Great post. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 16:59:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:59:56 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > I'm expressing this absolutely horribly, but I think > the hints may point to an earlier, rather than a later (your > scenario) connection with the gang of Slytherins and other related > persons. Alla: I like that. A LOT. I am also very troubled by "Malfoy's lapdog" comment. Now let see if JKR does. :) Nora: > We have the rest of the gang, not just Bella, to keep track of, too. > This seems to have possibly been a cross-year grouping of students, > but I'm not sure about that, and I really do hope this is something > where JKR has all the years and times drawn out. It's not hard to > envision an almost 'gang war' in Hogwarts, though--MWPP as one group, > and the group of Slytherins as another. If you want to make a Draco > connection, shades of Inquisitorial Squad? The past Slytherins as > self-appointed guardians of proper wizarding attitudes at Hogwarts? > Who knows? Alla: LOL! Remember movie "Gangs of New York"? I think "Gangs of Hogwarts" sounds like a fun name for the prequel, which JKR unfortunately is not going to write. :) I just thought of Pippin's earlier comment that Snape is not a kind of person to join gangs. I don't know. I think him following MWPP is a pretty good indication of him wanting to join their gang. You know, that is probably the thing I will have much more trouble forgiving James and Sirius for than their wars with Snape. What if Snape did not have negative feelings towards them in the beginning and wanted to be their friend and Marauders well, did not figure that out. Hmmm, I read Lexicon's "Open letter" yesterday and was so happy that I am not the only one who thinks that Snape may not have been a Slytherin at school to begin with. :o) Alla, who is so happy, because she is finally done with her paper. DONE, DONE, DONE. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 17:51:53 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:51:53 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113379 ---From kmc: > > The first rule that Harry learned at the Dursley's was not to ask > questions. This was drummed into him for 10 years. Angie replies: I thought I was clear that meant after he started Howgarts, because that is the same time he learned the truth about his parents' deaths. Harry obviously couldn't ask questions until then because he didn't know what to ask and because the Dursleys wouldn't have allowed it. And he obviously didn't know that they died on Halloween before he started Howgarts. But now he does and he still doesn't think about it is my point. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 17:57:09 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:57:09 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113380 --Geoff: > But how do you know that Harry doesn't think about them? The books do > not record every minute of Harry's day nor every thought he has. It > is quite possible that when it crosses his mind he doesn't > necessraily make a remark or it may be while he is on his own tinking > quietly. > > I suddenly remembered when I read this post that in November, it will > be 10 years since my father died. But I'm not going to jump up and > phone people or say to everyone I meet today "I've just remembered > that I'm coming up to the 10th anniversary of my father's death." > It's something I think about quietly from time to time, often when > I'm on my own. > > Angie replies: I understand your point, believe me. My mother passed away 10 years ago and I don't telephone people on the annversary of her death. As I stated in another post, I'm not saying Harry has to go around saying, "Woe is me, today is the anniversary of my parents' deaths." I guess I think it would be helpful to those children who have lost parents or close loved ones to see Harry expressly acknowledging the day his parents died, on that day. Not that he doesn't do it other times. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:05:52 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:05:52 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113381 -Angie wrote > I've thought about DD's comment to Harry in SS that men have > wasted > > away in front of the Mirror of Erised, and have even gone mad. Is > is > > possible that Tom Riddle discovered the mirror and saw his family, > > the way that Harry did? Sewabear wrote: > But then how come LV & Quirrell had difficulty in working the mirror > in the end of PS? I recall Quirrell asking Harry what he sees in the > mirror. > Angie replies: Good point about Quirrel, but remember, there was a special obstacle to getting the stone, thanks to DD. Quirrell had no difficulty seeing himself holding the stone (normal mirror operation), he just couldn't get it. Sewabear wrote > And if the mirror caused Riddle's madness, why wouldn't DD have it > destroyed? At the very least, he wouldn't leave it around Hogwarts. > I think he intended for Harry to find the mirror and how could DD be > so sure of Harry's response to the it if it had turned Riddle mad > before? Angie replies: I guess DD wouldn't blame the mirror for that -- why destroy the mirror because Riddle chose not to use it properly? Of course he meant for Harry to find the mirror; that's why he gave him the Invisibility Cloak, in my opinion. Maybe DD couldn't be sure what Harry's response would be, but I think perhaps he placed great faith in the fact that the Sorting Hat placed Harry in Gryffindor, not Slytherin. And I think DS knew that Harry was very, very, different in nature from Riddle. Plus, of course, DD stepped in and stopped Harry's visits to the mirror. Which would lead me to ask why he didn't stop Riddle? Now I have a headache! From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:08:55 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:08:55 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: <011001c49df7$e940d680$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "feklar" wrote: > > > Angie wrote: > > > > Harry only found out the truth of his parents' deaths at age 11. He > > couldn't really acknowldge the anniversary (or really, even the fact > > of) of their deaths while at the Dursleys. It just seems to me like > > he would, at some point, think about them on that day. > Feklar wrote: > This is exactly the reason I think he doesn't think much about his parents > or their deaths. He may not have even know for sure when they died. Why > would he suddenly start thinking about something on a particular day when he > never did before? > Angie replies: I guess I'm thinking about how I would react. If I didn't know the truth about my parent's deaths for 10 years and then I found out, I just don't see how I would not acknowledge it after that, at some point (not saying each and every Halloween) on the day that they died. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:18:28 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:18:28 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113383 - Hannah now: I agree that his lack of curiosity does seem odd - > especially since he's generally quite a curious person in other > respects. The thing which is also odd, is that none of the adults > around him who knew Lily and James ever offer him information. they never seem > to talk about little irrelevant things - what they enjoyed, what > their jobs were, funny anecdotes... > > I suppose the root of the problem is that Harry doesn't ask > questions about his parents because he finds it hard to cope with > and becomes emotional. When he does get to talk about them, he > often becomes upset, and he doesn't like to show that in front of > people. Also, I think he worries that asking is somehow > inappropriate, or that he will distress the adults, who knew and > still grieve for his parents. And vice versa, Hagrid, DD, > McGonagall, Lupin etc. don't offer much information because they are > worried about upsetting Harry/ becoming upset themselves. > Angie replies: Harry definitely doesn't like other people to see him upset. I think that stems from 10 years of repressing emotions because of the Dursleys. And of course, boys are generally more closed with their emotions than girls. It's not like they died in an accident; they were murdered. I'm sure the adults are at a loss as to how much to tell him. DD's reluctance to tell him about the prophecy is a prime example. Cheers to Hagrid for giving Harry the photo album at the end of his first year. At least Harry has progressively learned more about his parents --although it not so much by asking about them or adults really volunteering information. I hope JKR reveals more about James's maturation and his courtship with Lily. Harry's having a difficult time coping with the "arrogant" James and being told by Snape that he just like him. Perhaps I digress, but in another post, I wondered if it would be possible for DD to extract Harry's memories of his parents that he can't recall and store them in a pensieve for Harry to go through later. From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:20:03 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:20:03 -0000 Subject: Arthur & Molly Powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > First Molly ... > [snip] Remember that in the WW children's magic comes out when > they are angry or have trouble handling their emotions. For those of you with children, think about the number of "his touching me" > or "stop looking at me that way" or "that's my toy I want it back" > arguements that try your patience. Now image that these are > escalated by magic, it is only because Molly is powerful that her > children did not do serious harm to each other before they learned to control their magic. > [snip] Molly briefly in PS/SS but really did not get to know her until she was dealing with the "empty nest". She is trying to hold onto the role she has had for a large number of years. She is undergoing a life crisis and struggling to find a place in the WW now that her task as primary teacher, nurse, disciplinarian, nurturer is no longer needed. > [snip] Arthur deals with Muggle baiting wizards. What kind of wizards bait Muggles? Not law abiding, blood doesn't matter wizards but those who probably support the pure blood philosopy of Voldemort. > [snip] > > IMO Arthur and Molly are very secure and powerful wizards, who have > no need to prove themselves. > > - kmc dcgmck: First, let me say that I love your post before I start discussing pieces of it... Your observation that a very powerful witch is required to maintain order amongst so many similarly gifted children overlooks a couple of thoughts unique to the WW, I think. First, magical children seem predisposed to protect themselves; the more powerful they are, the more adept they prove. As evidence I offer Harry's numerous "mysterious incidents" throughout his childhood and Neville's bouncing down the road when dropped out of the window by his distracted uncle. A muggle world equivalent might be a teacher of average I.Q. managing a class of young prodigies. Age, experience, and forewarning do offer some advantage to the elder in such cases, though occasional defeats are inevitable... :-? I think what Arthur and Molly both seem to have had and needed most in the past ten years has been diplomacy. As Molly's power base has eroded in the normal course of events, however, it is perfectly natural that she requires a bit of time to adjust, just as it did for her to assume authority in the beginning when Bill and Charlie first appeared in her life. That said, diplomacy does seem to work best when those involved believe that the peacemaker can back up what is said with whatever power is necessary, whether it be love given or withheld or a good solid wallop as required. Hm... how DOES one punish a magical child? dcgmck From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 19 18:23:05 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:23:05 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113385 Nora: I'm expressing this absolutely horribly, but I think the hints may point to an earlier, rather than a later (your scenario) connection with the gang of Slytherins and other related persons. > > > Alla: > > I like that. A LOT. I am also very troubled by "Malfoy's lapdog" > comment. Now let see if JKR does. :) Pippin: I think I follow the idea, but Sirius never says that Malfoy was a part of that gang of Slytherins, does he? Sirius could certainly have found out that Snape had gone to work for, say, a Malfoy potion-making interest, without having direct social contact. That would put Snape in position to supply Lucius with those poisons Lucius was disposing of in CoS. They wouldn't need to be contemporaries at Hogwarts to know one another. The WW is a small one. Sirius would certainly have met Lucius socially -- maybe Lucius has an ugly old sister and Black's family were planning to marry them off . Or Sirius might have encountered Lucius as a member of the Hogwarts Board of Governors, just as Harry did. It's annoying that we don't know exactly what the Marauders were doing for the Order. > Alla: > I just thought of Pippin's earlier comment that Snape is not a kind of person to join gangs. I don't know. I think him following MWPP is a pretty good indication of him wanting to join their gang.< Pippin: We're told James was everything Snape wanted to be. It could have been hero-worship, like Colin Creevy, or just a sense that James was where it was at. Pippin From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:44:15 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:44:15 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Sirius. Was: James and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113386 > Pippin: > [snip] > > They wouldn't need to be contemporaries at Hogwarts to know > one another. The WW is a small one. Sirius would certainly have > met Lucius socially -- maybe Lucius has an ugly old sister and > Black's family were planning to marry them off . Or Sirius > might have encountered Lucius as a member of the Hogwarts > Board of Governors, just as Harry did. [snip] > dcgmck: Wasn't Lucius Malfoy Sirius' brother-in-law, besides being roughly a decade older? Wouldn't it have been simple enough for Sirius to have encountered Lucius at family gatherings before he ran away from home, even before he began his schooling at Hogwarts? Chance conversation at family gatherings can be quite revealing, especially when there's no football on tv to distract the menfolk... From nanomaus at gmx.de Sun Sep 19 11:38:38 2004 From: nanomaus at gmx.de (nanomaus at gmx.de) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:38:38 +0200 Subject: HBP (Was: Marauder's Map, A History) References: <1095543156.47947.87454.m17@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002301c49e3d$34fff5c0$d4a3b7d5@cheesy> No: HPFGUIDX 113387 Rowan: > My theory is that Neville's toad/frog Trevor, is an animagus, > and it is he who is the real Half Blood Prince. Remember the > fairy tale The Frog Prince? Same idea for JKR. nano writes: Personally I don't think it is going to be yet another unregistered Animagus. Whilst rereading The series for the 7th time (can't even recall how many times I have read them in German, somthing from the first book struck me: Seamus Finnigan is a half blood - his father didn't even know he was marrying a witch. And he is sandy haired (Hint to JKR's clue on website). In the second book he was hardly mentioned, which could have been a result of cutting the half blood storyline out of Book 2 ... I am not saying I am sure, noone but JKR can be sure of course, but I have not yet heard that he has been considered at all. I wonder ... greetings from germany nano From CariadMel at aol.com Sun Sep 19 15:18:24 2004 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:18:24 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113388 pippin wrote: > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what > is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he > torments Harry.Consider the similarities in their situations. Harry is confined at Privet Drive, a place full of bad memories where everybody except Hedwig is afraid of him. He has a deadly enemy, and he has no idea what that enemy is doing. (<<<< large snip) > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it sounds > like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories are of > James, not Harry. Annette: ****** yes, plausible. But I have a hard time equating the teenage angst of Harry that is behind his revenge with the cold, calculating cruelty of the supposedly mature Snape. Is the rationale for Snape's unworthy behaviour simply down to his worst memory as seen in the Pensieve scene? there's far more to know yet.Although I admit the similarities between Harry and Snape are compelling, both having been victims of child abuse. Emotionally they are both immature and maybe this chapter allows the reader the opportunity to wonder which path will Harry take, in the end he does what is right and resists the temptation to take Dudders to the wall. * the mushroom treatment, ie to keep someone in the dark and feed them bovine waste product *******LOL! nice one ! Annette From CariadMel at aol.com Sun Sep 19 15:34:24 2004 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:34:24 -0000 Subject: When worlds collide . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113389 > Carolyn: > Alas, Annette, JKR knocked this one on its head in her 4th March > livechat: > > Q: Are the muggle and magical worlds ever going to be rejoined? > A: No, the breach was final, although as book six shows, the Muggles are noticing more and more odd happenings now that Voldemort is back. Annette;******** OH Dear, there's so much to catch up on , thanks Carolyn! :-) > A more sinister variant is that in killing Voldemort, Harry not only > dies himself, but magic dies with him. This would also mean the two > worlds need not be reconciled. Many people have wondered whether this > is what the two bits of broken prophecy mean, that came from the > smashed orbs at the MoM battle: > '..at the solstice will come a new...' said the figure of an old > bearded man > '..and none will come after..' said the figure of a young woman. > No wonder Dumbledore is looking a bit old and tired, if this is what he suspects. Annette:******** Yikes ! That's a worse case scenario. HP battles LV for the survival of Wizardry. There's always some thing new and with deeper meaning every where in the books, I'm amazed at the collective knowledge here.The prophesies contained at MOM, do they only refer to Harry or could there be a prophetic bauble for every witch or wizard? Has the destruction at the MOM in the battle with the DEs put the WW at peril? It's time for Dumbledore to spill the beans... er, I mean for JKR to hurry up and release Book 6. Annette. From feklar at verizon.net Sun Sep 19 16:11:13 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When worlds collide . References: Message-ID: <008501c49e63$49549f50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113390 Carolyn > A more sinister variant is that in killing Voldemort, Harry not only > dies himself, but magic dies with him. This would also mean the two > worlds need not be reconciled. Many people have wondered whether this > is what the two bits of broken prophecy mean, that came from the > smashed orbs at the MoM battle: feklar Oh, feh. I hope not. That's one of the oldest tropes of fantasy novels I always hated as a kid: magic must disappear as the Age of Man(tm) begins. On the positive side, that trope usally involved the magic users physically going somewhere -- Avalon, Atlantis, the Gray Havens -- and the WW doesn't really have anywhere to go. Unless they all get sucked into the past or an alternate dimension...neither of which really fits into the story very well. If the WW did lose magic, the integration might be a lot like the post-USSR integration of East and West Germany, with a lot of the same conflicts and resentments. Feklar From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 19 19:39:39 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:39:39 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113391 There's been a lot of discussion over the past week or so about sacrificial love, and about the apparant absence of the AK that LV used on baby Harry during the 'priori incantum' during GoF. I have formed a theory, it's quite controversial, but I thought I'd share it anyway. What if the absence of that AK was due not to being another sort of spell, but because LV didn't cast it at all. What if Lily cast the AK that hit Harry? I DO NOT mean that Lily is any way evil. But think about the sacrificial love thing. Dying for someone you love is a great sacrifice, but so is killing someone you love to save them from a worse fate. This theory is based on the idea that LV wanted not to kill Harry immediately, but to use him somehow. At least try to find out what is was about this baby that gave him the potential power to defeat him. I think this is quite a likely possibility. DD could have warned Lily and James about this. So's here's how events might have gone. LV turns up and kills James. Lily runs up to get Harry, but for some reason doesn't get away in time. LV arrives, Lily tries to block Harry, offers herself instead etc. She doesn't use her wand against LV, since she knows it's not going to do any good. When she realises her pleading has failed and that LV is about to kill her, she does the only thing she can think of to save her son from torture and a slow death/ being brought up as an LV 'mini-me' - she AK's him. At the same time, LV hits her with the same spell. But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because Lily's intention was to *save* Harry, even though killing him seemed to be the only way she had left to do that. So the spell rebounds, perhaps also due to the fact Lily has just died trying to defend him. The rebounded AK hits LV, and does a lot of damage, but it cannot kill him, partly because of whatever he has done to make himself immortal, partly because it wasn't intended for him. The rest is history. I'm sure this theory is full of glaring holes and I don't exactly believe it myself, but it does account for several things - why LV didn't die, why Harry didn't die, why Harry saw only one flash of green light, why the spell did so much damage (2 AK's simulataneously, hitting 3 people), and why the spell never showed up during priori incantum on LV's wand. And it seems like the sort of plot twist that JKR might use. Anyway, there you have it. What do you think? Hannah From spoonmerlin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 17:35:55 2004 From: spoonmerlin at yahoo.com (Brent) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:35:55 -0000 Subject: Does Percy Reconcile w his Parents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113392 Marcela: > would be very hard to change his image now... had she put Percy (in > OoTP) with Fudge but not acting like such a j**k, I could believe > in the possibility of a 'prodigal son' scenario. Yet, I do not think > that Percy would jump into the dark side either, like some theories > I've read in this site say so. I think now that Fudge is not the MofM anymore(per JKROWLING.com) it is likely Percy could be kicked out with the administration. I think we will see a cleaning of the house at the MofM and some of the OotP will be department heads or at least key figures. The ultimate Irony of Percy's ambition is that he becomes a laughing stock with Fudge and has to go begging back to his family. I think it will be Hermione that ends up being the peacemaker and not Arthur. She and Percy have had a bit of a magic nerd connection and she is always looking for a happy ending to these kinds of things. She might trick them into the same room after finding Percy has fallen on hard times or something like that. Brent From spoonmerlin at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 17:55:02 2004 From: spoonmerlin at yahoo.com (Brent) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:55:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family (or lack thereof) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113393 > Pat here: > > Yes, it does seem unusual for a child to have no living relatives. > But, in my own case, I didn't have any grandparents by the time I > was 9--and Voldemort was not involved. It's also very possible > that James was an only child. So once he and his parents were gone, > that would take care of that side of Harry's family (especially if > his paternal grandparents also came from small families, which we > don't know). On Lily's side of the family, Dumbledore does say that > Petunia is Harry's only living relative. So that sounds pretty > definite. It seems to me that in OotP that DD says Harry has to live with a relative of Lily for the protection to work. Even if any of James' relatives were alive then they would not work. Also I find it hard to believe that he would not have a great aunt or uncle or some kind of relative unless there was some kind of vendetta against the Potter side. If the Potter side is as magical as we assume (i.e. it is composed of wizards going back several generations) he should have a few 2nd cousins or something as Sirius says all families are interrelated in some way. Maybe the Potters were isolated after an early marriage to a muggle before it became a normal thing. Brent From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 19:23:43 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:23:43 -0000 Subject: Arthur & Molly Powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113394 kmc wrote: > In message 113206, Tangent writes "the Weasley parents haven't > struck me as particularly powerful". IMO Molly Weasley needs > to be a very powerful witch. > > First Molly ... > > > > Recently there has been a lot of posts about "mollycoddling", we > met Molly briefly in PS/SS but really did not get to know her until > she was dealing with the "empty nest". She is trying to hold onto > the role she has had for a large number of years. She is undergoing > a life crisis and struggling to find a place in the WW now that her > task as primary teacher, nurse, disciplinarian, nurturer is no > longer needed. > > Now on to Arthur... > > > Arthur is one of those rare individuals whose careers are exactly > what they want to do. He is content with who he is and does not > seem to envy others. > > In Cos, he is not afraid of Lucius Malfory. He stands up to Lucius > Malfoy in Borgin & Burkes. He quizzes Harry about Lucius' actions > in Knockturn Alley hoping to "get Lucius Malfoy for something..". > Dumbledore uses Arthur as part of his threat to Malfoy at the end > of book. > > If we look at their childern, assuming power to be hereditary, Bill > has been ancient Egyptian charm breaker for Gringotts. Charlie > works with dragons. Not occupations for below average wizards. 4 > of their 6 sons were Perfects (My guess is that Ginny will be a > Perfect in Book 6.) Two have been Head Boys. Bill & Percy both got > twelve owls. Fred & George are very clever inventors (Flitwick > leaves a piece of their swamp as a testimony to their skill.) On to > Ginny, and I will just quote George from chapter 6 OotP: > > > IMO Arthur and Molly are very secure and powerful wizards, who have > no need to prove themselves. now barmaid: great post kmc! Two additional thoughts: 1) Voldemort says "there is no good and evil. There is only power and those who go after it or not". (my paraphrase) It seems to me that the Weasleys are the antithesis of the Big V's philosophy. They are powerful and feel no need to grab Power. (this seems to frustrate Percy) They understand the "power" of "good" the importance of seeing good and evil -- not just power. 2) The Weasleys are one of the few glimpses we get into the greater WW. That, and Harry's time after running away in PoA -- both his experience of the Knight Bus and his time staying at the Leakey Cauldron. These are some of the only times we see the non-elite parts of the WW. Outside of that we see the world from the "Ivory Tower" of the academy or from the view of the government. I have been thinking lately that there is so much Harry, and therefore the faithful reader, does not know about the WW. I am grateful for the bit we see through the everyday life of the Weasleys, but I am very interested in knowing more. While we are, it seems, not supposed to bye into V's worldview of "there is only power" it is also true that the world of the powerful is really all we see. --barmaid From peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 18:56:00 2004 From: peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com (patricia bindrim) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lucius and Sirius. Was: James and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040919185600.12035.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113395 > > Pippin: > > The WW is a small one. Sirius would certainly have > > met Lucius socially -- maybe Lucius has an ugly > > old sister and Black's family were planning to marry > > them off . > > dcgmck: > Wasn't Lucius Malfoy Sirius' brother-in-law, besides > being roughly a decade older? I thought I read that Lucius is married to Sirius's cousin Narcissa Black, sister of Bellatrix. "peppermintpattie4" From feklar at verizon.net Sun Sep 19 16:00:52 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: ESE!Fudge References: Message-ID: <007701c49e61$d742ebc0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113396 > > Feklar: > Fudge's assistance or no, I've been wondering why LV didn't > just walk in and get it himself in the first place. The > Deatheaters certainly had no problems getting right to the > prophecy when Harry went for it. He would have had to face > one unofficial OP guard, instead he got Harry to do it and he > riled up DD and the OP. < Pippin: > Indeed he could have gotten it himself. But as Bella tells us, > that would have proved he was back, which the Ministry was > engaged in denying. That explanation doesn't make sense if > Fudge is a DE, because he could have blamed the theft on > Harry and gone right on denying Voldemort's return. Feklar: That's part of what felt so trumped up to me. Fudge was quite happy to go on denying the return with an eyewitness, a mysterious portkey and a dead body at a major WW event, a DE's testimony under veritaserum, and Snape's Mark. It seems to me, after a summer of defaming DD and HP, he would have had little difficulty in blaming them for the theft -- assuming the theft was even noticed (they are all dust-covered and abandoned-seeming...what if LV left a faked globe in its place?) Pippin: > But if Fudge is not a DE, and Harry obviously can't have stolen > the prophecy because he was at Hogwarts, then Fudge will be > faced with undeniable neutral evidence of Voldemort's return and > he will be forced to act. DD could take Harry anywhere he wants (the hospital, for example). Since Fudge has the idea that it's best to blame them for everything, a short excursion to the MOM doesn't seem at all improbable. Indeed, to Fudge, it's less improbabe than the idea that LV took it. I suppose the only countervailing argument is that LV didn't know how irrationally Fudge hated DD and HP (though the disinformation campaign might be a hint) and wouldn't count on Fudge blaming them. I don't think Fudge is a DE. I like the idea that he typifies the absolute corruption of absolute power. Feklar From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 21:13:46 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:13:46 -0000 Subject: Book 6 forshadowing in CoS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113397 Here are my two cents on the debate, for what its worth. ('Bout 2 cents, I guess!) I figure we're going to find out what changes Tom Riddle went through to become Lord Voldemort, and how this saved him from death when he originally cursed Harry. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1) Harry says "No one knows why you didn't die..." or something to that effect when Tom is questioning him in the Chamber. 2) DD says that after he left Hogwarts, Tom went through so many "transformations," he was "barely recognizable" when he resurfaced as Voldemort. 3) JKR herself says one of the important questions she's never asked is why didn't Voldemort die when his AK curse backfires. 4) Voldemort himself alludes to this transformation in GoF when referring to the "steps" he took to prevent his death. Rob From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sun Sep 19 21:21:05 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:21:05 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Macfotuk wrote: > > A newbie recently posted a 'don't you think Fudge might be evil?' > > post > > > I really can't imagine why readers don't see this guy as at the > > least deliberately obstructive and at worst a real ally of LV (or > > severely imperio'd victim). I am so glad he appears to be going, > but I want him punished. He isn't bumbling and well-meaning, or even > *simply* prepared to do anything to acqire and then retain power. > > > Hannah now: Personally I hope that Fudge doesn't turn out to be a > DE, or even imperio'd. Otherwise it's like saying; there is only > one type of evil. You're either good, or you're a death eater (or > controlled by them). > > > I think JKR is writing a multilayered book and will try to show that > evil is not just one thing. There is LV and the death eaters, who > are evil in a cut-and-dried, can-do-no-right kind of way. But > there's also Crouch Sr., who was fighting for 'good' but embraced > techniques that could be considered 'evil.' There's Umbridge (and > IMO she isn't a DE either) who also did evil things, for different > reasons. > > I think Fudge is there to show that you can do evil indirectly, > through laziness, indifference, and self-interest. > Just my opinion. > Hannah Pat now: When I first read OotP, I was convinced that both Fudge and Umbridge were DE's. But subsequent readings have changed my mind. At one point (I think it's Sirius) says to Harry that the world isn't divided into good wizards and Death Eaters, that some people are just evil on their own. Fudge is an example of the worst kind of politician--he will do anything to keep the power he has (which he knows he shouldn't have gotten in the first place), and to gain more power. Umbridge seems to have her own agenda as well, but we really don't quite know what her goal is, and we may never know after her encounter with the centaurs. I agree that JKR is showing that the world has people who only think of themselves, with no regard for the rest of humanity. It's probably the best reason we need to keep an eye on those who attain power or who are given power in elections. Fudge, however, gained power by default when Crouch Sr was demoted and DD wouldn't take the job. He knows he shouldn't be there, and that any little mis-step on his part will result in his loss of his beloved position. Any proof from Harry that Voldemort is a direct threat to Fudge staying in the job. So, naturally, he would deny and discredit Harry. Then with DD backing up Harry's story and warning that the DE's are reforming because Voldemort is back, was all that Fudge needed to convince him that DD also had to be dealt with. Umbridge will clearly do anything to make sure she stays in power, including allying herself with the person(s) who seem to have the most of it. That, however, doesn't mean that I think she is a DE-- though I did think that at the beginning just because she was so evil. It is interesting that Fudge placed her at Hogwarts, but she seems to be enthralled with anything Fudge does, that he probably felt that he could control her and keep a better eye on DD and Harry. I'm sure he had no idea that she would strike out on her own with sending the dementors after Harry during the summer. The other reason I'm convinced that Fudge is not a death eater, but just evil, is that if he were a death eater, his behavior would be more like that of Lucius--careful to maintain an appearance of propriety. Lucius is very careful to at least seem to have reformed from his Voldermort days. Fudge, however, makes no effort to stay on good terms with DD after GOF--hearing that Voldemort is back is just too much evidence that his time in the ministry is short- lived. Once people learn how inept he has been, he'll be out. And now we have learned that, indeed, he is going to be replaced. Pat From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 21:29:21 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:29:21 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113399 I just finished reading SS again, and it occurred to me that a frog is not the ideal pet to give to a forgetful, clumsy boy. Looks like a frog would be hard for any kid to keep up with. Trevor seems to excacerbate Neville's inadequacies (which may be JKR's intent, I admit, to help establish Neville and forgetful, etc. in the first book). There is nothing to indicate that money was a problem for Uncle Algie in choosing a pet to give to Neville. I would think that a cat or an owl would have been more helpful. Angie From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 19 22:30:51 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:30:51 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > I just finished reading SS again, and it occurred to me that a frog > is not the ideal pet to give to a forgetful, clumsy boy. Looks like > a frog would be hard for any kid to keep up with. Trevor seems to > excacerbate Neville's inadequacies (which may be JKR's intent, I > admit, to help establish Neville and forgetful, etc. in the first > book). There is nothing to indicate that money was a problem for > Uncle Algie in choosing a pet to give to Neville. I would think > that a cat or an owl would have been more helpful. > > Angie Geoff: I think an owl would have been the best. A cat would probably have been as much of a problem for Neville as a toad. Look at Crookshanks for example! Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 00:00:42 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:42 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113401 mhbobbin: > > I agree that Fudge is a bad'un. I think the real debate is > > whether Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt > > politician willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he > > is evil as in Death Eater. Caius: > If Fudge were a conscious agent of the Dark Lord, why hasn't this > spot of dialogue taken place? > > THE TIME: Beginning of Book Five. THE SCENE: Minister of Magic's > office. VOLDEMORT & FUDGE are discovered enjoying a cognac and > smoking long Havana cigars > > VOLDEMORT: It sure feels good being resurrected. I can hardly wait > to unleash all my fell plans. > > FUDGE: Mi casa es su casa, Lord Voldemort. Anything I can do to > assist, you just lay it on me, bro. > > VOLDEMORT: As a matter of fact, I'm glad you bought that up. > There's this prophecy in the Ministry of Magic about me and the > Potter lad I'm simply dying to hear. I've only heard snippets of > it here and there up to now. I suspect it might contain some very > useful information that would assist me in my ? I mean, of course, > our campaign. Do you think some Legilimency against the Potter lad > might assist in this? > > FUDGE: Oh, I'm sure it would, but I hate to see you go through all > that bother. Hey, here's an idea ? I've got clearance for all the > top-security areas, being Minister and all that ? why don't we > just pop down to the Dept. of Mysteries, and you can pluck it off > the shelf yourself. > > VOLDEMORT: Ripping idea, Minister, just ripping. Lead on, my > friend. > > (The two exit to the Dept. of Mysteries to hear the Prophecy. THE > END) > > If we assume ESE!Fudge, we have to assume there's some obstacle > that prevents Fudge from accessing the DOM ? something that even > the DA was able to easily do. SSSusan: *Love* the dialogue, Caius, though of course it's not surprising from a master filker. :-) I'm one of the ones who's been arguing in favor of ESE!Fudge, but I've also never believed he was a DE. You make an excellent point that, if he had been, it would make little sense for Voldy not to have asked him to take some pretty major, direct actions to advance his rise back to power. Fudge has done some things which I think go beyond the bumbling, waffling, power-hungry politician--things which I think really can be interpreted as (or hypothesized to be) evil-- but just as Dolores Umbridge may well be evil but not be a DE, so with Fudge. As Sirius said, the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters [paraphrased]. Fudge is, imo, at a similar place on the good-evil spectrum as the DEs, without actually being one of them. I wonder what would happen if Voldy or one of his minions actually attempted to *recruit* Fudge at this point? Want to write us some dialogue for *that* possibility? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 00:07:56 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:07:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113402 Pippin: > Dumbledore knows he is unable to locate the chamber, and that > the real danger is not the basilisk but Voldemort. SSSusan: This one has always puzzled me, though. I haven't had an explanation that quite convinces me that something's not wrong here. (And I *like* and typically *trust* DD, but this one seems fishy....) If Hermione figured out what she did, and Harry & Ron were smart enough to go to Myrtle and ask about her death, WHY didn't DD/Dippet/others on staff think to ask Myrtle at the time she became a ghost? I mean, the death had just happened, why not at least go and ASK her about it? She seemed happy enough to tell her story to Harry & Ron. Couldn't wise DD have figured out what H/R/H did? Granted, he might still have had difficulty opening the chamber [is the parseltongue required to open the SINK entrance or the serpent DOOR down below?], but it's apparently the case that DD never even asked Myrtle. Pippin: > who thinks that Hermione would never write on a library book, > and that the 'pipes' clue was forged by Riddle SSSusan: Then again, maybe this bit explains it away in your opinion.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 01:48:04 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:48:04 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > > Pippin: > > > > Sirius might not have meant that 'when I was your age' so > > literally--he could have meant that he last saw Bella when he > > was a sixth year--which would make sense since he was sixteen > > when he ran away from home. > > I can buy that. > Valky: Hi everyone, I note that Pippin might be getting annoyed with my repeated objections, *sigh* But I have another one (sheepish) Sorry.. I don't Buy it. JKR knew we were doing timelines here in Fandom, one was included in the COS movie for our reference and she even admits to using the lexicons timeline (wow I love that!!) as her own reference occassionally. I am a subscriber to the theory that JK was thinking of us when she wrote the Noble House of Black chapter. I think it was almost like a nod of the head to us to go ahead and put the peices together. Therefore I personally would not be so quick to dismiss this little gem as on offhand err by Sirius. JK wouldn't do that to us would she......? am I deluded? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 03:28:26 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:28:26 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113404 Here is a thought. When Moody says that there is no countercurse to the AK, he means after it has achieved its goal of death. There is nothing a healer or anyone can do to counter the AK. Dead is dead. But as you all have pointed out if something gets in the way of the AK and blocks it from fullfilling its purpose that is different. So I think that the ancient magic charm that occured when Lily died for Harry was like a block to the AK. For this reason the AK could not achieve its end. Am I making this clear? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 03:45:01 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:45:01 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113405 I agree that boys don't show emotions as much. Also he is still a child. I could be wrong here, but I don't think that children search for information about their parents as much as older people do. Look at family trees, it is the old folks that care about that, not the young ones. And he was not that attached to his parents. He probably wonders about some things here and there, but since it is not the main plot we don't hear about it. Also he is busy with school, quidditch, and his adventures, so there is not much time to ponder that too. Remember what Dumbledore said about it not being good to "dwell on dreams (or the past -my words) and forget to live". Tonks_op From ejblack at rogers.com Mon Sep 20 03:47:22 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:47:22 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113406 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" > wrote: > > I just finished reading SS again, and it occurred to me that a frog > > is not the ideal pet to give to a forgetful, clumsy boy. Looks > like > > a frog would be hard for any kid to keep up with. Trevor seems to > > excacerbate Neville's inadequacies (which may be JKR's intent, I took it as just an example of his grandmother's old fashioned ways. Remember Hagrid saying something along the lines of "Nobody has frogs/toads anymore" before buying Harry his owl. She comes across as a bit of a battleaxe with a "what was good enough for me, is good enough for anybody!" attitude. Jeanette From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 04:11:40 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:11:40 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annette" wrote: > pippin wrote: > > > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what > > is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he > > torments Harry.Consider the similarities in their situations. > Harry is confined at Privet Drive, a place full of bad memories where > everybody except Hedwig is afraid of him. He has a deadly enemy, and > he has no idea what that enemy is doing. > (<<<< large snip) > > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it sounds > > like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories are of > > James, not Harry. > > Annette: > ****** yes, plausible. But I have a hard time equating the teenage > angst of Harry that is behind his revenge with the cold, calculating > cruelty of the supposedly mature Snape. I don't think Pippin meant to equate them. At least, you don't need to read her that way. I think they have a correspondence by analogy, that is, Harry's treatment of Dudley here is the same *sort* of thing as Snape's treatment of Harry often is. They do differ in detail and degree, as you point out. They especially differ in that as far as we know, Harry doesn't usually act this way, whereas Snape's behavior is Standard Operating Procedure for him. I still think Pippin is right that 'Dudley Demented' offers a valuable insight into Snape's relationship with Harry. Perhaps we will even find it a clue to James' motives in 'Snape's Worst Memory.' Annemehr From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 04:15:11 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:15:11 -0000 Subject: Arthur & Molly Powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113408 kmc wrote: One of them powerful enough to transfigure a teddy bear into a spider. I am sure F&G did not turn into pratical jokers after they came to Hogwarts but were a handful when they were at home with Molly. Bookworm: IMO, this is a perfect example of a practical joker. kmc wrote: Arthur does what he thinks is right in POA telling Harry about that Sirius Black may be trying to kill him. In GoF, he is forces Vernon to say goodbye to Harry. Arthur is one of those rare individuals whose careers are exactly what they want to do. He is content with who he is and does not seem to envy others. Bookworm: These examples show Arthur's strong personal courage, but not necessarily his magical strength. The other examples you gave are more indicative of magical strength ? using memory charms, combating law-breaking wizards. The courage to stand up to Lucius Malfoy could be from either personal or magical strength. The hints we have gotten that Arthur is well-respected in the WW may indicate physical (magical) strength or may indicate respect for the way he stands up for others. That said, I do agree with you that "Arthur and Molly are very secure and powerful wizards, who have no need to prove themselves." Some people have criticized Arthur for "giving in" to Molly. I see it as his area of authority being within the Ministry; Molly's is in the home. Arthur doesn't need to compete with her at home just to satisfy his ego. Ravenclaw Bookworm From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 04:18:58 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:18:58 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113409 "Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad." From the Lexicon. I wonder if Trevor has any part in this. I know that the basilisk was there already. But it is rather suspicious.. the basilisk is dead now, maybe someone is trying to hatch a new one? But they could use any toad I guess. Just wondering if there is any connection. Like I said before, after awhile there are clues everywhere, even when they are not real clues. Everything seems like a clue. Ahhhhh. going crazy!! Tonks_op From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 04:29:59 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:29:59 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113410 > > > Alla: > I don't think any of > Rowling's characters are evil just because. It is always because > they want something they can't easily get by being good, and the > thing that they want needn't be evil itself. Barty Crouch Jr only > wanted his father to care about him, Wormtail only wanted to go > on living, Kreacher only wanted Sirius to leave him in peace. > Valky: Amazing Alla! There is a spiritual following in the world that tells, this that you have just written, is the essence of all things, even evil. That *everything* is simply love seeking itself, *including* what we call Evil. I am surprised at your insight into this nature of things, though I always took you for a bit of a pragmatist and philosopher from the atmosphere of your posts. I just had a thought. Do you suppose that Snape may have made to gain recognition from James and Sirius, say, in their first year. Some sort of showing off, that was misconstrued by James and Sirius as an overt display of Dark Arts superiority and instantly turned them off him. Although he was *actually* trying to *impress* them and perhaps gain their admiration, even friendship? Love seeking itself. > Alla (to Pippin): > You are coming so hard on James because of ONE scene, but > you are giving Snape a free pass for five years of emotional > torture he endured on Harry and Neville (Yes, in the process > saving Harry's life, but not stopping to torture him. James also > saved Snape's life once).< > > Pippin: > After the pensieve scene it no longer seems inconceivable to me > that Snape honestly thought James and his friends might want > him dead, and I can see him joining that Slytherin gang because > he felt he needed protection from James and *his* gang, and > later joining the DE's because he felt he owed it to his friends. > McGonagall keeps stressing that Gryffindors should never gang > up on another person, and I can't think that JKR isn't going to > show us why. But I could be wrong;-) > Valky: How does the Pensieve scene imply that James and Sirius would kill Snape? From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 04:41:37 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:41:37 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer In-Reply-To: <012c01c49d2f$56ec3180$1b2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113411 Susana da Cunha wrote: Ok. Someone is bound to have come out with this, but I was annoyed at the posts suggesting the Marauders Map didn't show inside of Hagrid's hut and only then it stroke me. >From PoA chap. 17, Lupin says: ""The point is, even if you're wearing an Invisibility Cloak, you still show up on the Marauder's Map. I watched you cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. Twenty minutes later, you left Hagrid, and set off back to the castle. But you were now accompanied by someone else."" My point is, either way, as soon as Ron/Harry/Hermione arrived at Hagrid's, Lupin would have seen the Harry/Hermione in the forest, deleted the map, tossed it in his pocket and run to Dumbledore's office. Bookworm: A very good explanation of how Lupin might have seen the trio coming and going. But it doesn't answer your original question of why Pettigrew didn't show up on the map. If the occupants of Hagrid's hut were visible on the Map, then Pettigrew's name would have been right there when Lupin first saw them enter. Pettigrew had been missing for several days, and as a Marauder he would have know that the inside Hagrid's hut was a safe place to hide. When they created the Map, it would be unlikely of the Marauder's to include a place where few students were likely to go. Ravenclaw Bookworm From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Mon Sep 20 06:42:24 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:42:24 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113412 > > > DuffyPoo : > > > In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin on > four > > > Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one setting the > > > basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns and who were > not > > > > MAC: > I always felt in reading of CoS that Ginny was being used simply to > open the chamber. DiaryTom could take it from there. > > If this ISN'T true then why would Ginny not get herself petrified > like everyone else that came into the presence of the basilisk > (excepting of course Fawkes who is immune and Harry who knows not to > look). > Mac Julia: Hmm...I've thought that Ginny didn't open her eyes in the chamber... That's why she couldn't get petrified. But I don't have my books with me so I can't check. It's true that Ginny was being simply used but then why did Tom say that she set the basilisk on them? It was 'the moment of truth' so it was no need to lie. If he said so he must have told her to kill some mudbloods. If she didn't successed in killing any of them then it couldn't be coincident. And that's why I think she was doing it on purpose (just petriefied not killed) But I don't know how she did it. Julia From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 06:51:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:51:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113413 > > SSSusan: > > Granted, he might still have had difficulty opening the chamber [is > the parseltongue required to open the SINK entrance or the serpent > DOOR down below?], but it's apparently the case that DD never even > asked Myrtle. Finwitch: Well, it could be that: 1) Myrtle was off haunting Olive Hornby and thus not available for questioning. 2)It is possible that Dumbledore *did* ask (and that is why he was the only one to believe Rubeus Hagrid!) but Harry's pov doesn't show it... (I don't see Myrtle volunteering information about someone else asking about her death 50 years ago. Why would she do that?) Anyway, Myrtle might just been Moaning at Dumbledore for not caring for her better etc. instead of providing information - Harry otoh, a *student* in the school 50 years after the fact, and inquiring about her? First student to propose care for her after 50 years! Poor little Myrtle loved that! Also, Myrtle didn't KNOW what got her, so she wouldn't have been of much help to Dumbledore - except confirming that it wasn't spider nor Rubeus Hagrid... 3) maybe Dumbledore was shy about going into a girls' toilet? With that trouble about finding a restroom, I must wonder... how can the headmaster of Hogwarts not know where the toilets are, after all that time he's been at the school? 4)And, the rest of them got the believable misinformation from Tom Riddle. Finwitch From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 21:35:16 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:35:16 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113414 I bet its because Neville is a frog who turns into a prince! ;) Rob From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 21:40:02 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:40:02 -0000 Subject: Further more... (furthermore?) [Re: Book 6 forshadowing in CoS] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113415 ... this will probably lead us to the "power the Dark Lord knows not," and book 7 will be about discovering how Harry must use this power to defect Voldemort. Rob "Literary Pretensions" Kristjansson From lora at lilting.org Mon Sep 20 03:12:40 2004 From: lora at lilting.org (Lora) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:12:40 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113416 Howdy. I'm Lora and I'm new. *hides from scary rules* Hannah: > This theory is based on the idea that LV wanted not to kill Harry > immediately, but to use him somehow. Me (Lora, lora at lilting.org) I can see the logic of that, and it even fits LV's personality, but I think there's a canon contradiction - when LV had Harry in the graveyard, why didn't he just run off with him to wherever his hideout is nowadays? He had Harry there, under his control, and still he doesn't think of kidnapping, he goes straight for the kill (after the whole reincarnation bit). One could say of course that he considers Teen!Harry more of a threat and therefore less safe to take chances with that Baby!Harry, which is a valid point... Hannah: > she does the only thing she > can think of to save her son from torture and a slow death/ being > brought up as an LV 'mini-me' - she AK's him. At the same time, LV > hits her with the same spell. Lora: Interesting...when does the 'high cold laugh' come in, though? When LV kills James? Or when he first casts it on Lily before hers hits him? In Harry's dementor flashbacks we definitely know Lily tried to persuade LV to take her instead, and we hear him ordering her to stand aside. Which is as far into the scene as Harry has heard so far. I could possibly see Lily doing that, as a very last resort... Hannah: > But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one > casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because > Lily's intention was to *save* Harry... Lora: Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? I know when Harry was trying to Crucio someone...Bellatrix, I think, she just mocked him and told him...*consults book* "You need to MEAN them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it..." So perhaps if you don't "really want" to cause DEATH with an AK, something else would happen? I like this theory a lot, it's definitely not one of those totally out-there ones...I think it has a chance. Of course, knowing JKR and her geniusness... I do think that day/night at Godric's Hollow will come into play later, simply because it's such a grey area, a blank. JR rarely leaves blanks unfilled. --Lora From u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au Mon Sep 20 07:30:10 2004 From: u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au (colbernays) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:30:10 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113417 Pippin: > Indeed he could have gotten it himself. But as Bella tells us, that > would have proved he was back, which the Ministry was > engaged in denying. That explanation doesn't make sense if > Fudge is a DE, because he could have blamed the theft on Harry > and gone right on denying Voldemort's return. > This has been bothering me, given as Bella mentions, that for Voldy to turn up at the Ministry would alert the world to his return, why does he turn up after the fight when nothing can be done to save prophecy which he has spent 6 months encouraging Harry to come get? Or did Bella send him an SOS to come rescue her? Colin From eloiseherisson at aol.com Mon Sep 20 09:58:02 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:58:02 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113418 mhbobbin: >>I agree that Fudge is a bad'un. I think the real debate is whether Fudge is evil because he is an incompetent and corrupt politician willing to do anything to hold onto power, or if he is evil as in Death Eater. I'm not yet convinced he is a DE, but his actions / obstructions / attitudes are consistently helpful to DEs and Voldemort.<< Eloise: I have never believed he was a DE, but incompetent and corrupt and therefore willing not only to do anything he can to hold onto power, but when younger anything he could to gain power. This is why I believe he could have been one of Rookwood's network. Just a few minor favours for Rookwood and a word would be put in the right ear? Like Bagman? If this theory is correct, things have been catching up with him and may explain some of his more recent behaviour. Mike: >>How many coincidences can there be before there is too many to overlook? Here's what I've thought of. 1. Fudge turning up all through PoA, seemingly running the whole Sirius-Pettigrew line. (thanks mhbobbin for that wonderul post detailing all the exact suspecious behavior spots for PoA)<< HunterGreen: >>At the very least its clear that the Dementors are *specifically* interested in Harry in PoA. Either someone told them to go after Harry or they are acting on their own. So far, Fudge and Umbridge are the only people we've seen communitcating with Dementors.<< Eloise: One could argue that the Dementors are here getting out of hand, although Fudge clearly has a fair amount of control still. I wonder if they really are so specifically interested in Harry, or whether his sensitivity to them makes it seem so. When they invaded the Quidditch pitch were they interested in Harry, sensing Sirius watching him or just as the text states hungry? Dementors seem to make very dangerous allies. As for his hands-on approach with Sirius, I've argued that this was because he was part of the original frame-up. Mike: >>2. Adamently refusing to believe LV has returned at the end of GoF.<< HunterGreen: >> Whether or not Fudge is ESE! its very hard to believe that he really doesn't think Voldemort is back (he's either ESE! or *exteremely* corrupt, pretty much to the point of being a different type of evil).<< Eloise: I think he really just does not *want* to believe that Voldemort if back. In the first place, even if he is not corrupt, then the consequences are just too awful to contemplate, all his cosy assumptions have flown out of the window and his incompetence and lack of foresight and preparation are going to see the end of his career. If he *did* do dodgy stuff in his early days, in pursuit of power, this might have potentially left him in debt to DEs or Voldemort supporters. But having gained power and believing Voldemort gone for ever, he is officially an enemy of the DEs and a supporter of the current regime. If Voldemort and the DEs are back, then he's not going to be very popular with anyone on either side. I think in the past, he's just looked out for himself without thinking out the future consequences. If he *is* hiding stuff about his past, then he is in danger of being found out and punished by the wizarding establishment or of even worse from Voldemort. He can't win. All he can do is to stick his head in the sand and hope that if he denies it enough the situation will go away. Mike: >>3. Fudge's Dementor immediately ensures that Crouch Jr. keeps that story to those in Dumbledore's inner circle. It appears that he would have done this with Sirius too had Harry and Hermione not used the Time Turner...<< HunterGreen: >>Again, I ask, why did he have a Dementor with him that day? We know he wasn't really buying into the 'strange happenings' at Hogwarts, and a school contest hardly seems like a 'danger' to him. If he called the Dementor *after* Harry disappeared from the maze, how did he get one there so fast?<< Eloise: He was scared. He told us and for once I think it was the plain honest truth. He said it was for personal protection which means he knew he was in danger. Was the danger from Crouch Jr not what he might *do* but what he might *say*? What Crouch Jr could have told about his past if not silenced? But yes, he already had the Dementor there, apparently with no prior knowledge that Crouch Jr was at Hogwarts. Did he feel a general need for protection because despite all his denials he *did* understand the truth? Methinks he doth protest too much. ~Eloise From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 11:11:28 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:11:28 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colbernays" wrote: > Pippin: > > Indeed he could have gotten it himself. But as Bella tells us, that > > would have proved he was back, which the Ministry was > > engaged in denying. That explanation doesn't make sense if > > Fudge is a DE, because he could have blamed the theft on Harry > > and gone right on denying Voldemort's return. > > > > This has been bothering me, given as Bella mentions, that for Voldy to > turn up at the Ministry would alert the world to his return, why does > he turn up after the fight when nothing can be done to save prophecy > which he has spent 6 months encouraging Harry to come get? Or did > Bella send him an SOS to come rescue her? > > Colin Hannah now: That's a good point. Perhaps he arrives before Harry and Bella notice - he may have been standing there while they were arguing, before he realises the prophecy has been destroyed. Also, his cover is blown by then. A load of death eaters have just broken into the minstry and fought a battle with the Order, which includes several reliable (in the MoM's eyes) witnesses, such as Tonks and Shacklebolt. It's going to be too difficult to cover this one up, people are going to start listening to DD. He would have monitored such an important operation closely. When he sees that the DE's have made such a hash of it, he decides to turn up himself and salvage what he can. He doesn't know that DD is there, and if DD hadn't been, he probably would have suceeded in killing Harry. Hannah From Lynx412 at AOL.com Mon Sep 20 11:21:51 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:21:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. Message-ID: <67.33c0bc2d.2e80174f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113420 In a message dated 9/19/2004 8:33:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: > Pippin: > >who thinks that Hermione would never write on a library book, > >and that the 'pipes' clue was forged by Riddle > > > SSSusan: > Then again, maybe this bit explains it away in your opinion.... I agree with that. It bugged me at the time. It seems that Hermione not only wrote in a library book, but followed that bit of vandalism up with a further one by TEARING OUT THE PAGE! Surely the WW has a copying spell? Surely some muggle-born must have seen the need for a magic copier/printer? The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 11:28:43 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:28:43 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113421 > Hannah originally: > > This theory is based on the idea that LV wanted not to kill Harry immediately, but to use him somehow. > Lora replies: > I can see the logic of that, and it even fits LV's personality, but I think there's a canon contradiction - when LV had Harry in the > graveyard, why didn't he just run off with him to wherever his hideout is nowadays? He had Harry there, under his control, and still he doesn't think of kidnapping, he goes straight for the kill (after thewhole reincarnation bit). One could say of course that he considersTeen!Harry more of a threat and therefore less safe to take chanceswith that Baby!Harry, which is a valid point... > Hannah now: Exactly. He could bring up a baby to believe whatever he wanted him to - this is not going to work with teen!Harry (and remember, in PS/SS he does offer Harry the option of joining him, which is refused). As for somehow examining Harry to find out what's special about him, he's gone past this now. He wants the boy dead and out of the way, before DD comes looking for him. He also wants to kill him in a duel to prove to his DE's that he's back and a force to be reckoned with. > Hannah originally: > > she does the only thing she can think of to save her son from torture and a slow death/ being brought up as an LV 'mini-me' - she AK's him. At the same time, LV hits her with the same spell. > Lora: > Interesting...when does the 'high cold laugh' come in, though? When LV kills James? Or when he first casts it on Lily before hers hits him? Hannah now: He's laughing before the spell hits him. The last thing Harry hears in his dementor induced flashbacks is LV laughing while Lily screams. At this point both are alive. Neither has been hit with an AK. LV probably laughs right up to the moment he gets hit. > > Hannah originally: > > But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one > > casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because Lily's intention was to *save* Harry... > > Lora: Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? I know when Harry was trying to Crucio someone...Bellatrix, I think, she just mocked him and told him...*consults book* "You need to MEAN them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it..." So perhaps if you don't "really want" to cause DEATH with an AK, something else would happen? > Hannah now: Yes, there's the example with Bellatrix, but also in GoF, when Moody teaches them about the unforgivable curses. He says the entire class (at leat 10 students) could point their wands at him and say 'avada kedavra' and he wouldn't even get a nosebleed. So there's a lot more to it than just pointing and speaking. You need power behind it, and I take that as coming partly from intention. > Lora: I like this theory a lot, it's definitely not one of those totallyout-there ones...I think it has a chance. Of course, knowing JKR and her geniusness... I do think that day/night at Godric's Hollow will come into play later, simply because it's such a grey area, a blank. JR rarely leaves blanks unfilled. > Hannah: Thank you :-) I'm glad someone else thinks it's plausible. Whether it's right or not, I agree totally that whatever did happen at GH that night is pivotal to the whole conclusion. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 11:32:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:32:11 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113422 > Valky: > Amazing Alla! There is a spiritual following in the world that > tells, this that you have just written, is the essence of all > things, even evil. That *everything* is simply love seeking itself, > *including* what we call Evil. Alla: Valky, I would love to take a credit for something that well - written, but that particular paragrapth was written by Pippin . :) I thought to send it off-list, but Pippin would probably prefer mistake corrected on the list, so elves, please, please forgive me. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Sep 20 12:47:16 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:47:16 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: > > snip > I think he really just does not *want* to believe that Voldemort if > back. In the first place, even if he is not corrupt, then the > consequences are just too awful to contemplate, all his cosy > assumptions have flown out of the window and his incompetence and > lack of foresight and preparation are going to see the end of his > career. > > If he *did* do dodgy stuff in his early days, in pursuit of > power, this might have potentially left him in debt to DEs or > Voldemort supporters. But having gained power and believing Voldemort > gone for ever, he is officially an enemy of the DEs and a supporter > of the current regime. If Voldemort and the DEs are back, then > he's not going to be very popular with anyone on either side. > > I think in the past, he's just looked out for himself without > thinking out the future consequences. If he *is* hiding stuff about > his past, then he is in danger of being found out and punished by the > wizarding establishment or of even worse from Voldemort. He can't win. > All he can do is to stick his head in the sand and hope that if he > denies it enough the situation will go away. > Always willing to smell the reek of conspiracy, even if only to make things even more complicated, I've wondered if Fudge wasn't deliberately placed in the Minister slot by DEs and their friends. Consider: Crouch Snr was trying to emulate Judge Jeffries - no-one was assured of a fair trial or hearing. Worrying times for DEs now that Voldy has gone. They would very much like to have some-one less assiduous in the Ministry, someone a bit more accommodating, who'll let bye-gones be bye-gones. A Voldy's vanished, the danger is now over, time to heal the wounds, sort of character - because if they don't get some-one like that Azkaban will be stuffed to bursting with some of the most ancient of wizarding families. How to get rid of Crouch? He's honest, upright, severe. So compromise him. Arrange it so that his son is picked up with a few fringe supporters. Crouch has two options - either go easy on his son, in which case cry nepotism and force him to resign, or act as tough, if not tougher, with his own son. Distasteful; start a whispering campaign. His popularity, already low, plummets. He resigns, partly because of that and partly through shame and grief. And guess what? There's this other wizard - ambitious, emollient, not too bright, available to slip into Crouch's shoes. Willing to go easy on the War Crimes Tribunal front. Suits Fudge fine - just so long as his backers and supporters don't start up again with their old tricks. But they have, and now he's in a cleft stick. He *owes* these people and they're calling in their markers. Chickens are coming home to roost. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 20 13:02:22 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:02:22 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113424 Kneasy wrote: > How to get rid of Crouch? He's honest, upright, severe. > So compromise him. > Arrange it so that his son is picked up with a few fringe supporters. > Crouch has two options - either go easy on his son, in which case cry > nepotism and force him to resign, or act as tough, if not tougher, with > his own son. Distasteful; start a whispering campaign. His popularity, > already low, plummets. He resigns, partly because of that and partly > through shame and grief. Potioncat: And assuming you have L. Malfoy as the mastermind in this case, he also gets rid of the witch and wizards who would be most likely to cause trouble from a DE point of view within the post LV world. And IMHO, the last thing he'd want is anyone looking to bring LV back. So he's solved several problems at once. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 13:37:09 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:37:09 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113425 Kneasy wrote: > Always willing to smell the reek of conspiracy, even if only to make things even more complicated, I've wondered if Fudge wasn't deliberately placedin the Minister slot by DEs and their friends. > Consider: Crouch Snr was trying to emulate Judge Jeffries - no-one was assured of a fair trial or hearing. Worrying times for DEs now that Voldy has gone. They would very much like to have some-one less assiduous in the Ministry, someone a bit more accommodating, who'll let bye-gones be bye-gones. A Voldy's vanished, the danger is now over, time to heal the wounds, sort of character - because if they don't get some-one like that Azkaban will be stuffed to bursting with some of the most ancient of wizarding families. > > How to get rid of Crouch? He's honest, upright, severe. > So compromise him. > Arrange it so that his son is picked up with a few fringe supporters. Crouch has two options - either go easy on his son, in which case cry nepotism and force him to resign, or act as tough, if not tougher, with his own son. Distasteful; start a whispering campaign. His popularity, already low, plummets. He resigns, partly because of that and partly through shame and grief. > > And guess what? There's this other wizard - ambitious, emollient, not too bright, available to slip into Crouch's shoes. Willing to go easy on the War Crimes Tribunal front. Suits Fudge fine - just so long as his backers and supporters don't start up again with their old tricks. > But they have, and now he's in a cleft stick. He *owes* these people and they're calling in their markers. Hannah now: Great post Kneasy, I agree with the essence of it. I'm sure that Lucius Malfoy got Fudge into office, having selected him as a suitably manipulatable candidate. I'm not sure how much Fudge would have realised that he was being used - I expect Malfoy pulls his strings very subtly, and Fudge is none too bright. The only thing that doesn't quite work out to my mind is how he discredited Crouch Sr. using his son. I think the other DE's (doubtless led by Malfoy) actually did this for a different reason. Crouch Jr. is a fanatical LV supporter - would he have gone along with anything that Malfoy, who'd immediately run to the ministry pleading the imperio curse, suggested? Also, Bella and company are hardly 'fringe' supporters. They're the loyalist of the lot. I think this is why the other DE's wanted to get rid of them. By seeing that Crouch Jr. and Bella got sent to Azkaban, they removed the fanatical DE's who weren't just going to let things rest, and were either going to suceed in resurrecting LV, or just run around making trouble for the other ex-death eaters, who were trying to build up a veneer of respectability. So the other DE's arrange for this loyal faction to be identified as the torturers of the Longbottoms. It's a dead cert they'll all be thrown into Azkaban. The discrediting of Crouch Sr. is a useful extra consequence of this. They'd have had to find another way otherwise. Hannah From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 13:45:07 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:45:07 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Valky: > > Amazing Alla! There is a spiritual following in the world that > > tells, this that you have just written, is the essence of all > > things, even evil. That *everything* is simply love seeking > itself, > > *including* what we call Evil. > > > Alla: > > Valky, I would love to take a credit for something that well - > written, but that particular paragrapth was written by Pippin . :) > > I thought to send it off-list, but Pippin would probably prefer > mistake corrected on the list, so elves, please, please forgive me. Valky: Oooops I am so sorry pippin, and it *has* to happen the first time I agree with you too. Oh how embarrasing and thanks Alla for pointing me out there. Incedently Alla what did you think of the speculation I made based on in anyway? From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 14:20:14 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:20:14 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113427 Colin wrote: <> What bothers me is that Voldy doesn't have to alert the world to his return by entering the Ministry of Magic. Unlike Hogwarts, there do not appear to be any restrictions on apparating or disapparating within the Ministry (Arthur Weasley usually apparates to work; Dumbledore has to put an anti-disapparation charm on the DEs after he rounds them up in the Department of Mysteries). So why couldn't Voldy just apparate into the Department of Mysteries, grab the prophecy and immediately disapparate? It would have taken all of 30 seconds, and as an added precaution, Voldy could have worn an Invisibility Cloak or made himself difficult to see by using a Disillusionment Charm. The members of the Order were stationed outside the plain black door (that's where Arthur Weasley is attacked; Sturgis Podmore is arrested for trying to get through the door), not in front of the prophecy orb, and the Ministry presumably wouldn't have stationed any of the Unspeakables to guard the prophecy since they were in denial about Voldemort's return (and also presumably didn't know that Voldy was after the prophecy). So as far as I can tell, the prophecy itself was unguarded and could have been snatched by Voldy with very little effort on his part and with very little risk of his being caught. Hannah: > He would have monitored such an important operation closely. When > he sees that the DE's have made such a hash of it, he decides to > turn up himself and salvage what he can. I agree that Voldy turned up at the fight because things weren't going according to plan - Harry and his friends were fighting back, and he probably sensed that there was a danger the prophecy might be destroyed in the process (after all, a lot of other orbs had already been shattered in the DA's counterattack). What I don't understand is why Voldy not only proceeds to try to hit Harry with an AK, but also possesses Harry. Voldy has spent all of this time trying to obtain the prophecy so he can hear what it says in order to have his next attack on Harry succeed. Granted, he now knows the prophecy has been destroyed, but has he no back-up plan?? He just recklessly AKs and possesses Harry without a single clue as to what the potential ramifications are. Voldy is definitely *not* a master strategist in this scene. ~Phyllis From ankashai at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 13:45:45 2004 From: ankashai at gmail.com (Hawke) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:45:45 -0000 Subject: AK and Intent (was : Lily, LV and Harry at GH.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113428 "Lora" wrote: > Howdy. I'm Lora and I'm new. *hides from scary rules* Hi Lora! I'm new too! I'm Hawke BTW *waves* > Hannah: > > But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one > > casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because > > Lily's intention was to *save* Harry... > > Lora: > Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? I know when Harry > was trying to Crucio someone...Bellatrix, I think, she just mocked him > and told him...*consults book* "You need to MEAN them, Potter! You > need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it..." So perhaps if you > don't "really want" to cause DEATH with an AK, something else would > happen? Well, we are told what happens if you try to cast AK and don't mean it, albeit from a slightly unreliable source. The Imposter Known As Mad Eye tells us almost the exact same thing--something along the lines of 'you could all take out your wands and say the words and I doubt I'd even get so much as a nosebleed. The Unforgivables require a lot of power and you have to mean it ' ( Can someone provide the actual quote? Book five, their first DADA class ) All this mention of exactly how to use AK gets me to thinking though...that's a lot of practical infomation on something that Dark. Hopefully the 'missing scene' that has been promised to us in book six will clear up some of the questions regarding that night at GH. Her hints seem to point us in the direction of a 'What Really Happened That Night at GH' scene, but that's just my brilliant deduction, and isn't very solid. -Hawke From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 20 15:02:07 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:02:07 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113429 > Colin wrote: > <> Hannah originally: > > He would have monitored such an important operation closely. When he sees that the DE's have made such a hash of it, he decides to turn up himself and salvage what he can. > Phyllis wrote: > I agree that Voldy turned up at the fight because things weren't > going according to plan - Harry and his friends were fighting back, and he probably sensed that there was a danger the prophecy might be destroyed in the process (after all, a lot of other orbs had already been shattered in the DA's counterattack). What I don't understand is why Voldy not only proceeds to try to hit >Harry with an AK, but also possesses Harry. Voldy has spent all of > this time trying to obtain the prophecy so he can hear what it says in order to have his next attack on Harry succeed. Granted, he now knows the prophecy has been destroyed, but has he no back-up plan?? He just recklessly AKs and possesses Harry without a single clue as > to what the potential ramifications are. Voldy is definitely *not* a master strategist in this scene. Hannah now: I agree, Phyllis, for someone who managed to terrorise the WW so successfully for years, supposedly very clever, LV really does behave like a comic book villain here! I suppose he thought his plan was fail proof. He reckoned without Harry turning up with five friends who were willing to risk their necks to save him, without the real Sirius and the rest of the Order finding out what was happening and turning up in the nick of time, and without DD himself arriving. Once again, it is LV's arrogance that let him down. He was so convinced that Potter didn't stand a chance against a group of DE's that he didn't plan out (as far as we can see) what he would do if they failed. I also really liked the point you made in the post about why LV didn't just apparate in and get the prophecy. I can't see what would have stopped him - just that it would have made a short story I suppose! I guess we have to imagine that there was some sort of enchantment in place to stop him doing it. And the absence of the prophecy could have given him away, especially as it would be easy to prove that Harry hadn't taken it. Hannah From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 15:36:17 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:36:17 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113430 > > > Pippin: > > > > > > Sirius might not have meant that 'when I was your age' so > > > literally--he could have meant that he last saw Bella when he > > > was a sixth year--which would make sense since he was sixteen > > > when he ran away from home. > > > > I can buy that. > > > > Valky: > Hi everyone, > I note that Pippin might be getting annoyed with my repeated > objections, *sigh* But I have another one (sheepish) Sorry.. > > I don't Buy it. > JKR knew we were doing timelines here in Fandom, one was included in > the COS movie for our reference and she even admits to using the > lexicons timeline (wow I love that!!) as her own reference > occassionally. > I am a subscriber to the theory that JK was thinking of us when she > wrote the Noble House of Black chapter. I think it was almost like a > nod of the head to us to go ahead and put the peices together. > Therefore I personally would not be so quick to dismiss this little > gem as on offhand err by Sirius. JK wouldn't do that to us would > she......? am I deluded? Neri: I don't think you are. Since I did a bit timelining myself, I'm quite aware that the characters are not always speaking accurately, and that JKR might not always have the math right. Saying that, I think that considering the volume and complexity of the HP saga, JKR is generally very accurate about times and dates. The very few time flints she had until now are not relevant for the central plots. In this specific case I'm not sure that Bella's age is important to the plot, but I would be willing to bet that IF it is important, JKR had it right and Sirius saw Bella the last time when he was 15, Harry's age in the beginning of OotP, And NOT when he ran away from home at 16. Also, I don't have the book with me, but it is in the very same scene (don't remember if it's a bit before or a bit after) that Sirius tells Harry that he ran away from home at 16. Harry had just turned 15 at this point, and not Sirius nor JKR are likely to forget that. Therefore it is very unlikely that there's a mistake here. The probable conclusion must be that Bellatrix is at least 2 years older than Sirius, perhaps more. He saw her last when she was in her seventh year at Hogwarts and he was in his fifth (or forth) year. It is also possible she's even 4 or 5 years older, and in this case he saw her last after she had already left Hogwarts, probably at the Black house. It therefore seems that the "Slytherin gang" included members from several years, with Bella (and Rudolphus?) the oldest and Snape probably the youngest. Neri From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 15:47:35 2004 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:47:35 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > The only thing that doesn't quite work out to my mind is how he > discredited Crouch Sr. using his son. I think the other DE's > (doubtless led by Malfoy) actually did this for a different reason. > > Crouch Jr. is a fanatical LV supporter - would he have gone along > with anything that Malfoy, who'd immediately run to the ministry > pleading the imperio curse, suggested? Crouch Jr. is a fanatic by the time of Goblet of Fire, but was he always? If he was, he would have been arrogant at the trial, like the LeStranges. I think he was sacrificed by L Malfay, and he knows it. He hates his father, but he also hates the Death Eaters who set him up - those same ones who stood in the way of those who might have resurected LV. Thus the enemy of his enemies is his friend, and he becomes a fanatical supporter of that which his father hates the most - Lord Voldemort. Further, I think that Fudge might have known he had escaped, and tried to discredit him further. Fudge was with Crouch Sr. when Bertha Jorkins visited the house - do we really know why she was there? Perhaps Fudge set that up as well. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 16:06:51 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:06:51 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113432 > > Neri: > > It therefore seems that the "Slytherin gang" included members from > several years, with Bella (and Rudolphus?) the oldest and Snape > probably the youngest. > > Valky: Thanks for helping me out with my confusion there Neri. I snipped to here because this line immeditely brought something to my mind. Doesn't this read a bit like a Quidditch team? From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 16:26:54 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:26:54 -0000 Subject: AK and Intent (was : Lily, LV and Harry at GH.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113433 > Lora asked: > Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? > Hawke answered : > Well, we are told what happens if you try to cast AK and don't mean it, albeit from a slightly unreliable source. The Imposter Known As Mad Eye tells us almost the exact same thing--something along the lines of 'you could all take out your wands and say the words and I doubt I'd even get so much as a nosebleed. The Unforgivables require a lot of power and you have to mean it ' ( Can someone provide the actual quote? Book five, their first DADA class ) All this mention of exactly how to use AK gets me to thinking though...that's a lot of practical infomation on something that Dark. Kemper adds: Hawke means book four. Also, there's indirect cannon to suggest intention. As when DD waves his hands to change the Slytherin colors and banners to Gryffindor colors and banners at the end of PS/SS. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 16:37:50 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:37:50 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113434 Pippin wrote: > > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into what > > is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when he > > torments Harry. > snip. > > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it > > sounds like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories > > are of James, not Harry. But as it's all in the subconscious > > anyway, and Snape wouldn't *know* that's why it feels so good to > > taunt Harry, it wouldn't signify. Alla: > That was beatiful , Pippin. Absolutely beatiful. See what I meant? > I doubt I ever would be able to find comparison between Snape and > Harry in such unexpected place. > > Unfortunately, you said it yourself - Snape's old memories are of > James, not of Harry. SSSusan: Chiming in late, as I often do. It *was* a nice analysis, and it certainly gives one pause, because a lot of it strikes me as fair comparison. The one thing which REALLY hits me as a difference between them, though, is that Harry is 15 and Snape is 35 or 36. Putting together the two points that Harry *isn't* James and that Snape is more than twice Harry's age, it seems he SHOULD be able to control himself a bit better than Harry, eh? I would expect an adult to have managed a little self-reflection and to have a better grasp of what resides in his subconscious--especially when this same someone has managed to change from being a DE to being an Order member. But the exercise of comparing the two was still important, I think! Siriusly Snapey Susan From karen at dacafe.com Mon Sep 20 16:58:32 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:58:32 -0000 Subject: Wizard's Death Rituals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113435 > > > > Angie wrote: > > > > > > Harry only found out the truth of his parents' deaths at age 11. > He > > > couldn't really acknowldge the anniversary (or really, even the > fact > > > of) of their deaths while at the Dursleys. It just seems to me > like > > > he would, at some point, think about them on that day. > > > Feklar wrote: > > This is exactly the reason I think he doesn't think much about his > parents > > or their deaths. He may not have even know for sure when they > died. Why > > would he suddenly start thinking about something on a particular > day when he > > never did before? > > > Angie replies: > I guess I'm thinking about how I would react. If I didn't know the > truth about my parent's deaths for 10 years and then I found out, I > just don't see how I would not acknowledge it after that, at some > point (not saying each and every Halloween) on the day that they died. kmc adds: Harry is reacting very normally for a person who lost their parents as a baby or small child. I don't have my books here at work but I just recently re-read them. I only remember Harry being told once that his parents died on Halloween in either PS/SS or CoS. He thinks about his parents often. He mourns the loss of parents and understands what he has lost. Since JKR has mentioned that a graveyard will be important in Book 6 and/or 7, Harry may still make the connection between Halloween and his parent's death. If Harry had been raised by anyone else, he may have been taken to his parent's grave on Halloween and so learned to associate this day with his parents death. This did not happen. See post 113352 for other reasons why I feel Harry doesn't think about Halloween as his parent's deathday. IMO if you were to ask Harry who's deathday was on Halloween, his answer would be Nearly Headless Nick and not his parents. -kmc From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 17:45:02 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:45:02 -0000 Subject: AK and Intent (was : Lily, LV and Harry at GH.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > > Lora asked: > > Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? > > > Hawke answered : > > Well, we are told what happens if you try to cast AK and don't mean it, albeit from a slightly unreliable source. The Imposter Known As Mad Eye tells us almost the exact same thing--something along the lines of 'you could all take out your wands and say the words and I doubt I'd even get so much as a nosebleed. The Unforgivables require a lot of power and you have to mean it ' Tonks: A very basic idea in magic is that you have to have intent and belief in order for a spell to work. The intent is very important and also the reason that some wizards can do magic without a wand. It is done with the power of the mind united with the power in the universe, a very powerful magic. Not usually done by beginners. As to Canon: p.217 book 4 says: "AK's a curse that need a powerful bit of maginc behind it" the Moody example does not mention intent that I can see. I did not re-read the whole chapter. But there are other places that mention it, such as Bella in book 5. But as to this discussion, I do not think that Lily used an AK on Harry. I think it is just as it seems.. she gave her live for him. I do think it was pre-planned, however. Tonks_op From ejblack at rogers.com Mon Sep 20 18:08:54 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:08:54 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > I bet its because Neville is a frog who turns into a prince! ;) > > Rob Very, very good! That just might be. I can see Rowland smiling as she wrote. Jeanette From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 18:09:37 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:09:37 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113438 Annette, resonding to Pippin: > Although I admit the similarities between Harry and Snape are > compelling, both having been victims of child abuse. SSSusan: A bit of nitpicking, perhaps, since it's not the key part of your argument, but I'm not sure we *know* that Snape was a victim of child abuse. We saw that bit where *a* hook-nosed man was yelling at a woman, with a child cowering in the corner. I'll grant that lots of people assume that was Snape as a child with his parents, but others have wondered if it weren't Snape himself doing the yelling. And even if that seems totally unlikely, I'm still not sure we know he was abused from that one little snippet. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 18:31:48 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:31:48 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113439 > SSSusan: > The one thing which REALLY hits me as a difference between them, > though, is that Harry is 15 and Snape is 35 or 36. Putting together > the two points that Harry *isn't* James and that Snape is more than > twice Harry's age, it seems he SHOULD be able to control himself a > bit better than Harry, eh? Alla: Thanks, Susan. I thought that if I am going to say that one more time in my Snape/Harry discussions that Harry is fifteen and Snape thirty six, someone was going to smack me electronically. So, it is really nice to see somebody else doing it. :o) > Valky: > Thanks for helping me out with my confusion there Neri. I snipped to > here because this line immeditely brought something to my mind. > Doesn't this read a bit like a Quidditch team? Alla: Oh, Valky, I like your previous speculation, but I think you REALLY maybe on to something with this one. Snape's gang may indeed be Slytherin Quidditch team. Remember when Lupin in the Shack having obvious difficulties talking to Harry among other things that Snape was jealous of James's quidditch talent? True, his story is full of inconsistencies, but Quidditch is mentioned. From Lynx412 at AOL.com Mon Sep 20 18:36:06 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:36:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. Message-ID: <154.3fd9512a.2e807d16@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113440 In a message dated 9/20/2004 12:17:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, Aisbelmon at hotmail.com writes: > Valky: > Thanks for helping me out with my confusion there Neri. I snipped to > here because this line immeditely brought something to my mind. > Doesn't this read a bit like a Quidditch team? Interesting speculation. Wasn't it said that part of the Snape/James interaction was James' superior Quiddich skills? Being team members of their respective houses might also, if the Gryffindore/Slytherin rivalry was as strong, be a part of the background hostilities between MWPP and Snape et al. If the seventh years were active members and graduating that year, Snape would have been deprived of support and possibly faced with a much poorer team, much like Gryffindore in OotP. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 18:37:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:37:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113441 SSSusan: > > Granted, he might still have had difficulty opening the chamber > > [is the parseltongue required to open the SINK entrance or the > > serpent DOOR down below?], but it's apparently the case that DD > > never even asked Myrtle. Finwitch: > Well, it could be that: > 1) Myrtle was off haunting Olive Hornby and thus not available for > questioning. SSSusan: Hee. Good one! Though I suspect if a headmaster calls, all castle ghosts report in? Finwitch: > 2)It is possible that Dumbledore *did* ask (and that is why he was > the only one to believe Rubeus Hagrid!) but Harry's pov doesn't > show it... > (I don't see Myrtle volunteering information about someone else > asking about her death 50 years ago. Why would she do that?) SSSusan: No, I'm not suggesting she should have volunteered this info. I'm saying that DD is on record as saying they didn't know what was causing the attacks nor where the entrance to the chamber was located. But I think if he had gone to Myrtle and asked her, he perhaps should have been able to piece together the information. Finwitch: > Also, Myrtle didn't KNOW what got her, so she wouldn't have been of > much help to Dumbledore - except confirming that it wasn't spider > nor Rubeus Hagrid... SSSusan: No, she didn't know, but if she had described things as she did to H/R, then couldn't DD have figured it out, just as they did? THAT'S really my point. The clues they had back when it all happened were similar to the clues this time, weren't they? H/R/H together figured it out, and they're 12!! Couldn't Dippet and/or DD have figured it out, too, if Myrtle had talked about having been in her bathroom cubicle, hearing a "funny language", the appearance of yellow eyes, and finding herself instantly dead? Finwitch: > 3) maybe Dumbledore was shy about going into a girls' toilet? SSSusan: See my comment, above. I will never believe that THAT kind of propriety issue would ever stop DD from gaining information. Simply calling Myrtle out would likely have sufficed. SSSusan, who sure wishes someone would tackle her question of whether Parseltongue is required to make the SINK open *or* the serpent DOOR open *or* both.... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 18:53:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:53:33 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113442 Hannah, responding to Phyllis wondering why Voldy didn't just apparate into the Dept. of Mysteries: > I also really liked the point you made in the post about why LV > didn't just apparate in and get the prophecy. I can't see what > would have stopped him - just that it would have made a short story > I suppose! I guess we have to imagine that there was some sort of > enchantment in place to stop him doing it. SSSusan: I thought the general consensus was that, while people can apparate into the main LOBBY area of the MoM building, they CAN'T apparate into a restricted area such as the Dept. of Mysteries. Still, the original argument holds about Voldy being able to disguise himself if he went to the MoM, but I don't think he could've apparated directly into the DoM. After all, that stuff's supposed to be top secret. Would be pretty crappy security if people could just apparate in. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 20 19:13:09 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:13:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113443 > SSSusan, who sure wishes someone would tackle her question of whether Parseltongue is required to make the SINK open *or* the serpent DOOR open *or* both....< That one's easy. Harry tried English on the sink and nothing happened. It's also quite possible that the tiny snake scratched on the pipe is only visible in the presence of a Parselmouth. Dumbledore seems wary of drawing conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. Voldemort /Riddle is quite good at laying down misleading evidence and Dumbledore knows that , unlike Harry (and Snape) , who are always jumping to false conclusions. Dumbledore knows about Myrtle, but on the other hand he can't hear Parseltongue as a voice so he doesn't know that the monster is moving through the walls. Ron, Hermione and Lockhart don't even notice the sound -- either Harry's ears are especially sensitive to parseltonge, or the hissing sounds like the background noises usual in the castle. If the petrification power of the basilisk is unknown to wizards, then no wizard had ever looked into a basilisk's eyes and lived to tell the tale. Myrtle had no idea what the big yellow eyes belonged to, and she also couldn't identify the boy she heard speaking. For all she knew, it *could* have been Hagrid. If Hagrid had been willing to produce Aragog, then everybody might have seen that he didn't have big yellow eyes. But Hagrid wouldn't turn over an interestin' creature. Pippin From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 19:28:10 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:28:10 -0000 Subject: Apparating into the DoM (WAS: LV in the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113444 SSSusan: > I thought the general consensus was that, while people can apparate > into the main LOBBY area of the MoM building, they CAN'T apparate > into a restricted area such as the Dept. of Mysteries. I guess where this breaks down for me is why Dumbledore would feel the need to bind the DEs he's rounded up in the Department of Mysteries with an anti-disapparation jinx. Perhaps one can disapparate from the DoM without being able to apparate there? It would just seem to me that if you can disapparate from a location, you should be able to apparate to that location as well. But maybe the DoM is an exception to the rule. Or perhaps Dumbledore put the anti-disapparation jinx on the DEs as an added precaution, in case Voldemort had found a way around the disapparation restrictions. Or perhaps Rowling's never analyzed it as closely as I have ;-) ~Phyllis From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 19:40:17 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:40:17 -0000 Subject: Apparating into the DoM (WAS: LV in the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113445 SSSusan: > > I thought the general consensus was that, while people can > > apparate into the main LOBBY area of the MoM building, they CAN'T > > apparate into a restricted area such as the Dept. of Mysteries. Phyllis: > I guess where this breaks down for me is why Dumbledore would feel > the need to bind the DEs he's rounded up in the Department of > Mysteries with an anti-disapparation jinx. Perhaps one can > disapparate from the DoM without being able to apparate there? It > would just seem to me that if you can disapparate from a location, > you should be able to apparate to that location as well. But maybe > the DoM is an exception to the rule. Or perhaps Dumbledore put the > anti-disapparation jinx on the DEs as an added precaution, in case > Voldemort had found a way around the disapparation restrictions. SSSusan: I think it was an extra precaution--in case the DEs managed to break free, they'd not be able to disapparate from anywhere w/in the MoM. Just my opinion, though. Siriusly Snapey Susan From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 20 19:38:04 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:38:04 -0400 Subject: Snape's housemates Message-ID: <126AD524.75F2823E.0004E520@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113446 Is it only me, or does it seem odd that we haven't heard of any of Snape's Slytherin housemates from his own year, other than the Mauraders? Assuming Snape was in Slytherin, why are all of his friends/associates--the "Slytherin gang"--so much older than him? If the older ones like Bellatrix and Lucius picked Snape specially to be part of their gang, what did they see in him that set him apart from the other Slytherins of his year? Or was there another reason, like a blood connection between Snape and the older Slytherins that we don't yet know about? Or, maybe Snape wasn't Slytherin, but he was invited into the Slytherin proto-Death Eaters gang because it was such a coup to get someone from another house to join their evil clan (especially if Snape was from Gyffindor). As others have noted, we still don't have any conclusive canon that Snape was in Slytherin. Just a few thoughts to ponder, while we look forward to some answers in the next book! Julie From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 20:06:59 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:06:59 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113447 > > Neri: > > > > It therefore seems that the "Slytherin gang" included members from > > several years, with Bella (and Rudolphus?) the oldest and Snape > > probably the youngest. > > > > > > Valky: > Thanks for helping me out with my confusion there Neri. I snipped to > here because this line immeditely brought something to my mind. > Doesn't this read a bit like a Quidditch team? Neri: Hmm. Now that you point this out it seems obvious. With Quidditch it is much easier to see how a gang from several different years can be formed. For example, you could see Flint as part of Draco's gang, when he helps Draco, Crabbe and Goyle with trying to sabotage Harry's play in PoA (the fake Dementors trick). And Draco's father buys new brooms for the whole Slytherin team, which practically gives his son a boost to the leader position. I wonder if young Severus also played Quidditch in the Slytherin team? (assuming he was really from Slytherin, which we aren't 100% sure of until JKR answers the open letter). Doesn't exactly fit with the picture of the strange geek who is only interested with the Dark Arts. But several remarks by Snape, Lupin and Sirius suggest that young Severus envied James' talent in Qudditch, and why would Severus care about that at all if he was only interested in his studies? And we know Snape has the flying ability and knowledge for Quidditch. He was a referee once in SS/PS. So, anyone cares to guess how the '73 Slytherin team looked like? The idea of Bella and Rudy as beaters sounds downright scary... Neri From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 20 20:13:23 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:13:23 -0000 Subject: Difficult Choice / Warlock / Hag / Homorphus / HarryVsSnape / Kreachur / Keys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113448 Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112826 : << Rowling's magic formula for deciding between your internal sense of values and others' would seem to be, go with the choice that is more difficult. But first you have to be aware that there is a choice -- Hermione simply assumes that where her values conflict with others', it's the others who are wrong, not her. >> You know that the most difficult option is not *always* the virtuous option. For example, I have often read that most ordinary people find it very difficult to bring themselves to intentionally kill another human being (I suppose it gets easier with practise) -- it is said that military combat training is supposed to make shooting the moving target a matter of habit, so that the soldier will do it by habit, without having to think that he is killing a human being -- which relates to the 'gang initation' requirement of killing a random innocent stranger -- I'm not saying all gangs have that in their initiation, but you live in SoCal so I am sure you heard the news last month about the idiotic asinine evil 16-year-old whose gang initiation requirement led him to shoot dead a random uniformed law enforcement officer At the Courthouse, in front of All Those Witnesses. We even have a canon example: Regulus trying to quit the Death Eaters. I am sure he was trying to take what he thought the easier option (he didn't realise that someone from the Ancient and Noble House of Black would be killed) instead of having to actually go through the emotional stress of killing someone himself. Just because murdering the target was the more difficult option doesn't make it the virtuous option -- in fact, if he had realised that he was requesting his own death, his option would have been admirably honorable. (If the more difficult and unpleasant option were always the virtuous option, then Snape in MY FIC should kill Draco. I haven't been able to figure out whether that is the virtuous option, even tho' I've had years to think about it and the character has to decide quickly.) Theotokos wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112930 : << I have read information on the Lexicon and other places I cannot recall but there does not appear to be a definitive definition /distinction between warlock and wizard. Anyone know more about this? Has JKR ever been asked to clarify? Are they simply synonyms? >> Here is a reply that I gave to that request about a month ago: None of us know for sure (or if someone does, they haven't told). Recent threads on the subject begin with the following posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106697 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/23351 In those threads, Steve b_boymn suggests that 'wizards' are Western European and 'warlocks' are Eastern European. That doesn't explain why Dumbledore's title as chairman of the Wizengamot is Chief Warlock, and why Quidditch, a sport invented in England, is called 'the noble sport of warlocks'. My theory is that 'warlock' means a member of the wizarding parliament (which might be the Wizengamot, named as it is after the Saxon parliament, Witangemot). I assume that the word acquired additional meaning: as being chosen by your neighbors to represent them is something of an honor, 'warlock' came to mean a respected person, thus 'the noble sport of warlocks'; but public opinion of politicians being what it is, 'warlock' also came to mean a person full of hot air, which might explain the 'wild-looking' warlocks arguing over the latest issue of Transfiguration Quarterly at the Leaky Cauldron. Macfotuk wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112961 : << However, what I have not understood is what makes a crone a crone (or is it a hag?), as opposed to a witch. JKR talks of what sound like child-eating witches in many of the books (cropping up at bars mostly and in knockturn alley) but never really says much more. I for one would like to know more about them but doubt there's any real significance. >> You are speaking of hags. Potterverse hags are non-human beings and Potterverse witches are human beings (female humans with magic power). The Lexicon says at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/best iary/bestiary_h-m.html "Female human-like magical being, but less adept than a witch at disguising herself from Muggles (PA4, GF19). Hags are what one might refer to as "fairy tale witches." Hags are wild in appearance, and they have been known to eat children (FB, DP, fw), although at the Leaky Cauldron Harry once saw a hag eating raw liver (PA4). Hags can be quite frightening, apparently, since Quirrell had a "nasty bit of business" with one during his year off for first-hand experience in fighting the Dark Arts (SS5). Interested parties may also consult Gilderoy Lockhart's book Holidays with Hags (CS4), which probably can be picked up quite cheaply at Flourish and Blotts, Diagon Alley, London, UK these days." I wonder whether hags reproduce parthenogenically or are they the females and trolls are the males of the same species? Brenda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113069 : << While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or Dumbledore helped their friend more. >> and Macfotouk replied in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113311 : << I took this to mean that the charm will revert a werewolf to its human form, but transiently only - not permanently. It would have been a useful charm on that fateful night in PoA when Pettigrew escaped, but might not be long-lived/irreversible. On this same charm, what spell did Lupin and Sirius use on Scabbers to force Pettigrew's appearance in the shrieking shack? Might that have been homorphus too? That is, is it a spell that turns any animal back to its formerly human form >> and Luckdragon replied in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113317 : << Also according to canon the homorphus charm allowed the village to stop fearing the monthly attack of the werewolf thanks to Lockhart which sounds rather permanent. >> I agree with Mac. Turning the Wagga Wagga Werewolf to his human form for even a few seconds would be enough for his neighbors, his fellow villagers, to recognize him. Then they could steps during the large part of the month when the moon is not full -- I would rather believe that they built a strong cage and knew whom to chain up inside it before moonrise on each full moon night, but I feel it's more likely that they killed him while he was a vulnerable human. Another possibility would be that the Homorphus Charm forces a werewolf (and maybe other transformed humans) to turn back into human form permanently, but with the side effect of severe brain damage: too high a cost. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113227 : << How would Harry laughing off Snape's treatment of him give Snape more enjoyment? If Harry cheerfully said, "I can see I'll have to study more if I want to do well in this class, sir" would Snape derive some twisted pleasure from it? >> No, it would enrage Snape so that Snape would give Harry a detention and lost-points for insolence with absolutely no excuse. << If Harry said, "I was sorry to learn that my father treated you so badly when you were at school, and I wish there was something I could do about it" would you think less of him? >> Do you think Snape would manage to die of shame on the spot if Harry said that? << Excuse me? There are at least 100 House Elves owned by Hogwarts, and I have never heard Dumbledore treat any of them the way Sirius treated Kreacher. >> OTOH, none of the House Elves at Hogwarts call Dumbledore a Mudblood-loving blood-traitor who broke his poor mother's hearts, and it probably bugged Sirius even more for Kreachur to insult his guests than for Kreachur to insult him ... being unable to protect his own guests in his own house from being insulted surely would have been a terrible pain to Sirius's pride. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/113228 : << What do you mean, it is beyond Snape's control to stop feeling pleasure, while he hurts somebody. You mean sadism is like an addiction or an uncurable disease? You mean there is no way for the person to improve oneself? >> I agree with Pippin that Snape can improve himself only by controlling his behavior and forcing himself not to hurt people unneccessarily and forcing himself to utter (possibly insincere) apologies and condolences, like an alcoholic can force himself not to drink that tempting alcoholic beverage and a heterosexual who wants to turn homosexual can force herself not to have sex with the attractive opposite sex person. Only grace (which is bestowed by God, gods, Jungian collective unconscious, whatever) can improve Snape by making him feel compassion instead of pleasure at someone else's pain, can improve the alcoholic by making him not want the alcoholic beverage in front of him, can make the would-be gay person feel *arousedly attracted* to someone of the same sex. Snape could *seek* that grace by trying very hard to imagine what he would feel like if he were the other person, but trying is no guarantee of succeeding. Steve bboyminn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113246 : << In ancient mythology, the treasures of the gods were protected by JANUS, the "Keeper of Keys", and "Custodian of Treasures". Looking both forward and back, this ancient figure could see in all directions, preserving and protecting all that was important. >> That is contrary to everything that I was brought up to believe. All my childhood, my mother taught me that, while Janus was the two-faced god who saw both past and future (and was some kind of war god), it was the great goddess Juno, wife of Jove, who guarded the treasures ofr the gods in heaven and of mortal in her temple, thus having the title Juno Monatus, Juno the Watcher (like 'monitor'), from which we get the words 'money' and 'mint'. << The French word 'Concierge' translate to English mean 'The keeper of keys' >> American Heritage Dictionary at http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/C0547900.html says: "French, from Old French cumcerges, from Vulgar Latin *conservius, alteration of Latin conservus, fellow slave : com-, com- + servus, slave." From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Sep 20 20:23:15 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:23:15 -0000 Subject: AK and Intent (was : Lily, LV and Harry at GH.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hawke" wrote: Hawke; > Well, we are told what happens if you try to cast AK and don't mean > it, albeit from a slightly unreliable source. The Imposter Known As > Mad Eye tells us almost the exact same thing--something along the > lines of 'you could all take out your wands and say the words and I > doubt I'd even get so much as a nosebleed. The Unforgivables require > a lot of power and you have to mean it ' ( Can someone provide the > actual quote? Book five, their first DADA class ) Geoff: I quoted this quote plus other useful bits of canon (including Bellatrix's little lesson about Crucio) last week in message 112956. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Sep 20 20:39:14 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:39:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: SSSusan: > who sure wishes someone would tackle her question of whether > Parseltongue is required to make the SINK open *or* the serpent DOOR > open *or* both.... Geoff: Tsk, tsk, 'tis all in canon: '"That tap's never worked," said Myrtle brightly as he tried to turn it. "Harry," said Ron, "say something. Something in Parseltongue." "But - " Harry thought hard. The only times he'd ever managed to speak Parseltongue were when he'd ben faced with a real snake. He stared hard at the tiny engraving, trying to imagine it was real. "Open up," he said. He looked at Ron who shook his head. "English," he said. Harry looked back at the snake, willing himnself to believe it was alive. If he moved his head, the candlelight made it look as if it was moving. "Open up," he said. Except the the words weren't what he heard; a strange hissing had escaped him and at once the tap glowed with a briliant white lgiht and began to sink....' (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.222 UK edition) 'And then, at last, as he crept around yet another bend, he saw a solid wall ahead on which two entwined serpents were carved, their eyes set with great, glinting emeralds. Harry approached, his throat very dry. There was no need to pretend these stone snakes were real, their eyes looked strangely alive. He could guess what he had to do. He cleared his throat and the emerald eyes seemed to flicker. "Open," said Harry in a low, faint hiss. The serpents parted as the wall cracked open, the ahlves slid smoothly out of sight and Harry, shaking from head to foot, walked in side.' (ibid. p.225) Answer: both. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susanadacunha at gmx.net Mon Sep 20 20:44:28 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:44:28 +0100 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer References: Message-ID: <000501c49f52$a334d5e0$292f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113451 Bookworm wrote: "A very good explanation of how Lupin might have seen the trio coming and going. But it doesn't answer your original question of why Pettigrew didn't show up on the map. If the occupants of Hagrid's hut were visible on the Map, then Pettigrew's name would have been right there when Lupin first saw them enter." -------------------- I meant Pettigrew *does* show up on the map, but Lupin wasn't looking in Hagrid's hut. The reason I have so much trouble believing the map doesn't show inside the hut is my assumption of how the map was made. I don't believe they 'draw' it. That piece of parchment was enchanted to show the Hogwarts area; why wouldn't it show the hut? Lupin was searching for Black - it was not to expect that he would be found having tea with Hagrid. He saw the 'second' Harry and run to DD. Note: "It was a map showing *every* detail of Hogwarts castle and grounds. But the truly remarkable thing were the *tiny* ink dots moving around it, each labeled with a name in *minuscule* writing." - PoA, X (my enphasis) Susana From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 21:02:10 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: <126AD524.75F2823E.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040920210210.29849.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113452 juli17 at aol.com wrote: Or, maybe Snape wasn't Slytherin, but he was invited into the Slytherin proto-Death Eaters gang because it was such a coup to get someone from another house to join their evil clan (especially if Snape was from Gyffindor). As others have noted, we still don't have any conclusive canon that Snape was in Slytherin. karyn says: I just assumed that Snape was a Slytherin since he's head of the Slytherin house. Can you really become head of a house without having belonged to it all the time? --Karyn --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 20 21:04:54 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:04:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113453 SSSusan: > > who sure wishes someone would tackle her question of whether > > Parseltongue is required to make the SINK open *or* the serpent > > DOOR open *or* both.... Geoff: > Tsk, tsk, 'tis all in canon: > > '"That tap's never worked," said Myrtle brightly as he tried to > turn it. > "Harry," said Ron, "say something. Something in Parseltongue." > "But - " Harry thought hard. The only times he'd ever managed to > speak Parseltongue were when he'd ben faced with a real snake. He > stared hard at the tiny engraving, trying to imagine it was real. > "Open up," he said. > He looked at Ron who shook his head. > "English," he said. > Harry looked back at the snake, willing himnself to believe it was > alive. If he moved his head, the candlelight made it look as if it > was moving. > "Open up," he said. > Except the the words weren't what he heard; a strange hissing had > escaped him and at once the tap glowed with a briliant white lgiht > and began to sink....' > > (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.222 UK edition) > > 'And then, at last, as he crept around yet another bend, he saw a > solid wall ahead on which two entwined serpents were carved, their > eyes set with great, glinting emeralds. > Harry approached, his throat very dry. There was no need to pretend > these stone snakes were real, their eyes looked strangely alive. > He could guess what he had to do. He cleared his throat and the > emerald eyes seemed to flicker. > "Open," said Harry in a low, faint hiss. > The serpents parted as the wall cracked open, the ahlves slid > smoothly out of sight and Harry, shaking from head to foot, walked > in side.' > > (ibid. p.225) > > Answer: both. SSSusan [hanging her head in shame]: Does it count that I've got two little kids and work full time and I'm so booked up I can't see straight? No, I thought not. ;-) Anyway, yes, thanks to you & Pippin for your prompt responses. Believe it or not, I actually DID remember that Harry spoke in parseltongue in both instances! I failed to word my query properly, to match the question which is really rolling about in my head, and it implied that I didn't know Harry had used Parseltongue. What I REALLY want to know (really!) is which of those two places is considered the SEAL to the Chamber--or are they both part & parcel of the seal? And could Harry have UNSEALED it, or did he just OPEN it? I know there's been discussion around here about who could *unseal* the Chamber vs. who could *open* it - whether those are truly two different things. You know, that if Tom was correct in saying that only the Heir of Slytherin could unseal it, then presumably Parselmouth Harry could've hissed all he wanted at the faucet *before* Diary!Tom unsealed the Chamber, and it wouldn't have budged. Have I got that right? And do most people think that the sink *and* the serpent wall/door are both elements of the seal? Siriusly Snapey Susan From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Mon Sep 20 21:47:22 2004 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:47:22 -0000 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113454 I usually just visit the text only version of the JKR website, because it's easier for my computer and for me. I know there are supposed to be goodies you can find on the interactive site but I don't really know how you do this. I've recently read that one of the latest things that have been found on the site is some notes/doodlings, which fans are feverishly deciphering for clues. I read that someone thought they saw the words "delayed twins" among these scribbles. Is this correct? If so, I have a MASSIVE SPOILER THEORY. S P O I L E R S P A C E I've checked on the web and there is such a thing as delayed twins (or delayed interval delivery) in real life. This is when one twin is born first and then labour (or labor in the US) stops and the second twin is born later. Apparently the longest known gap was 95 days and happened in Louisiana. One baby was born in 1994 and the other in 1995. In the past the first twin usually died because it was too premature but these days it is not unknown for both babies to survive. Anyway the point is that delayed twins can happen. As JKR has allegedly written the phrase delayed twins, this is further evidence for my big idea that Tom Marvolo Riddle was one of a set of twins. I previously speculated about this idea that Voldemort had a twin before. I am re-posting this earlier message in full. "Now JKR's announced the title of book 6 and said it has connections to COS I've been following the debate about who the titular character is and I began re-reading COS for clues. In chapter 2, Dobby's Warning, I found the following passages: 'Hang on - this hasn't got anything to do with Vol - sorry - I mean You Know Who, has it? You could just shake or nod,' he [Harry] added hastily, as Dobby's head tilted worryingly close to the wall again. Slowly, Dobby shook his head. 'Not - not He Who Must Not Be Named, sir.' But Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be trying to give Harry a hint. Harry, however, was completely at sea. 'He hasn't got a brother, has he?' Dobby shook his head, his eyes wider than ever. Now, this sparked a crazy, long shot theory but one which I'd like to patent. Dobby shaking his head and widening his eyes is his way of saying yes, it is Voldemort. JKR states categorically that Dobby is giving a hint. And of course she confirms this at the end when Dobby says he did mean Voldemort: "It was a clue sir,' said Dobby, his eyes widening, as though this was obvious. 'Dobby was giving you a clue.' (Chapter 18 Dobby's Reward). As Dobby makes exactly the same gestures to Harry's second question then maybe this also means yes. Yes, Voldemort does have a brother. Who could this brother be? Tom Riddle is a half blood. Presumably his brother is a half blood. The Half Blood Prince? Dobby is in a position to know if Voldemort has a brother. He serves the Malfoys so he is privy to what they know. Lucius Malfoy knows Voldemort's true parentage and identity. If anyone would know of the existence of a brother, it would be him. Also JKR did state in the March 4th 2004 chat, "You will find out more about the circumstances of his [Voldemort's] birth in the next book." Was he a twin? There are some snags to this theory. One is that Dumbledore states that Voldemort is the last descendant of Salazar Slytherin. However, this does not rule out the possibility that there were once other descendants. Voldemort's brother could have died before COS. (Maybe Voldemort killed him. He wiped out his paternal grandparents, the Riddles, and his father, Tom, so he's got form.) If this putative long lost brother is the Half Blood Prince then maybe Harry will find out about him rather than meet him. Or perhaps he could go back in time and meet him. JKR was asked once if Harry would time travel again and she said, "Not telling". She was asked too if Harry would become an animagi and she gave a straightforward no as an answer. As she was cagey about the time travel question perhaps she did not want to give away a plot twist. Also she re-introduced time turners in the Department of Mysteries in OOP, which has made people speculate that one will be used again at some point in book 6 or 7. Another possible flaw is if Tom Riddle has a brother, why is he living in a Muggle orphanage, if his brother is the HBP? I can't think of a good reason. However there are literary precedents for separated siblings e. g. two sets of twins in The Comedy of Errors, so it is not unknown in fiction. I won't go into the discussion about whether the HBP literally is a Prince as it's been covered elsewhere. The only mention of the word Prince so far in HP has been metaphorical. It was in OOP when Dumbledore said Harry had not turned up at Hogwarts as a "pampered little prince". Maybe Voldemort's putative brother just had a privileged upbringing." In reply to this post I got 2 responses. One pointed out that the name Thomas actually means twin. The other said there was a Mark Twain story about twins separated at birth, whose names were Tom and Chamber. Since I originally posted I'd moved towards the idea that the Half- Blood Prince was Godric Gryffindor or a character that we have not been introduced to yet. Maybe I was right in the first place. Even if Voldemort's long-lost twin is not the Half-Blood Prince, I would not be at all surprised now if in book 6 we find out that Tom was a twin. JoTwo From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Mon Sep 20 22:31:15 2004 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:31:15 -0000 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113455 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" wrote: > I usually just visit the text only version of the JKR website, > because it's easier for my computer and for me. I know there are > supposed to be goodies you can find on the interactive site but I > don't really know how you do this. I've recently read that one of > the latest things that have been found on the site is some > notes/doodlings, which fans are feverishly deciphering for clues. I > read that someone thought they saw the words "delayed twins" among > these scribbles. Is this correct? If so, I have a MASSIVE SPOILER > THEORY. > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > I've checked on the web and there is such a thing as delayed twins > (or delayed interval delivery) in real life. This is when one twin > is born first and then labour (or labor in the US) stops and the > second twin is born later. Apparently the longest known gap was 95 > days and happened in Louisiana. One baby was born in 1994 and the > other in 1995. In the past the first twin usually died because it > was too premature but these days it is not unknown for both babies to > survive. Anyway the point is that delayed twins can happen. As JKR > has allegedly written the phrase delayed twins, this is further > evidence for my big idea that Tom Marvolo Riddle was one of a set of > twins. > > JoTwo Sorry, apparently the words "delayed twin" aren't the latest Easter egg. They are on the home page in the semi-lower left that gets mostly covered up, according to Stubefied, who posted it on 09/17/04 at Sugar Quill. Still, this doesn't affect my theory. JoTwo From tim at marvinhold.com Mon Sep 20 23:18:51 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:18:51 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Tim wrote: > > To me that attack and the attack by the fake Moody on Drago in book > 4 have > > similarities. > > > Angie replies: > > Hmmm . . . interesting. I never thought about why Moody attacked > Draco; I thought he was trying to get on Harry's good side. But > wasn't it FakeMoody who said if there was one thing he couldn't stand > it was a Death Eater who got away? Thus, his attack on Draco could > have been intended as signal to Lucius because Lucius pretended to go > back to the "good side." But then again, Lucius didn't know that > Barty Jr. was masquerading as FakeMoody, so any message to Lucius > would have appeared to have come from Moody??? Yes. He was trying to get on Harry's good side. Yes, Saying: "I can't stand a DE that walks free" was in character for both Couch and Moody. His attack on Draco came from of all of them. It could be that JKR is just using the common device of having the bad guys fight among themselves, or possibly she intends this pattern as a form of foreshadowing. I really don't know which. Tim - Trying to think of other instances where Harry received violent support from an unexpected quarter. Hagrid's attack on Dudley? From khinterberg at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 23:26:41 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:26:41 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion over the past week or so about > sacrificial love, and about the apparant absence of the AK that LV > used on baby Harry during the 'priori incantum' during GoF. I have > formed a theory, it's quite controversial, but I thought I'd share > it anyway. > > What if the absence of that AK was due not to being another sort of > spell, but because LV didn't cast it at all. What if Lily cast the > AK that hit Harry? I DO NOT mean that Lily is any way evil. But > think about the sacrificial love thing. Dying for someone you love > is a great sacrifice, but so is killing someone you love to save > them from a worse fate. > > This theory is based on the idea that LV wanted not to kill Harry > immediately, but to use him somehow. At least try to find out what > is was about this baby that gave him the potential power to defeat > him. I think this is quite a likely possibility. DD could have > warned Lily and James about this. > > So's here's how events might have gone. LV turns up and kills > James. Lily runs up to get Harry, but for some reason doesn't get > away in time. LV arrives, Lily tries to block Harry, offers herself > instead etc. She doesn't use her wand against LV, since she knows > it's not going to do any good. When she realises her pleading has > failed and that LV is about to kill her, she does the only thing she > can think of to save her son from torture and a slow death/ being > brought up as an LV 'mini-me' - she AK's him. At the same time, LV > hits her with the same spell. > > But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one > casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because > Lily's intention was to *save* Harry, even though killing him seemed > to be the only way she had left to do that. So the spell rebounds, > perhaps also due to the fact Lily has just died trying to defend > him. > > The rebounded AK hits LV, and does a lot of damage, but it cannot > kill him, partly because of whatever he has done to make himself > immortal, partly because it wasn't intended for him. The rest is > history. > > I'm sure this theory is full of glaring holes and I don't exactly > believe it myself, but it does account for several things - why LV > didn't die, why Harry didn't die, why Harry saw only one flash of > green light, why the spell did so much damage (2 AK's > simulataneously, hitting 3 people), and why the spell never showed > up during priori incantum on LV's wand. And it seems like the sort > of plot twist that JKR might use. > > Anyway, there you have it. What do you think? > Hannah khinterberg: This theory actually sounds rather believable, except for a bit of canon I came across: "Harry had escaped from the same attack with nothing more than a scar on his forehead, where Voldemort's curse, instead of killing him, had rebounded upon its originator." - PoA p 6 U.S. pb I can't read this passage any way other than that Voldemort cast the curse that rebounded(be it AK or something else ). From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 23:31:37 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:31:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: <126AD524.75F2823E.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Is it only me, or does it seem odd that we haven't heard of any of Snape's Slytherin housemates from his own year, other than the Mauraders? Assuming Snape was in Slytherin, why are all of his friends/associates--the "Slytherin gang"--so much older than him? If the older ones like Bellatrix and Lucius picked Snape specially to be part of their gang, what did they see in him that set him apart from the other Slytherins of his year? snips Do we know that Bellatrix is that much older than him? I don't remember Sirius mentioning that she was older when he pointed her out on the Black Family Tree, Though we know Malfoy is five years older. But there is no reason not to assume that some of the other DEs are not Snape's age or year. (Though, then again we have no canon either way!) Meri From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 23:40:05 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:40:05 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer In-Reply-To: <000501c49f52$a334d5e0$292f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > Bookworm wrote: > "A very good explanation of how Lupin might have seen the trio coming > and going. But it doesn't answer your original question of why > Pettigrew didn't show up on the map. If the occupants of > Hagrid's hut were visible on the Map, then Pettigrew's name > would have been right there when Lupin first saw them enter." > -------------------- > > I meant Pettigrew *does* show up on the map, but Lupin wasn't looking in > Hagrid's hut. > The reason I have so much trouble believing the map doesn't show inside the > hut is my assumption of how the map was made. I don't believe they 'draw' > it. That piece of parchment was enchanted to show the Hogwarts area; why > wouldn't it show the hut? > > Lupin was searching for Black - it was not to expect that he would be found > having tea with Hagrid. He saw the 'second' Harry and run to DD. Note: > > "It was a map showing *every* detail of Hogwarts castle and grounds. But the > truly remarkable thing were the *tiny* ink dots moving around it, each > labeled with a name in *minuscule* writing." - PoA, X (my enphasis) > > > > Susana Mac now - Two questions: 1. was Hagrid's hut built when the marauders made their map (I suspect it was, but we don't know)? If not, then could it evade the map's magic? I really like Ravenclaw Bookworm's suggestion that of course Pettigrew would know to hide there if it wasn't on the map. 2. Since harry II and Hermione II are there magically (though yes of course physically too) can the Marauder's map plot them? Might they be unplottable/detectable by magic (as JKR says Wizards can make themselves - how Sirius wasn't found, nor can Voldemort be). Your ideas are really clever thinking though Susannah. So I'm undecided. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 23:53:19 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:53:19 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113460 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > I bet its because Neville is a frog who turns into a prince! ;) > > Rob Angie replies: Duh! Hadn't thought of that. I sure hope so. I can't wait to see Neville come into his own. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 23:53:45 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:53:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: <67.33c0bc2d.2e80174f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynx412 at A... wrote: > In a message dated 9/19/2004 8:33:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, > susiequsie23 at s... writes: > > > Pippin: > > >who thinks that Hermione would never write on a library book, > > >and that the 'pipes' clue was forged by Riddle > > > > > > SSSusan: > > Then again, maybe this bit explains it away in your opinion.... > > I agree with that. It bugged me at the time. It seems that Hermione > not only wrote in a library book, but followed that bit of vandalism up with a > further one by TEARING OUT THE PAGE! Surely the WW has a copying spell? Surely > some muggle-born must have seen the need for a magic copier/printer? > > The Other Cheryl Mac: I know there are other theories about how that page came to be in Hermione's hand (and let's face it SURELY Pomfrey, Dumbledore, McGonagall etc would have examined her closely enough to discover it when she was first petrified?), however ... Even if Hermione is a goody-goody saint with the greatest respect for books etc., desperate times call for desperate measures and, after all, the school was under threat of being closed, students killed (let alone petrified) at any time etc., What would ANYONE do given a choice between human life and the destruction of evil versus the wonton desecration of a library book - hmmmmmmmmmm tough choice? (I think not, but then I'm not Hermione). From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 14:27:10 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:27:10 -0000 Subject: Further more... (furthermore?) [Re: Book 6 forshadowing in CoS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > ... this will probably lead us to the "power the Dark Lord knows > not," and book 7 will be about discovering how Harry must use this > power to defect Voldemort. > > Rob "Literary Pretensions" Kristjansson neha: Yes,surely this theory fits the bill(prophecy) and Jo's statements fine, but it still doesn't prove that Harry is the one suggested by the Prophecy; even though Harry fits all other requirements of the prophecy pretty well, I stiil don't know if he has any powers not known to Lord Voldemort- couldn't anybody else have had the same innocence and purity of feeling as Harry? Furthermore, Jo is hardly to follow the usual lines which she has suggested; she will surely beat even Harry and Neville as the killers of Voldemort; what I don't get is 'the one ' suggested by the prophecy can apply to a whole universe of creatures not even human. Neha S. From Snarryfan at aol.com Mon Sep 20 15:22:13 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:22:13 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113463 > > Pippin: > > After the pensieve scene it no longer seems inconceivable to me > > that Snape honestly thought James and his friends might want > > him dead, and I can see him joining that Slytherin gang because > > he felt he needed protection from James and *his* gang, and > > later joining the DE's because he felt he owed it to his friends. > > McGonagall keeps stressing that Gryffindors should never gang > > up on another person, and I can't think that JKR isn't going to > > show us why. But I could be wrong;-) > Valky: > How does the Pensieve scene imply that James and Sirius would kill > Snape? I think that what Pippin means (and I'm sorry if I'm wrong) it's that if you take the Prank like a isolated 'incident', like we could do before OOTP, it was possible that it was an exceptional act of violence, and that Snape exaggerated, and saw a very bad and dangerous act of stupidy like a try to murderer him. With the pensieve, and Lily's words, we know that it happened often, that Snape suffered (and probably give) more attacks than just the prank. He could see this like a peak of the Marauder's goal, and so, honestly believe that they want his death, at least three of them (he had no reason to believe that it was only Sirius's idea). Am I right, Pippin? Christelle, who wonder where was Peter this night, and how Sirius though explain a corpse when Prongs, Wormtail and himself would rejoin Moony, like they do every months. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 20 15:50:27 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:50:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113464 Since I am a teacher (English Comp.), I wanted to add my two cents on Snape being so mean to Neville (and others, excluding Harry--I think Harry is in a class by himself vis-a-vis Snape Nastiness). I'll state at the outset that I do think Snape's teaching methods are, er, counterproductive, in addition to being mean. Most of the interpretations that I've seen say either "Snape uses nastiness as a motivational tool," or "Snape is nasty because he enjoys upsetting students." These *may* be true, but my classroom experience suggests a third interpretation: "Snape cares deeply about his subject, and considers what he's teaching to be so basic, that Neville's apparent idiocy is so deeply frustrating that Snape loses his temper." Teaching students who simply *do not get it* is enough to drive even a completely reasonable person half crazy. (Today, for example, I gave a quiz on sentence fragments and run-ons, and a young woman who is taking my class for the second time interpreted the instructions as meaning to turn the run-ons into fragments, and vice versa. Or something. I'm really not sure what she was trying to do. If I'd had the option of poisoning her toad, I'm not sure I would have been able to restrain myself.) And, as has been noted in the context of McGonagall, Hogwarts apparently considers publically commenting on students' inadequacies as a way of shaming them into increased effort an acceptable educational philosophy. Making students feel bad about themselves is, apparently, *allowed*. Neville's potions mistakes are presented in the books as fairly basic failure to follow directions (eg, usage of an excessive number of spleens). Snape puts directions on the board, and Neville, apparently, either ignores them or for some reason finds them difficult to understand. *We*, having the benefit of distance from the situation, can grasp that Neville, being scared out of his wits, is unable to bring his full attention to following the directions. But on the ground, that can look an awful lot like "the little brat just doesn't care enough to pay attention." Failure to follow simple directions drives nearly all teachers straight up the wall. Of course in a modern US school one is simply not permitted to lose one's temper, no matter how imbecilic students are being, but, as noted above, Hogwarts seems to have a different policy. I'm not saying I *approve* of Snape's teaching methods--Neville would surely learn better if he managed to adopt a more patient and understanding attitude--but I don't think outright sadism is necessary to explain him. Alex From hautbois1 at comcast.net Mon Sep 20 17:15:36 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:15:36 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113465 Angie wrote: > I just finished reading SS again, and it occurred to me that a > frog is not the ideal pet to give to a forgetful, clumsy boy. New here! But I've thought the same thing. Neville seems to be the only boy who has a toad, and JKR is constantly reminding us of Trevor's existence. I've wondered if maybe Trevor will play a larger role later on. The only thing I can think of that would involve a toad is hatching a basilisk...hmmmm. It's a thought, if it's rather farfetched. Pat From yonnab at cox.net Mon Sep 20 19:31:59 2004 From: yonnab at cox.net (Yonna) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:31:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113466 SSSusan "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Granted, he might still have had difficulty opening the > chamber [is the parseltongue required to open the SINK > entrance or the serpent DOOR down below?], Yonna Here: In CoS, Am. edition, soft back page 381. Harry is trying to open the CoS at the girls sink entrance and says," open up", Ron then looks at Harry and says, "English". Harry then wills himself to believe the snake on the faucet is really alive by moving his head and letting the candle light flicker. At this point Harry says,(quote from CoS book) "Open up" again, except this time words weren't what he heard; a strange hissing had escaped him, and at once the tap glowed with a brilliant white light and began to spin. Later in Cos, page 387, Harry is at the serpent entrance and...(Text from CoS) He could guess what he had to do. He cleared his throat, and the emerald eyes seemed to flicker. "Open" said Harry, in a low faint hiss. The serpents parted as the wall cracked open,... So with this bit of information I would say yes. Parseltongue is required to open the Cos sink entrance and the serpent door below. If not, anyone could simply open the CoS and not the "only" the true heir to Slytherin. From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 21:30:44 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:30:44 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113467 I'm playing around with the idea that Luna has been introduced as an all-purpose opposition to Hermione. I figure this character is required because Hermione's other nemeses (is that even a word?), namely Trelawney and Skeeter, don't seem to be taking anything more than a bit part in the action, and Hermione definitely deserves better than that. Luna, on the other hand, provides this opposition in spades. Luna is an... 'intuitive' thinker, shall we say, vs. Hermione's straight up rationalist approach to the world. I suspect she will provide romantic competition for Hermione vis a vis Ron. And as flakey as she presents, Luna is no pushover. I'd like to hear what others here think. Rob From feklar at verizon.net Mon Sep 20 22:13:29 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:13:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE!Fudge References: Message-ID: <00e301c49f5f$0f6da550$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113468 HAnnah: > Crouch Jr. is a fanatical LV supporter - would he have gone along > with anything that Malfoy, who'd immediately run to the ministry > pleading the imperio curse, suggested? Also, Bella and company are > hardly 'fringe' supporters. They're the loyalest of the lot. > I think this is why the other DEs wanted to get rid of them. By > seeing that Crouch Jr. and Bella got sent to Azkaban, they removed > the fanatical DEs who weren't just going to let things rest, and > were either going to suceed in resurrecting LV, or just run around > making trouble for the other ex-death eaters, who were trying to > build up a veneer of respectability. > > So the other DEs arrange for this loyal faction to be identified as > the torturers of the Longbottoms. It's a dead cert they'll all be > thrown into Azkaban. The discrediting of Crouch Sr. is a useful > extra consequence of this. They'd have had to find another way > otherwise. Feklar: I don't have a book with me, but weren't they all caught at the scene of the crime? Malfoy or one of the others dropping the dime on them does make sense to me. Another reason that occurs to me: There was a vacuum for the social and political leadership of pureblood elitists. By getting rid of the others Malfoy may have gotten rid of competitors for that leadership. Feklar From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Mon Sep 20 23:25:34 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:25:34 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113469 Angie: > > Hmmm . . . interesting. I never thought about why Moody attacked > > Draco; I thought he was trying to get on Harry's good side. I suspect he also did it because that's what bullies do, and the DE's are nothing if not bullies. (E.g., The Muggle tormenting during the World Cup, etc.) Rob From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 00:19:55 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:19:55 -0000 Subject: Further more... (furthermore?) [Re: Book 6 forshadowing in CoS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113470 Neha: > ...but it still doesn't prove that Harry is the one > suggested by the Prophecy; even though Harry fits all other > requirements of the prophecy pretty well, I still don't know if he > has any powers not known to Lord Voldemort- couldn't anybody else > have had the same innocence and purity of feeling as Harry? > Furthermore, Jo is hardly to follow the usual lines which she > has suggested; she will surely beat even Harry and Neville as the > killers of Voldemort; what I don't get is 'the one' suggested by > the prophecy can apply to a whole universe of creatures not even > human. I can't think of situation where subsequent facts have contradicted something DD has said definitively, so I don't think we have to worry about who the prophecy is referring to. In short, we can take DD's word for it. But just in case you can't, try looking at it this way. For JKR to introduce another agent as the actual prophecy target would be, in my mind, one of the worst examples of Deus Ex Machina, and quite frankly, I think she's too good a writer. Rob From sewabearbear at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 00:22:57 2004 From: sewabearbear at yahoo.com (sewabearbear) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:22:57 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: <001d01c49e3c$de3cf620$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113471 DuffyPoo wrote: > Especially since, IMO, TR's mother is much more in the wrong, yet TR doesn't seem to include her in his wrath. He appears to hold her in higher regard in this situation. Considering that she deceived Riddle, Sr for at the least, some weeks and at the most, possibly a couple years, then once they were married, and she was pregnant, she informed her Dear Hubby that 'oh, by the way, I'm a witch and I've been lying to you for all this time.' [Snip] I think we're missing some info on TR's mum. If TR is Slytherin's descendent, she must be too. What was she like? The original Salazar Slytherin didn't seem as evil as TR. SS co-founded the school after all and coexisted with the other founders for a while. Also, the circumstances about her death seems weird to me. I think we were told that she died giving birth to TR. This doesn't seem to make sense considering all those wizard cures they have. Hagrid was offended when he found that Harry believed that his parents died in a car crash. Can child birth kill a wizard then? Sarah From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 20 17:19:03 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:19:03 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113472 > Pippin wrote: > > I was re-reading Dudley Demented yesterday, and I realized it > > contains the Snape fan's holy grail--a possible insight into > > what is going on in our potion master's greasy little head when > > he torments Harry. > > snip. > > If you substitute Snape for Harry, and Harry for Dudley, it > > sounds like it could fit, though of course Snape's old memories > > are of James, not Harry. But as it's all in the subconscious > > anyway, and Snape wouldn't *know* that's why it feels so good > > to taunt Harry, it wouldn't signify. > SSSusan : > It *was* a nice analysis, and it certainly gives one pause, > because a lot of it strikes me as fair comparison. > > The one thing which REALLY hits me as a difference between them, > though, is that Harry is 15 and Snape is 35 or 36. Putting together > the two points that Harry *isn't* James and that Snape is more than > twice Harry's age, it seems he SHOULD be able to control himself a > bit better than Harry, eh? I would expect an adult to have managed > a little self-reflection and to have a better grasp of what resides > in his subconscious--especially when this same someone has managed > to change from being a DE to being an Order member. barmaid's two cents: This analysis is great and I think important. DD thought what Susan thinks. Snape is an adult and must be "over" the past. But alas DD was wrong -- had not accounted for the fact that Snape had not cleared out all the emotional baggage of his childhood and adolescent years. And why does this surprise us? I am older than Snape and am still often brought up short by some habitual emotional response I have -- clearly rooted in some wacky childhood insecurity -- clearly not at all about the who and when I am dealing with here and now. Snape is very high functioning, but he is a dry drunk, an adult child, whatever psycholabel we want to use. His issues are not fully dealt with -- but the fact that he seems to have chosen the "good", chosen to put himself under the authority of DD, gives us hope that over the long haul he may make it. --barmaid From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 01:11:09 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:11:09 -0000 Subject: 2 serpents /was Dumbledore in CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113473 > > Geoff: > > (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.225 UK edition) > > > > 'And then, at last, as he crept around yet another bend, he saw a solid wall ahead on which two entwined serpents were carved, their eyes set with great, glinting emeralds. snip> > Tonks: Reading this I thought of the 2 smoke serpents that Dumbledore saw in Book 5. "In essence divided". So does this all involve both Harry and LV? Do both have to open the Chamber of Secrets? There is something about the 2 serpents here and in book 5. Any ideas as to what it all means? Isn't there some symbol of something, other than the doctors, from ancient times? Also does there have to be 2 Baskilisks?? Is Trevor getting friendly with a chicken?? Tonks_op (as confused as everyone else) From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Sep 21 01:12:11 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:12:11 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113474 Colin wrote: This has been bothering me, given as Bella mentions, that for Voldy to turn up at the Ministry would alert the world to his return, why does he turn up after the fight when nothing can be done to save prophecy which he has spent 6 months encouraging Harry to come get?>> snipping some of Hannah; What bothers me is that Voldy doesn't have to alert the world to his return by entering the Ministry of Magic. Unlike Hogwarts, there do not appear to be any restrictions on apparating or disapparating within the Ministry... *big snip* ...So as far as I can tell, the prophecy itself was unguarded and could have been snatched by Voldy with very little effort on his part and with very little risk of his being caught. ~Phyllis now; *snip* What I don't understand is why Voldy not only proceeds to try to hit Harry with an AK, but also possesses Harry. Voldy has spent all of this time trying to obtain the prophecy so he can hear what it says in order to have his next attack on Harry succeed. Granted, he now knows the prophecy has been destroyed, but has he no back-up plan?? He just recklessly AKs and possesses Harry without a single clue as to what the potential ramifications are. Voldy is definitely *not* a master strategist in this scene. Becki now; My thought has been all along that Voldy's downfall will be his own ego. (If it weren't for that dang prophecy!). He constantly underestimates Harry in his quest for power. He proclaims that he is the most powerful wizard, well, he may be powerful, but not too bright. Remember what Hermione said in the Chamber of Secrets, (paraphrasing here), that many wizards may be good at magic, but don't have an ounce of logic (could also mean common sense). Could this apply to Voldy? He makes many mistakes. One of his biggest ones, (IMO) was when he gave Harry his wand in the graveyard to duel. What was he thinking!? Again, his ego. He wanted to prove to the DE that a "kid" could not be greater than him, therefore underestimating Harry yet again. There is a reason that Harry is the chosen one. Perhaps one day, he will be known as the greatest wizard of his time. Becki From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 01:38:29 2004 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:38:29 -0000 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" wrote: > In reply to this post I got 2 responses. One pointed out that the > name Thomas actually means twin. The other said there was a Mark > Twain story about twins separated at birth, whose names were Tom and > Chamber. > That might have been me. To clarify it, even more interestingly, the boys in that story (The Tragedy of Puddin'head Wilson) were switched and raised with each others' identities, and not twins from the same birth-- but also, there were other twins in the story as well! A.J. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 01:39:35 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:39:35 -0000 Subject: Difficult Choice / Warlock / Hag / Homorphus / HarryVsSnape / Kreachur / Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113476 Pippin wrote previously: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113227 : > > << How would Harry laughing off Snape's treatment of him give > Snape more enjoyment? If Harry cheerfully said, "I can see I'll > have to study more if I want to do well in this class, sir" would > Snape derive some twisted pleasure from it? >> Catlady: > No, it would enrage Snape so that Snape would give Harry a detention > and lost-points for insolence with absolutely no excuse. Alla: Oh, thank you very much for saying that. I think we had the detailed discussion on what Harry should do to improve his relationship with Snape and I was of the opinion that NOTHING would help it, until Snape would see Harry for Harry. If Harry would treat Snape differently, he would do it because he decides to be a better person than Snape and I strongly believe that he would do it at the end, right now it is just not the time for it for the plot reasons , but I sincerely doubt that it would help anything. Pippin wrote previously: > << If Harry said, "I was sorry to learn that my father treated you so > badly when you were at school, and I wish there was something I could > do about it" would you think less of him? >> Catlady: > Do you think Snape would manage to die of shame on the spot if Harry > said that? Alla: LOL! I most certaindly don't think so. I think Snape. would find some nonexistant irony in Harry's words and finds an excuse to take more points of him Catlady: > OTOH, none of the House Elves at Hogwarts call Dumbledore a > Mudblood-loving blood-traitor who broke his poor mother's hearts, Alla: Nods her head in agreement. Catlady: > Only grace (which is bestowed by God, gods, > Jungian collective unconscious, whatever) can improve Snape by making > him feel compassion instead of pleasure at someone else's pain, can > improve the alcoholic by making him not want the alcoholic beverage in > front of him, can make the would-be gay person feel *arousedly > attracted* to someone of the same sex. Snape could *seek* that grace > by trying very hard to imagine what he would feel like if he were the > other person, but trying is no guarantee of succeeding. > Alla: I think our weekend discussion with Pippin got many people a bit confused. :o) I think that Pippin was arguing that Snape is uncapable to control his urges to hurt other people (namely Harry) at all.(Pippin, sorry if I am wrong) I was arguing that he had to try and do that, no matter how badly he was hurt in the past, it does not excuse him. It certainly helps us understand him though. I think I agree with you there is no guarantee that he will succeed, but you never know untill you try. From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Sep 21 01:44:56 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:44:56 -0000 Subject: LV in the MoM (Was re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113477 SSSusan writes; Still, the original argument holds about Voldy being able to disguise himself if he went to the MoM, but I don't think he could've apparated directly into the DoM. After all, that stuff's supposed to be top secret. Would be pretty crappy security if people could just apparate in. Becki adds her 2 knuts worth; But that is it, isn't it. Crappy security. Not a soul, at least not that we saw when the "Rescue Squad" arrived at the MoM. If the DE's could clear that place out like that to make Harry's way unobstructed, why could they not do the same for "Their Master"? I guess like the previous poster said, it wouldn't have made for a very good storyline. Becki ( who wants to apologize to Lexicon Steve for not posting that the open letter was also available at the Lexicon. Still waiting Jo :D ). From karen at dacafe.com Tue Sep 21 02:02:28 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:02:28 -0000 Subject: Apparating into the DoM (WAS: LV in the MoM) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" wrote: > SSSusan: > > > I thought the general consensus was that, while people can apparate > > into the main LOBBY area of the MoM building, they CAN'T apparate > > into a restricted area such as the Dept. of Mysteries. > Phyllis wrote: > I guess where this breaks down for me is why Dumbledore would feel > the need to bind the DEs he's rounded up in the Department of > Mysteries with an anti-disapparation jinx. Perhaps one can > disapparate from the DoM without being able to apparate there? It > would just seem to me that if you can disapparate from a location, > you should be able to apparate to that location as well. But maybe > the DoM is an exception to the rule. Or perhaps Dumbledore put the > anti-disapparation jinx on the DEs as an added precaution, in case > Voldemort had found a way around the disapparation restrictions. > > Or perhaps Rowling's never analyzed it as closely as I have ;-) > kmc adds: Since Arthur can apparate to work, IMO a wizard can apparate to designated arrival/departure places by not just anywhere in the DoM. When the members of the DA run from the DEs, they lock the doors in one of the rooms. The DEs do not apparate into this room but come through a door that Luna was just trying to lock. DD's anti-aparation jinx was to keep the DEs from apparating out of the binds and continuing the fight. It appears that they could apparate with in a room but not in and out of the rooms. Otherwise the Order and DD would have apparated into the room and not entered by the door at the top of the stairs. - kmc From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 02:12:36 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:12:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113479 Alex Boyd wrote: > Since I am a teacher (English Comp.), I wanted to add my two cents > on Snape being so mean to Neville (and others, excluding Harry--I > think Harry is in a class by himself vis-a-vis Snape Nastiness). > I'll state at the outset that I do think Snape's teaching methods > are, er, counterproductive, in addition to being mean. > > Most of the interpretations that I've seen say either "Snape uses > nastiness as a motivational tool," or "Snape is nasty because he > enjoys upsetting students." These *may* be true, but my classroom > experience suggests a third interpretation: "Snape cares deeply > about his subject, and considers what he's teaching to be so > basic, that Neville's apparent idiocy is so deeply frustrating > that Snape loses his temper." > > Teaching students who simply *do not get it* is enough to drive > even a completely reasonable person half crazy.... > And, as has been noted in the context of McGonagall, Hogwarts > apparently considers publically commenting on students' > inadequacies as a way of shaming them into increased effort an > acceptable educational philosophy. Making students feel bad > about themselves is, apparently, *allowed*. > > Neville's potions mistakes are presented in the books as fairly > basic failure to follow directions (eg, usage of an excessive > number of spleens). Snape puts directions on the board, and > Neville, apparently, either ignores them or for some reason finds > them difficult to understand. *We*, having the benefit of > distance from the situation, can grasp that Neville, being scared > out of his wits, is unable to bring his full attention to > following the directions. But on the ground, that can look an > awful lot like "the little brat just doesn't care enough to pay > attention." Failure to follow simple directions drives nearly all > teachers straight up the wall. Of course in a modern US school > one is simply not permitted to lose one's temper, no matter how > imbecilic students are being, but, as noted above, Hogwarts seems > to have a different policy. I'm not saying I *approve* of Snape's > teaching methods--Neville would surely learn better if he managed > to adopt a more patient and understanding attitude--but I don't > think outright sadism is necessary to explain him. SSSusan: For what it's worth, I've argued this same thing in the past, albeit not in as amusing a form as your post. JKR *is* the one who used the term "sadistic" about Snape, though: "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say" [The Connection, 12 October 1999]. Your point is still well taken, though, that, as a potions *master*, and especially if teaching wasn't necessarily his life's dream, Snape may well become extremely frustrated w/ students like Neville (and Harry) who seem inattentive, incapable of following precise instructions, or, worse yet, to not take the exercises seriously. I've wondered here before whether Snape might not be a much better teacher w/ his NEWT-level classes, since the "riff-raff" has been weeded out. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who taught social studies in a U.S. school, and so who understands what you mean about the differences in educational philosophy between us and Hogwarts. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 02:12:36 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:12:36 -0000 Subject: Difficult Choice / Warlock / Hag / Homorphus / HarryVsSnape / Kreachur / Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Theotokos wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112930 : > > << I have read information on the Lexicon and other places I cannot > recall but there does not appear to be a definitive definition > /distinction between warlock and wizard. Anyone know more about this? Has JKR ever been asked to clarify? Are they simply synonyms? >> > > Here is a reply that I gave to that request about a month ago: > None of us know for sure (or if someone does, they haven't told). snip> > In those threads, Steve b_boymn suggests that 'wizards' are Western > European and 'warlocks' are Eastern European. That doesn't explain why Dumbledore's title as chairman of the Wizengamot is Chief Warlock, and why Quidditch, a sport invented in England, is called 'the noble sport of warlocks'. Tonks here: History of Magic 101 There are different categories of magic practitioners. Warlock is a male Witch. JKR has mudded the waters because she is not using some of the terms properly. I assume that she is doing this to go along with popular terminology. It is not her intent to teach Witchcraft and therefore she does not concern herself with the proper use of the terms. The first level of Magic practitioner is a warlock/witch. Members of this group are also called sorcerers/sorceresses. They are the ones most likely to practice Dark Magic, according to some sources. The second class is the Magician, and there is no mention of this group in the books so we will skip over them. The highest level is the Magus or wise man/wise woman. Wizard/Crone to be exact. Hag is a pejorative term used by those who did not have an understanding or appreciation of Magic. "A wizard(or crone) is a person who is a super magician and employs hidden knowledge to penetrate to the very meaning of life." The Magi who followed the star to the birth of Jesus were Wizards. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 02:15:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:15:11 -0000 Subject: Weak and Evil!Fudge and the missing wands (was: Re: Old Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113481 > KathyK wrote: > > Isn't it possible that Pettigrew made a quick stop somewhere and > stashed Voldemort's robes and wand before Sirius found him "next > day?" So that the only extra stuff he could conceivebley have on > him is his own wand and maybe one extra set of bloody robes? That's > the first thing I thought when JKR said Pettigrew had taken LV's > things. Carol responds: That's what I think, too. He hid LV's wand and robe and returned them *much* later. They have nothing to do with the confrontation with Sirius, which apparently occurred the next day. > KathyK wrote: > I have not and will not ever concede Fudge a DE or DE sympathizer. > In his own way he's evil and in OoP he winds up helping a > resurrected Voldemort remain hidden for almost a year. Something I > haven't given a lot of thought to but might consider is that in the > beginning, much like the Black family, Fudge thought Voldemort had > the right idea so far as issues of Wizarding blood go. But he > worked for the Ministry. I think he saw firsthand what Voldemort > and his Death Eaters were up to and concluded he ought to stay on > the Ministry's side, despite his prejudices. > > Carolyn: > > > I've always questioned how he could simultaneously blow a huge > hole in the ground and cut his finger off with his hands behind his > back. Mad Eye wasn't joking when he said to Harry: 'Better wizards than you have lost buttocks, you know!' > > KathyK (responding to Carolyn): > > Hmm...Do you think it's possible he had time to blow up the street > and *then* cut off his finger before he transformed? I mean, I > always pictured him chopping the finger off as he was yelling about > Sirius' betrayal. But maybe it happened the other way around. I'd > think he'd have to blow up the street pretty quickly before Sirius > killed him. Either way, he had to cut off his finger pretty quickly > to make sure his plan worked the way it was intended--*Without* help > from Fudge. ;-) > > KathyK, whose copy of PoA is beginning to fall apart :-( Carol: Unlike Carolyn, I *do* think that the same spell that blew off his finger blew the street apart. (Sirius's account of the confrontation in PoA is extremely confused and mixed up with other things, but he does say that Peter had his wand behind his back, which means that he couldn't see what Peter was doing. We can't tell how many spells there were or what the sequence was--only that *he* came after Peter, who accused him of betraying the Potters. As for Fudge, he's doing what we're doing, reconstructing the events based on partial evidence and inaccurate witness accounts but with the assumption that Sirius is guilty.) PP could have quickly unfastened his cloak (as opposed to "robes") with a bloody hand as he transformed into a rat. That seems more likely to me than a conspiracy involving Fudge, which requires that PP not only knew exactly where and when Sirius would confront him but that he had time to find Fudge and arrange for Fudge to be there. Note that Fudge did not come alone. He was *one* of the first to arrive, and Sirius was cornered by Hit Wizards while he was still laughing madly (the same laugh we hear in the Shrieking Shack in PoA). I *think* (though I find this incident thoroughly confusing) that Sirius followed Pettigrew's scent to London immediately after giving his motorbike to Hagrid and found PP in *Muggle London* soon afterwards. What PP was doing there I can't say unless he was a half-blood or a Muggleborn. It certainly seems like an odd place for a staged or planned confrontation involving Cornelius Fudge. I assume that Fudge or a more senior Ministry official detected magic in a Muggle area and arrived on the spot for that reason. They must have known that the damage was severe in terms of both property and lives, or else when they saw the hole in the street and the dead Muggles everywhere they had some means of summoning the Hit Wizards to subdue the madman who had *apparently* cast the spell. IMO, we can arrive at something like the truth by combining Fudge's account with Sirius's, but there are still gaps to be filled. Stan Shunpike's account, which seems to be the distorted version of Fudge's that the WW as a whole believes can probably be discarded completely. Carol, who is tired of conspiracy theories and ESE!everybody Carol, who doesn't think that Fudge is evil, only weak and easily manipulated From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 02:16:00 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:16:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113482 Yonna: > So with this bit of information I would say yes. Parseltongue is > required to open the Cos sink entrance and the serpent door below. > If not, anyone could simply open the CoS and not the "only" the > true heir to Slytherin. SSSusan: But Harry *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin. So I guess what Harry was doing was opening the Chamber, whereas Tom unsealed it. At least that's the only way it makes sense to me. I asked in another post what would have happened if Harry had happened into Myrtle's bathroom *before* Diary!Tom unsealed the Chamber and had happened to hiss "Open it" to the faucet in Parseltongue. Presumably, since he *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin, the sink would not have budged? Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 02:23:08 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:23:08 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113483 Rob wrote: > I'm playing around with the idea that Luna has been introduced as an all-purpose opposition to Hermione. > Valky: At Last!!! someone who agrees with me. I said exactly this in my very first post after reading OOtp. That was a lot of posts ago... lol Rob also wrote: I figure this character is required because Hermione's other nemeses (is that even a word?), namely Trelawney and Skeeter, don't seem to be taking anything more than a bit part in the action, and Hermione definitely deserves better than that. Valky: Right you are! I never percieved Trelawney or Skeeter as being any challenge to Hermione anyway. These two characters simply *confirm* Hermiones cynicism and opposition to their intellectual ideals for her, where Luna actually puts up a respectable challenge. Hermione can't *prove* Luna a fool so she is left in her logic to accept the Lunacy that she would rather rebuke. Rob: > Luna is an... 'intuitive' thinker, shall we say, vs. Hermione's straight up rationalist approach to the world. I suspect she will provide romantic competition for Hermione vis a vis Ron. And as flakey as she presents, Luna is no pushover. > Valky: I entirely agree and I think that the opportunity is given here to Hermione to grow and become stronger by it. I think that the challenge of accepting what Luna , something Hermione cannot rationalise or exercise her logic to *control* (theres probably a better word than control here but I can't think of it ) may serve to help Hermione overcome her fear of failure when she most needs it, too. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Tue Sep 21 02:27:19 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:27:19 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > I'm playing around with the idea that Luna has been introduced as an > all-purpose opposition to Hermione. I figure this character is > required because Hermione's other nemeses (is that even a word?), > namely Trelawney and Skeeter, don't seem to be taking anything more > than a bit part in the action, and Hermione definitely deserves > better than that. > > Luna, on the other hand, provides this opposition in spades. Luna is > an... 'intuitive' thinker, shall we say, vs. Hermione's straight up > rationalist approach to the world. I suspect she will provide > romantic competition for Hermione vis a vis Ron. And as flakey as > she presents, Luna is no pushover. > > I'd like to hear what others here think. Pat here: I love Luna's character. She does seem to fill in the missing pieces of personality that Hermione lacks. It was fun to watch Hermione's attitude toward her change--at first she was entirely annoyed with anything Luna did or said, but by the end, even though she thought she was still a bit wacky, she refrained from making a snide comment when Luna said where she and her dad were going on holiday. I don't know about anything romantic with Luna/Harry or Luna/Ron. But I do think she will be the person who gives Harry permission, so to speak, to open up about his grief as well as his anger. Hermione is very perceptive--as we saw with her explanation to the boys about what girls are thinking and feeling. But when Harry has a problem, she's ready to jump in and fix it. Luna seems more likely to just let him talk, with a few comments to let him know that she understands--such as their conversation at the end about ghosts and about the voices behind the veil. Right now, Harry needs a good listener, and I think that is going to be Luna. Pat > > Rob From harriet_lupin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 00:59:40 2004 From: harriet_lupin at yahoo.com (harriet_lupin) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:59:40 -0000 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113485 JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know that D cannot kill V. Maybe what JKR is referring to pertains to the things that V did to himself to try and gain immortality. I feel that Harry may be the only one who could penetrate this "wall" that may be surrounding V. Now, I'm really babbling on.... Any thoughts? Harriet From lorelei_2 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 01:14:20 2004 From: lorelei_2 at hotmail.com (Laurie Suiter) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:14:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question re. portraits vs. photos... References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113486 Does anyone know what the difference between portraits and photos is? I've been wondering why they can both move but only portraits (painted, I presume) seem able to speak to and interact with the wizarding world. Here are my rambling thoughts... 1. If Harry had a painting of Sirius/James/Lily/etc., would he/she/they be able to help Harry, et. al.? 2. Do you think "Art" might be a 6th or 7th year Hogwarts class, wherein the young witches and wizards learn to paint sentient beings? 3. Has anyone else wondered about the statuary, whether ALL can move (like the hump-backed witch in CoS or the gargoyle outside DD's office) or just those charmed to do so? 4. If a witch/wizard doodles, are they animated? Laurie S. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lorelei_2 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 01:02:51 2004 From: lorelei_2 at hotmail.com (Laurie Suiter) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:02:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's housemates References: <20040920210210.29849.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113487 juli17 at aol.com wrote: Or, maybe Snape wasn't Slytherin, but he was invited into the Slytherin proto-Death Eaters gang because it was such a coup to get someone from another house to join their evil clan (especially if Snape was from Gyffindor). As others have noted, we still don't have any conclusive canon that Snape was in Slytherin. karyn says: I just assumed that Snape was a Slytherin since he's head of the Slytherin house. Can you really become head of a house without having belonged to it all the time? Another newbie (Laurie S.) tentatively raises a hand to speak (definitely lacking Hermione's confidence amongst this omniscient crowd)... Is it possible Snape could have had a Sorting similar to Harry's, wherein the hat *could* place him in one or more houses? I don't know what that would mean, exactly, if anything... Can anyone imagine the havoc to be wreaked if the sinister Severus were head of Hufflepuff?? Laurie S. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 02:46:26 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:46:26 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > Since I am a teacher (English Comp.), I wanted to add my two cents on Snape being so mean to Neville (snip) my classroom experience suggests a third interpretation: "Snape cares deeply about > his subject, and considers what he's teaching to be so basic, that > Neville's apparent idiocy is so deeply frustrating that Snape loses > his temper." > (snip) > Alex Tonks here: I just love your post!! I agree. I don't think that Snape is a sadist trying to hurt his students. And I know that teaching in U.S. schools has changed a LOT since I was in school in the 50's, early 60's. Snapes methods are the way teachers use to do it. I think the Buddist masters do something like that to their students at times. I know a young man (40ish) who has parents who are teachers and I have watched him "teach" new hires how to do their job. Let me tell you... he is cruel.. just like and worse than Snape. I have never been one of his charges, thank God, because I would have killed him. Since he is not my boss, I know him as a nice guy. But somewhere (I suspect from his parents, poor guy) he learned this belittling type of teaching method. Perhaps Snape learned this style also and just does it without realizing what a cruel method it is. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 03:00:40 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:00:40 EDT Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: <1d4.2a70314e.2e80f358@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113489 In a message dated 9/20/2004 7:44:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > DuffyPoo wrote: > > >Especially since, IMO, TR's mother is much more in the wrong, yet > TR doesn't seem to include her in his wrath. He appears to hold her > in higher regard in this situation. Considering that she deceived > Riddle, Sr for at the least, some weeks and at the most, possibly a > couple years, then once they were married, and she was pregnant, she > informed her Dear Hubby that 'oh, by the way, I'm a witch and I've > been lying to you for all this time.' > [Snip] > TR's mother is more in the wrong in her marriage, and vis a vis her husband. But she's not the one who willfully abandoned her son and left him in an orphanage. Whatever happened between TR's parents, and whoever is more to blame for the failure of the marriage, that's really unrelated to TR, at least from his POV. His mother died, so she couldn't prove or disprove her love, but his father rejected him coldly and deliberately. That's no doubt foremost in TR's mind when he's focusing his wrath on his father. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 03:05:37 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:05:37 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK (was: Re: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113490 GEO: What was used at GH was hardly a countercharm. It was a wide > blanketing protection against Voldemort and his powers created by > the act of Voldemort killing Lily. Countercharms and curses are more > like spells that are spoken or used by the wand. What happened there > was more of an unconscious magical act by Lily and definitely not a > countercharm or curse. > > > If this were true then whatever killing curse was used (on Harry) > at > > GH could not have been an AK, which cannot be countered. > > GEO: And the spell wasn't countered. Remember it left a scar on > Harry and rebounded and destroyed Voldemort's body and quite a bit > of the house. Mac replied: AK *has* been 'countered' - three times by Dumbledore at the climax of OotP - despite what Barty Jr!Moody said in GoF about its being unblockable: First, the wizard statue gets in the way to protect Harry (and subsequently pushes him out of the way of the 'high noon' scene between DD and LV). Then, a 2nd AK from LV (at DD) hits the security guard's desk and blitzes it (like the destruction in GH but unlike the idea from Ch.1 GoF that AK 'leaves no mark'). The last (3rd AK) is swallowed by Fawkes, who dies as a result, but this is OK because he can regenerate (intersting btw since Fawkes gave the feather that allowed this spell to be produced!). All of this shows, and not for for the first time (since HP avoids LV's AK by virtue of an intervening headstone in the graveyard scene of GoF), that the 'unblockable' curse is, in fact, countered three times, albeit by the most powerful wizard ever (DD I mean, though you can substitute HP as possibly being even more powerful, not LV) - the chapter is called 'the only one he ever feared' - though this may mean HP take on LV rather than LV's on DD (or even HP?). Snow replying to Mac's rebuttal evidence: I don't believe that any of the instances you quoted were countering the AK, or killing curse, but I do see how your examples were shielding the curse. (I guess there is a difference) Crouch Jr. said that there was no countercurse but he never said that it could not be shielded. So although the AK may not be countered, it can be shielded. I still think Lily used a shield charm of protection like the protego charm that Harry used against Snape during Occlumency (difference being she used herself as the shield of protection, hence the blood protection). The effect, if Lily had used this same type charm, could have had somewhat the same effect as in the lesson with Snape except that Harry retained the part of Voldemort that rebounded (like Snape's memory). Voldemort clearly did not protect his mortal body with his endeavors to insure immortality. The killing curse ripped Voldemort from his body but his soul, or being, was protected through his attempts at assuring himself immortality. If you look back at the incident in Occlumency with Snape, Snape says `ENOUGH' before his memories, that Harry is viewing, are returned to him which left Snape shaking slightly and white in the face as if it were an effort. Harry also had a staggering effect from this encounter. Voldemort's body would have been separated from Vodemort's being before he could have retaliated against Harry's protection to stop the process. With no body in which to perform the command, Harry retained part of Voldemort. This protego effect is only seen during the use of Legilemens from Snape on Harry therefore for this to be the effect that took place at GH, Voldemort would have had to be using Legilemens. I think it was...for several reasons: The constant reminder that there is something about Lily's eyes and Harry's (you need eye contact in Legilemency) along with the description of the effect that is produced when both spells are used. I don't see Voldemort intentionally killing Harry, at least not right off. You would think that power hungry Voldemort would have been at least a little curious as to what this `power' was or if this baby indeed had any powers at all before proceeding to kill the child. I'm going to base my suspicions that Voldemort was curious on Diary Tom's curiosity of meeting with Harry for the same reasons; to see if there was anything special about him. Voldemort was informed that an unknown seer had made a prophecy about him and a baby who has a power to vanquish him that will be born at the end of July, that's all he knows. Why would Voldemort take this bit of information so seriously as to set out `himself' and destroy the child? I think that it was just curiosity. I don't think Voldemort set out to kill Harry or his parents. This is why Voldemort said step aside to Lily; he just wanted to view the child, at first. If he found the baby to be a threat then he would kill him. What Voldemort saw when he finally looked at Harry (Legilemens) were Lily's eyes. Why would Voldemort, if he merely wanted the child dead, have gone himself to perform the task? Why take any risk if he thought the baby were a threat. Why not have one of his henchmen do the dirty deed. After all that's how Voldemort has always performed. Voldemort rarely kills anyone himself. Sirius said that Regulus was most likely killed on orders from Voldemort because Regulus wasn't important enough to have been killed by him. If you look at the priori incantatem, Cedric was killed by Pettigrew, Frank Bryce was killed by Voldy, Bertha was iffy as to who killed her because Voldy most likely did not have his body back at that point so again it was probably Pettigrew. Voldy killed Harry's father but Harry's mother didn't have to die, or so says Voldemort, but he did kill her in the end. The only other person(s) that have been thought to have been killed directly by Voldemort are his father and grandparents whom I still have my suspicions about even though Crouch Jr. states that Voldemort killed his father. One of Voldemort's newly acquired death eaters, as homage to his devotedness, would be more Voldy's style. I doubt that Voldemort would have seen his muggle father or grandparents as being important enough to be killed directly by him. Then there is Dorcas Meadowes who is the only person said to be killed by Voldemort himself from the picture of the original Order. Even Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom but by the basalisk. Voldemort normally sends someone to do his bidding. Voldemort doesn't like to kill he likes to use and control others to take his revenge. I doubt that Voldemort wanted to kill James or Lily either because they may be of some future use to him if he could control them, which he most likely made attempts at in the past (hence the defiance three times). In the case of baby Harry I feel that Voldemort was just led there by his own curiosity. It just doesn't fit the Voldemort type behavior for him to have taken the prophecy made by an `incompetent seer' seriously. If Voldemort had taken the baby as a serious threat he would not have been so calm as to ask Lily to step aside for any reason nor would he have put himself directly in danger by confronting a child that is said to have the power to destroy him. In conclusion, why would JKR have introduced the scene with Snape (Legilemens) and Harry (protego) when the memories Harry viewed were unimportant? If the memories were important Snape would have placed them in the pencieve previous to the lesson. After Snape's shocked encounter with Harry he viewed his thoughts that he had put in the pencieve earlier as if to check and see that `they' were still there. As we are all aware JKR introduces something only to refer to it later. I believe that this is the reason why we learned of the effect and affect of this scene. It was not to ponder on what Harry actually saw, which is the red herring, but how he obtained it and how Snape and Harry physically reacted to it. Snow- who apologizes again for the late post but life keeps throwing those curve balls that always take president over what I would rather be doing From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 03:15:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:15:57 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113491 Laurie S. > Another newbie (Laurie S.) tentatively raises a hand to speak (definitely lacking Hermione's confidence amongst this omniscient crowd)... > > Is it possible Snape could have had a Sorting similar to Harry's, wherein the hat *could* place him in one or more houses? I don't know what that would mean, exactly, if anything... > > Can anyone imagine the havoc to be wreaked if the sinister Severus were head of Hufflepuff?? Alla: Welcome, Laurie. I actually have a similar suspicion to yours. I do think that Snape's Sorting may have been very similar to Harry's and he either : Ended up in Gryffindor OR Made a choice opposite to Harry and ended up in Slytherin and went from there. Snape being in Gryffindor and somehow ending up with the gang of Slytherins, because Marauders rejected him is one of my favourite speculations. I have a quick question for Elves. I want to put "Snape turning out as Gryffindor at the end" in the Predictions folder. Can we still do that? From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 03:33:24 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:33:24 -0000 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "harriet_lupin" wrote: > JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask > but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked > it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... > > JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that > D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that > there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by > putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know > that D cannot kill V. > > Maybe what JKR is referring to pertains to the things that V did to > himself to try and gain immortality. I feel that Harry may be the > only one who could penetrate this "wall" that may be surrounding V. > > Now, I'm really babbling on.... Any thoughts? > > Harriet JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know that D cannot kill V. Maybe what JKR is referring to pertains to the things that V did to himself to try and gain immortality. I feel that Harry may be the only one who could penetrate this "wall" that may be surrounding V. Now, I'm really babbling on.... Any thoughts? Harriet Snow: I don't think it's babbling at all. In fact this is the reason Harry is the only one who can take Voldy down. Harry has been made Voldy's equal because he has part of Voldy. I wrote about this quite a while ago where I thought that Harry and Voldy were somewhat like conjoined twins. There connection was mental rather than physical. As with conjoined twins sometimes only one survives in the separation. The tie between Harry and Voldy was made at GH when Voldy made them equals by literally giving of himself to Harry. You did however make me think of a new topic if Voldy had immortality could he have unintentionally passed that on too? Wow! This would be a far cry from Harry surviving but without powers. Snow-A fate worse than death to outlive everyone you care about or who cared about you ask just about any older person From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 02:59:09 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:59:09 -0000 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113493 Harriet: > JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask > but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked > it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... Rob: It was my understanding that the question she's never asked is "Why didn't LV die" when he cursed Harry. Harriet: > JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that > D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that > there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by > putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know > that D cannot kill V. Rob: I'm not sure he was just stalling... Harriet: > Maybe what JKR is referring to pertains to the things that V did to > himself to try and gain immortality. I feel that Harry may be the > only one who could penetrate this "wall" that may be surrounding V. Rob: ... but I agree with you completely here. Those changes are alluded to in CoS when Harry says to Tom Riddle, "No one knows why you didn't die," or something to that effect. Also in CoS DD describes how Tom Riddle went through so many transformations that he was barely recognizable when he resurfaced as LV. LV also refers to these changes during the big exposition part near the end of GoF. Rob "I'll flog this theory 'til I'm dead or proven wrong!" Kristjansson From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 04:22:33 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:22:33 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113494 --- > [Snip] > Sarah wrote: > > I think we're missing some info on TR's mum. > Also, the circumstances about her death seems weird to me. I think > we were told that she died giving birth to TR. This doesn't seem to > make sense considering all those wizard cures they have. Can child birth kill a wizard then? > > Angie replies: Good point -- TR probably sucked the life force out of her! It seems like most of the things that have been easily "cured" were relatively minor: broken bones, bone replacements, blood loss, minor hexes. Things like that. To me, the fact that child birth can kill a wizard (or technically, I guess, a witch) is consistent with the fact that wizards can't raise the dead - meaning their power over life and death is limited. Like Muggle doctors, wizards can't cure everything. Sarah also wrote: Hagrid was offended when he found that Harry believed that his parents died in a car crash. Angie replies: True, but I think his offense was twofold: First, he was offended that the Dursleys had lied to Harry and belittled James and Lily's death. Second, as you seem to indicate, I believe it was a reference to the fact that James and Lily were powerful wizards and that it would have taken more than a mere car crash to kill them (which begs the question of whether Muggle-type illnesses or accidents can kill wizards in the first place). Thus, whether a an illness or accident is fatal may depend on the power of the particular witch/wizard. We don't know how strong a witch TR's mother was, although some may assume she was strong and that is where he got some of his power. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 04:29:42 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:29:42 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113495 Does anyone else wonder what "thrice defied" means in the prophecy in OOP? Does that mean Lily & James and the Longbottoms refused to join LV three times each? Or does "defy" mean something else? Regardless of what it means,why would LV give them a second or third chance to defy him? Unlike DD, I would imagine LV doesn't believe in second or third chances. Angie From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 21 04:30:36 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:30:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's housemates Message-ID: <20040921.003304.1984.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113496 Laurie S said: > Is it possible Snape could have had a Sorting similar to Harry's, > wherein the hat *could* place him in one or more houses? I don't > know what that would mean, exactly, if anything... Aura here: Well, I definatly think he could have been in Ravenclaw. But I imagine that even as a boy, Snape was *sneaky*, perhaps as a survival response to a childhood spent doing whatever he pleased without incurring his father's anger.[*] Someone once said they imagined Snape's bodytype as snake-like, good for lurking in the shadows and slipping places unnoticed. So while intelligence and studiousness are virtues to Snape, sneakiness and underhandedness are his lifeforce. :) And livelihood, considering he's been a spy for, well, more than 15 years, in a way. I'm of the opinion that he's been sucking up to Malfoy all these years because Snape, like DD and Neville's gmom, expected Vold to return. L again: > Can anyone imagine the havoc to be wreaked if the sinister Severus > were head of Hufflepuff?? I bet he can't stand the Hufflepuffs. Too nice. He shouts at them, and they never shout back. Clearly they're plotting something, no one's that nice. [*] I think the pensieve scene had to have been Snape's father yelling at someone, probably Snape's mother. If the "man" had been Snape, then who would the cowering, dark-haired child have been? Unless you want to theorize that Snape has a son.... in which case, theorize away. 'Cause how fun (er, I mean, horrifying) would that be? Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 21 04:19:25 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:19:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Neville Message-ID: <20040921.003304.1984.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113497 SSSusan said: > I've wondered here before whether Snape might not be a > much better teacher w/ his NEWT-level classes, since the "riff-raff" > has been weeded out. This is my interpretation exactly. Snape clearly adores his work, it's just the students that piss him off. NEWT students (1) chose to take higher-level potions and (2) are older (read: less annoying). Snape can feel like he's imparting truly interesting, important (in his opinion) lessons to them, and enjoy a classroom atmosphere with more a sophisticated attitude about his beloved Potions. I'd dare say that Snape even leans towards pleasant around the 7th years, or at least not constantly holding his anger at bay. Snape always reminds me of this high school Spanish teacher I had that we called Senora Psycho. In 9th grade, she was shrieky, weird, gave us impossible homework and horrifying midterms, and we thought she was just evil. 12th grade Spanish, though, was sort of a NEWT-level class -- you only took it if you had excellent Spanish grades previous, a talent at learning languages, and genuinly liked the culture. I had Senora Psycho again, and while I still felt she lacked some social skills, I could forgive most of her quirks, because difficult people are a part of life. More importantly, I was glad to be learning from a teacher who really did know and love her material, who expected more of her students than the rather low standards of the public school system's expectations, and really challenged us beyond the typical curriculem. I didn't like her, but I liked the class. Aura ~*~ Well that's a horse of a different color. Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 04:43:04 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:43:04 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113498 "gelite67" wrote: > Does anyone else wonder what "thrice defied" means in the prophecy in OOP? Does that mean Lily & James and the Longbottoms refused to join LV three times each? Or does "defy" mean something else? Regardless of what it means,why would LV give them a second or third chance to defy him? Unlike DD, I would imagine LV doesn't believe in second or third chances. > > Angie Valky: When JKR said she worded the prophecy *carefully* she sure did! The word defy is THIS ambiguous take a look: de?fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f) tr.v. de?fied, de?fy?ing, de?fies To oppose or resist with boldness and assurance: defied the blockade by sailing straight through it. To refuse to submit to or cooperate with: defied the court order by leaving the country. To be unaffected by; resist or withstand: "So the plague defied all medicines" (Daniel Defoe). To challenge or dare (someone) to do something: She defied her accusers to prove their charges. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- [Middle English defien, from Old French desfier, from Vulgar Latin *disfdre : Latin dis-, dis- + Latin fdus, faithful; see bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.] Synonyms: defy, brave, challenge, dare, face These verbs mean to confront boldly and courageously: an innovator defying tradition; braving all criticism; challenged the opposition to produce proof; daring him to deny the statement; faced her accusers. Defy \De*fy"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Defied; p. pr. & vb. n. Defying.] [F. d['e]fier, OF. deffier, desfier, LL. disfidare to disown faith or fidelity, to dissolve the bond of allegiance, as between the vassal and his lord; hence, to challenge, defy; fr. L. dis- + fides faith. See Faith, and cf. Diffident, Affiance.] 1. To renounce or dissolve all bonds of affiance, faith, or obligation with; to reject, refuse, or renounce. [Obs.] I defy the surety and the bond. --Chaucer. For thee I have defied my constant mistress. --Beau. & Fl. 2. To provoke to combat or strife; to call out to combat; to challenge; to dare; to brave; to set at defiance; to treat with contempt; as, to defy an enemy; to defy the power of a magistrate; to defy the arguments of an opponent; to defy public opinion. I once again Defy thee to the trial of mortal fight. --Milton. I defy the enemies of our constitution to show the contrary. --Burke. Discuss.... Valky LOL this should get us all the way to book six, yes? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 05:08:53 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:08:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113499 > Yonna: > > So with this bit of information I would say yes. Parseltongue is > > required to open the Cos sink entrance and the serpent door below. If not, anyone could simply open the CoS and not the "only" the true heir to Slytherin. > > SSSusan: > But Harry *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin. So I guess what Harry was doing was opening the Chamber, whereas Tom unsealed it. At least that's the only way it makes sense to me. I asked in another post what would have happened if Harry had happened into Myrtle's > bathroom *before* Diary!Tom unsealed the Chamber and had happened to hiss "Open it" to the faucet in Parseltongue. Presumably, since he *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin, the sink would not have budged? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Valky: Or that, as pippin has suggested, Tom was plotting and orchestrating Harry's entrance to the Chamber using Ginny before he took her into the chamber. I daresay that Tom, given that he is Slytherin and the alter ego of Lord Voldemort evil plotter of the century, wasn't wasting his time in Hogwarts chasing relatively insignificant individuals on a disorganised killing spree. He plotted and prepared for the new rise of Voldemort, surely. At the very least he created a secret entrance to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to Hogsmeade. So when Harry opened the chamber using Parselmouth the *true* heir of Slytherin was simply permitting Harry to believe that he was in control and was sneaking up on his enemy. When clearly he was not. And the only reason Harry's parselmouth worked on the Chamber entrance is that Tom allowed it to do so to facilitate luring Harry. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Sep 21 06:02:37 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:02:37 -0000 Subject: Wizarding health and hospitals (was: Re: Source of LV's evil nature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113500 Sarah wrote: > > I think we're missing some info on TR's mum. Also, the > > circumstances about her death seems weird to me. I think > > we were told that she died giving birth to TR. This doesn't seem > > to make sense considering all those wizard cures they have. Can > > child birth kill a wizard then? > > Angie replied: > Good point -- TR probably sucked the life force out of her! It > seems like most of the things that have been easily "cured" were > relatively minor: broken bones, bone replacements, blood loss, > minor hexes. Things like that. To me, the fact that child birth > can kill a wizard (or technically, I guess, a witch) is consistent > with the fact that wizards can't raise the dead - meaning their > power over life and death is limited. Like Muggle doctors, > wizards can't cure everything. Yb's turn: I always assumed TR was born in a Muggle hospital. I mean, if he was born in a Wizarding hospital (where Healers could possibly have saved his mother), why would he have been put in a Muggle orphanage? But Angie does make a good point, that it reiterates the fact that magic can't fix everything. Sarah also wrote: > > Hagrid was offended when he found that Harry believed that his > > parents died in a car crash. Angie replied: > True, but I think his offense was twofold: First, he was offended > that the Dursleys had lied to Harry and belittled James and Lily's > death. Second, as you seem to indicate, I believe it was a > reference to the fact that James and Lily were powerful wizards > and that it would have taken more than a mere car crash to kill > them (which begs the question of whether Muggle-type illnesses or > accidents can kill wizards in the first place). Thus, whether an > illness or accident is fatal may depend on the power of the > particular witch/wizard. We don't know how strong a witch TR's > mother was, although some may assume she was strong and that is > where he got some of his power. Yb, going "one for the road" style: Definitely on count one. Hagrid was enraged that the Dursley's had been lying to Harry for so long. I think some of the anger was building up from the time when he realized Harry knew /nothing/ about Hogwart's, or his parents, or their magical abilities. But I believe that Muggle-like accidents/illnesses can kill wizards (they are human, some more than others), just that a good healer can save cases normal Muggle doctors couldn't, given that the healers get there in time. If a car was coming at me, and I was a witch, I'd certainly try to Wingardium Leviosa it into the air, or transfigure it into a box of feathers or something. I think the reason we don't hear about Wizards dying because of Muggle-like accidents is because: 1) they avoid some of the potentially dangerous technology (like electricity and guns, for example) 2) they have very good healers available. I think St. Mungo's has an ER ward we didn't see--hence Arthur's life was saved in OotP. St. Mungo's probably has a ward specifically for life-threatening illnesses. I really doubt we saw all of St. Mungo's in OotP. and 3) They can apparate out of potentially dangerous situations, or use their powers to make said tight spots safer (like my car example above). Sounds good, good night. ~Yb From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 06:46:36 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:46:36 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowings/discoveries in Chamber of Secrets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113501 Finwitch: First, two thematic foreshadowings in the Chamber of Secrets. In the Chamber of Secrets, there's a theme of unrevealing the truth of the innocence of someone - or being falsely accused; this is what Prisoner of Azkaban was all about. Harry being falsely accused of doing underage magic as well as suspecting Draco goes with this as well. There's also a theme of being a *prisoner* for the sake of your own security, presented by Dobby's warning and Harry's dream. This protection goes further to show how one can be protected to death! Dobby does this to Harry, who is lucky enough to survive. Thematically, this foreshadows Sirius in Order of the Phoenix. Thirdly the issue of publicity/trouble with Ministry: This begins with the letter from the Misuse of Magic Office, is *greatly* covered by Lockhart... Harry finally deals with publicity in OOP, by giving an interview! So what's left for Book #6? A discovery Harry makes in Chamber of Secrets foreshadows another discovery (sure, we discussed about discoveries in the Secret Chamber of Slytherin, but Rowling may have meant the BOOK, giving that clue)? Harry might find out he has a talent he didn't know he had, a talent he always had. (Parselmouth in CoS, this time probably Megamorphmagus(sp?) like Tonks - having grown his hair over night!) But there is another one, right at the beginning: Ministry of Magic monitors the Dursley residence and responds quickly if there's any magic done. They are able to tell what spell was used, but NOT who made it. House-elves (and all about them) come of this as well! I think that Harry's emotions get the better of him and his magic will "leak" so often that the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad must move him, because he keeps getting *too* mad at something! (At least that's one way Harry would spend only few *hours* at the Dursleys!) Finwitch From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Tue Sep 21 06:50:16 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:50:16 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113502 > Pat wrote: > > I love Luna's character. She does seem to fill in the missing > pieces of personality that Hermione lacks. It was fun to watch > Hermione's attitude toward her change--at first she was entirely > annoyed with anything Luna did or said, but by the end, even though > she thought she was still a bit wacky, she refrained from making a > snide comment when Luna said where she and her dad were going on > holiday. > > I don't know about anything romantic with Luna/Harry or Luna/Ron. > But I do think she will be the person who gives Harry permission, so > to speak, to open up about his grief as well as his anger. Hermione > is very perceptive--as we saw with her explanation to the boys about > what girls are thinking and feeling. But when Harry has a problem, > she's ready to jump in and fix it. Luna seems more likely to just > let him talk, with a few comments to let him know that she > understands--such as their conversation at the end about ghosts and > about the voices behind the veil. Right now, Harry needs a good > listener, and I think that is going to be Luna. > > Pat > > > > I agree 100% that Luna is the exact opposite of Hermione. She is aloof and certainly a non-rational person. I can't see her as the catalyst of Harry's redemption. Yes she was unwillingly helpful at the end of OOTP, by creating feelings of pity from Harry to her. But she was only a deus ex machina in order to de-escalate the tension of the main character and the readers and give an optimistic note for the future. Instead Hermione is virtually living inside Harry's mind, heart and soul. Don't get me wrong this is not a shipping comment. We know that his conscience is talking with Hr's voice. We also know that in almost every case he acts having Hr's opinion for him in his mind. She knows him and understands him better than anyone else, and vice versa. So it is logical to assume that Hermione will be the key player if not the sole player for Harry's survival and redemption. Cheers, Paul From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 04:20:29 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:20:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113503 phoenixgod2000 here: My first post on the board! I'm a teacher and I just had to jump in. > Tonks op here: > > I just love your post!! I agree. I don't think that Snape is a > sadist trying to hurt his students. The problem is, the author has described him as as a sadist. So he is one. People can interepret his character in other ways using fan fiction. God knows I do with some characters (Harry/Bella shipper here!), but in canon which is what we are discussing, Snape is a bad teacher and a mean one to boot. I could buy the earlier explanation of frustration with students if Neville and Harry had not demonstrated competency during their OWLS. Their problem. It isn't with not following directions or a lack of care in their work. Neville's problem simply begins with a S and ends with an -nape. > Perhaps Snape learned this style also and just > does it without realizing what a cruel method it is. He knows exactly what he is doing. Snape is a smart guy and insightful in his own, evil kinda way. He's mean simply because he can be. It makes him feel like a big man. I think you're reaching a little hard to defend Snape's indefensible actions. But then again, I think he's evil. :) From kjones at telus.net Tue Sep 21 04:20:01 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:20:01 -0700 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <414FABF1.1040509@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 113504 Harriet (harriet_lupin) wrote: > JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask > but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked > it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... > > JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that > D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that > there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by > putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know > that D cannot kill V. > > Maybe what JKR is referring to pertains to the things that V did to > himself to try and gain immortality. I feel that Harry may be the > only one who could penetrate this "wall" that may be surrounding V. > > Now, I'm really babbling on.... Any thoughts? I suspect that the prophecy is phrased in such a way as to confuse the issue. The prophecy states that neither can live while the other survives. If a portion of Voldemort survives in Harry, then Harry can not remain alive either. Either Dumbledore or Snape would have to see to that, perhaps. JKR also suggested that we consider the question of why Dumbledore did not attempt to kill V at the MOM. She also said that the answer given by Dumbledore when V asked him why he was not trying to kill him was a lie. Dumbledore is also encouraging Harry to read the prophecy the same way, in that he is the only one who can kill V. I think we are being had. JKR also says Harry will survive to book seven. No other promises. KJ From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 08:01:50 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:01:50 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113505 > > Christelle, who wonder where was Peter this night, and how Sirius > though explain a corpse when Prongs, Wormtail and himself would > rejoin Moony, like they do every months. Finwitch: The answer is simple. He didn't. I doubt Sirius considered that 'Snivellus' would DIE in there. I think he planned for Snape to be bitten, but not dead! In the pensieve scene we hear the "discussion" over question ten (five ways to recognise a werewolf). Sirius is teasing Moony about it, and Moony jokes with him. Then Pettigrew comes up with his moaning of difficulty and Sirius loses his temper at that thickness (Which I believe was total FAKE on Peter's part, bedding his betrayal later...) Snape *heard* them - or at least the latter part of it. He may well have heard the "You're hanging out with one". Then he's reading the exam paper over and over, trying, perhaps, to figure out what 'one' Peter was hanging out with? I think Snape discovered Lupin's secret that day, there and then! The conflict with James&saved by Lily, as well as calling her a mudblood is obvious - too obvious. Finwitch From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 08:10:20 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:10:20 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113506 Hannah wrote: > The only thing that doesn't quite work out to my mind is how he > discredited Crouch Sr. using his son. I think the other DE's > (doubtless led by Malfoy) actually did this for a different reason. > > Crouch Jr. is a fanatical LV supporter - would he have gone along > with anything that Malfoy, who'd immediately run to the ministry > pleading the imperio curse, suggested? Meltowne replied: >>Crouch Jr. is a fanatic by the time of Goblet of Fire, but was he always? If he was, he would have been arrogant at the trial, like the LeStranges. I think he was sacrificed by L Malfay, and he knows it. He hates his father, but he also hates the Death Eaters who set him up - those same ones who stood in the way of those who might have resurected LV. Thus the enemy of his enemies is his friend, and he becomes a fanatical supporter of that which his father hates the most - Lord Voldemort.<< HunterGreen: We don't even know for sure if Crouch Jr. was a DE at all before he was arrested. He might have very well been in the wrong place at the wrong time like Sirius suggested (and Sirius was a member of the order, so if there was any prior evidence that Crouch Jr. was a DE, he would have known). He spent a year in Azkaban -- which nearly killed him -- then about a decade or so under the imperious curse and hidden under an invisibility cloak 24 hours a day, in that time he could have become a little delusional and decided that he was indeed a DE. Or he could have started thinking that Voldemort was the only one who could save him from that fate (and so grew a fondness for Voldemort because his father hated him so much and he hated his father). He's definitely got a romanticized (no, not *that* kind of romantic) vision of Voldemort when he's caught in GoF. The DEs might have tricked him into going with them to the Longbottoms, planning to just frame *him* (but the other three got caught by accident). Or Lucius Malfoy, knowing what they were up to, tricked Barty Jr. on his own and got all four of them arrested because he *didn't want* Voldemort found. All speculative, I know, but possible. The way he's reacting in the pensieve appears very geniuine. From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 08:41:40 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:41:40 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113507 HunterGreen previously: >>At the very least its clear that the Dementors are *specifically* interested in Harry in PoA. Either someone told them to go after Harry or they are acting on their own. So far, Fudge and Umbridge are the only people we've seen communitcating with Dementors.<< Eloise: >>One could argue that the Dementors are here getting out of hand, although Fudge clearly has a fair amount of control still. I wonder if they really are so specifically interested in Harry, or whether his sensitivity to them makes it seem so.<< HunterGreen: They appear to be interested in him on the train (to quote myself): >>>It struck me as odd that they would stop the train HALFWAY through to search it, rather than doing it at the beginning of the trip. Obviously, if Sirius was on the train, he would have got to Harry long before the Dementers came to look for him. Of course, they could have searched it BEFORE it loaded with students, but that makes searching it several hours later sort of useless, doesn't it? And their search is a little odd too. Its a fair estimate that the Dementer searched each compartment of the train, ending with the last one, where Harry was. The door opens, Harry passes out, then the Dementer just stands there for a moment. Lupin asks it to leave, but it doesn't move until he uses (I'm guessing) expecto patronum on it. Now why is that? Its clear just opening the door who's in there and who's not (especially since the dementer 'senses' rather than 'looks'), and certainly no one else on the train had to use a charm to get the dementer to leave (since none of them know it), so why does it just stand there? Perhaps they were dispatched on the train as soon as Fudge could get them there (which was halfway through), with orders to find Harry, and that's why it didn't leave until Lupin *forced* it to (this is all just guessing, of course).<<< And then again, at the end of the book, their target, Sirius Black is lying *right there* and they ignore him and go after Harry. Eloise: >> When they invaded the Quidditch pitch were they interested in Harry, sensing Sirius watching him or just as the text states hungry? Dementors seem to make very dangerous allies.<< HunterGreen: Here's the quote from PoA: "At least a hundred dementors, their hidden faces pointing up at him, were standing beneath him." Their faces were pointed *up at him*, which could have been Harry's imagination, but it could mean that the dementors were focusing on Harry in a stadium full of people, when he was further away and moving around rather fast. Here's a question: can dementors focus their energy on a specific person, or does their mere presence affect everyone nearby? There's conflicting evidence for this. On the one hand, it would seem impossible for anyone to have a conversation with a dementor without getting very ill and being unable to concentrate if they just immediately affected you. However, in the case of the train and Arthur's visit to Azkaban where he came home shaking, it seems that they can't "turn it off", so to speak. If they affect *everyone* nearby, then how come Harry was the only one to fall off his broom? *One hundred* dementors has to have an amplified effect, so surely someone wouldn't need nearly as horrible of memories as Harry to pass out (remember, Harry passes out when he's around ONE dementor), and on two teams of players -- most of them older than Harry, who might have had relatives who died in VW1 -- none of them had a bad enough memory to make them pass out in the presence of a hundred dementors? Seems a little hard to believe. However, if a dementor can focus their energy one one person, then it would explain why Harry was the only person affected. But it wouldn't explain why they were interested in Harry. HunterGreen previously: >> Whether or not Fudge is ESE! its very hard to believe that he really doesn't think Voldemort is back (he's either ESE! or *exteremely* corrupt, pretty much to the point of being a different type of evil).<< Eloise: >>I think he really just does not *want* to believe that Voldemort if back. In the first place, even if he is not corrupt, then the consequences are just too awful to contemplate, all his cosy assumptions have flown out of the window and his incompetence and lack of foresight and preparation are going to see the end of his career.<< HunterGreen: He's the Ministry of Magic though, he has to expect that its not a cushy job. Its not always going to be easy. What would not believing that there is a major threat to the society you are the leader of in the face of clear evidence? I think that the non-ESE!Fudge was just too worried about losing his seat of power than being remembered as a good leader. His priority seems to be longevity rather than reverence. Its odd though, for a person so interested and in love with the power he has, he barely seems to use it. His first big chance is at the end of GoF and he's too afraid of doing the wrong thing to do anything at all. It makes me wonder why he wants that power at all, if he doesn't know what to do with it. Clearly, though, if he were a good Minister of Magic, he could have taken steps to protect his society, which would, at least, have stopped the DE breakout from Azkaban. HunterGreen previously: >>Again, I ask, why did he have a Dementor with him that day? We know he wasn't really buying into the 'strange happenings' at Hogwarts, and a school contest hardly seems like a 'danger' to him. If he called the Dementor *after* Harry disappeared from the maze, how did he get one there so fast?<< Eloise: >>He was scared. He told us and for once I think it was the plain honest truth. He said it was for personal protection which means he knew he was in danger. Was the danger from Crouch Jr not what he might *do* but what he might *say*? What Crouch Jr could have told about his past if not silenced? But yes, he already had the Dementor there, apparently with no prior knowledge that Crouch Jr was at Hogwarts. Did he feel a general need for protection because despite all his denials he *did* understand the truth?<< HunterGreen: I still don't see enough reason for him to bring a dementor with him to the tournament. I understand why he'd bring one in to talk to Crouch Jr., just not what he'd already happen to have one on hand. No one, not even Dumbledore, predicted that the maze was going to end so badly. That, and why did the Dementor just immediately Kiss Barty Jr.? Are they *that* far out of control? So far we have evidence that the Dementors can be directed toward a specific person, and that they have to be *given permission* to use the Kiss on someone. In OotP, they went directly after Harry and Dudley, even though I'm sure there were other muggles around (and Harry wasn't even in a spefic place, like outside the Dursley's house, the Dementor had to *find* him first). From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 21 08:57:05 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:57:05 -0400 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER Message-ID: <002001c49fb8$f9b257b0$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113508 JoTwo said: > I've checked on the web and there is such a thing as delayed twins > (or delayed interval delivery) in real life. This is when one twin > is born first and then labour (or labor in the US) stops and the > second twin is born later. Apparently the longest known gap was 95 > days and happened in Louisiana. One baby was born in 1994 and the > other in 1995. In the past the first twin usually died because it > was too premature but these days it is not unknown for both babies to > survive. Anyway the point is that delayed twins can happen. As JKR > has allegedly written the phrase delayed twins, this is further > evidence for my big idea that Tom Marvolo Riddle was one of a set of > twins. DuffyPoo: Perhaps I am naive but Dobby answered this, did he not? After Dobby told Harry "Not - not He Who Must Not Be Named, sir." in chapter two, he explains in chapter eighteen "It was a clue, sir." said Dobby, his eyes widening, as though this was obvious. "Dobby was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named, you see?" To Dobby, this was about Tom Riddle, though he could not tell HP that, by saying it was not H-W-M-N-B-N, he thought he was giving HP the hint that it was him before he became him. I presume from your theory that you are indicating that TMR is the second twin since his mother died giving birth to him (his words) so the other twin, the first, is out there somewhere? Why wasn't it in the orphanage with TMR? Could TMR have, after seeing/realizing Lily's dying sacrifice for HP, caused his sibling to die for him to gain a similar (not quite same) protection? Is this one of the steps on the path to immortality? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 09:12:17 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:12:17 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113509 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" > So, anyone cares to guess how the '73 Slytherin team looked like? The > idea of Bella and Rudy as beaters sounds downright scary... > > Neri Carolyn: Don't know if it's relevant, but Bella, at least, got awarded a cup for something whilst she was at school, if you look at the fan site section of JKR's site. And Tom Riddle got two awards when he was at school. We know what one of those was for (supposedly catching Hagrid opening the Chamber of Secrets), but we don't know about the other one. I was going to say that Hogwarts would only award cups and medals for genuinely outstanding performance, but Tom managed to dupe Armando Dippet in order to receive his shield, although DD suspected him at the time. There have probably been other, ahem, 'fudges'... Anyone familiar with the mindless football violence in the UK could also readily understand a tradition of Quidditch team supporters and players beating each other up. It's just the sort of thing Voldemort might encourage amongst his DE's. Carolyn From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 09:30:59 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:30:59 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113510 The sorting hat appears in the very first book and, as such, I cannot believe it hasn't been discussed/theorised about, especially since it plays a key role in deciding each student's fate at Hogwarts house-wise and then, of course, plays a pivotal role in the chamber (of secrtets). Can anyone direct me to any such discussion. Part of what I was looking for includes (i) As Godric Gryffindor's own wizarding hat, how much of him does it contain (cf paintings) and is it independently magical? As far as we know, between sorting ceremonies it sits on the headmaster's office shelf and spends all year thinking up a new song for the next ceremony. In OotP it was a predictive song (IIRC) and Hermione noted the words very carefully. (ii) I don't recall it being able to speak in the chamber "....'Please help me!' There was no answering voice. Instead, the hat contracted, as though ... " although it does converse with him, apparently independently, earlier in CoS, just after Harry is 'outed' (by Snape - ask me to explain this view if you wish) as a parselmouth and has been sent to DD's office. It repeats its view that Harry would have done well in Slytherin. I've just noticed that although DD is 'absent' when this happens he soon after comes in looking sombre (meanwhile Fawkes having burst into flame and Harry is mortified he'll be blamed for killing DD's pet) but then smiles. I think DD was outside observing Harry (magical equivalent to a 2-way mirror in a cell) and what he sees causes him deep thought (hence sombre), but he actually wants to puit Harry at his ease so smiles after entering. In the next point you'll see I think it necessary that DD was nearby when the hat spoke to Harry. (iii) Just how does the hat decide which students go where house- wise? I'll say now that this is a long point and basically a view that maybe DD as hat manipulator makes the choice, not the hat itself. Why now, because below I digress about Slytherins and want to keep it in while realising its on a different, if connected, point and may be seen as a distraction rather than an aside. So, .... Is the hat genuinely independently magical? Choice of house has lasting implications - we have never heard of a student switching house once the hat has made its decision. What if the incumbent headmaster controls the hat? have we ever had a sorting ceremony at which he wasn't present? DD is a powerful (if not THE most powerful legilimens - the skill you'd need to see a student's innermost core/feelings/views). Students sit on a stool and yes there's no *all important* eye contact, but maybe the hat allows this not to be necessary provided DD is nearby (the hat, btw, goes with the pheonix as an heirloom?). This would suggest headmasters should be Gryffindor sympathisers, but it wasn't so when Sirius' Sltherin great, great grand whatever was a headmaster. Maybe they didn't always use the hat (there may well be cannon that they always have?). It does seem that after the Gryffindor/Slytherin split, Hogwart's would become a Gryffindor mainly place (? seems unfair/unlikely - though perhaps that's why Durmstrang exists?). I don't hold bt with the view circulating recently that ALL Slyhterins are bad - I'm sure some are very noble - why else would they be tolerated? teachers don't discriminate, though often are appalled at their worst excesses, but no they don't dislike Slyths or the house wouldn't be welcome. Whenever they do well they are honoured and respected (if not liked) for it just as for any of the other three houses. If it were not so then why would anyone want to be in any other house than G? Anyway, in a nutshell I think it's Dd decides the houses. I would say that it's too important a decision for a magical object to be left in charge of, but of course the goblet of fire makes a VERY important decision and to the complete surprise of DD so that one maybe won't wash. Even so, i think it's DD (or GG as the hat) who makes the decision? Thoughts etc please From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 09:43:45 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:43:45 -0000 Subject: Heir of Slytherin (was: Dumbledore in CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113511 > Yonna wrote: > > So with this bit of information I would say yes. Parseltongue is > > required to open the Cos sink entrance and the serpent door below. If not, anyone could simply open the CoS and not the "only" the true heir to Slytherin. > > SSSusan wrote: > But Harry *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin. So I guess what Harry was doing was opening the Chamber, whereas Tom unsealed it. At least that's the only way it makes sense to me. I asked in another post what would have happened if Harry had happened into Myrtle's bathroom *before* Diary!Tom unsealed the Chamber and had happened to > hiss "Open it" to the faucet in Parseltongue. Presumably, since he *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin, the sink would not have budged? Hannah now: I have a different way of interpreting the true heir of Slytherin. I think that Slytherin was taking a bit of a gamble when he created the chamber, assuming that, parseltongue being so rare, only descendants of his were likely to be able to speak it, so only an heir of his would be able to open the chamber. Also, even Riddle has trouble working out how to do it. For someone to open the chamber, they would not only need to speak the language, they'd have to really want to. A parseltongue wouldn't just wander into the bathroom and open it accidentally. I think Slytherin must have left some sort of clues to be passed down through the generations to help. I think Harry could have opened the chamber before Riddle came along, even if it had *never* been opened since Slytherin made it. It's just that he'd never have wanted to, and probably would never have known to try. The 'true heir' bit, I take to refer to someone who not only has Slytherin's gift of parseltongue (which he assumed meant that person was descended from him) but also shared his pure blood supremacist theories. Someone who was not just related, but actually wanted to inherit his legacy of 'ridding the school of those uworthy to study magic.' After all, for Tom to exist there must have been a whole line of heirs of Slytherin, most, if not all, of whom would have gone to the school, and yet no one ever says anything about any of them opening the chamber. Hannah From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 10:14:06 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:14:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky: > At the very least he created a secret entrance > to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to > Hogsmeade. > Geoff: Can you enlarge on your source material for suggesting that? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 10:35:23 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:35:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: <126AD524.75F2823E.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113513 > Is it only me, or does it seem odd that we haven't heard of any of Snape's Slytherin housemates from his own year, other than the Mauraders? Assuming Snape was in Slytherin, why are all of his friends/associates--the "Slytherin gang"--so much older than him? If the older ones like Bellatrix and Lucius picked Snape specially to be part of their gang, what did they see in him that set him apart from the other Slytherins of his year? Or was there another reason, like a blood connection between Snape and the older Slytherins that we don't yet know about? Or, maybe Snape wasn't Slytherin, but he was invited into the Slytherin proto-Death Eaters gang because it was such a coup to get someone from another house to join their evil clan (especially if Snape was from Gyffindor). As others have noted, we still don't have any conclusive canon that Snape was in Slytherin. > Hannah now: I think the suggestions made about a quidditch team link are good, but I have another idea. 'Gang' is quite a loose term, it doesn't have to mean something organised. For instance, who would Harry's 'gang' consist of? More people than just him, Ron and Hermione. So expanding his circle of aquaintance (keeping within Gryffindor for the sake of simplicity), you quickly get the introduction of people from other years. Fred and George (2 years older), Ginny and Colin Creevy (1 year younger) and even Dennis Creevy (3 years younger). I know some people might have a problem considering Dennis (or even Colin) to be part of Harry's 'gang,' but I bet they would consider themselves to be! They're always hanging around him when they get the chance, and are part of the DA (which could also be considered a gang, if a secret one). To an outside observer, such as Sirius was when considering Snape and the Slyhterins, it probably would appear that Dennis Creevy is hanger-on in a Potter 'gang.' Hannah, who likes the term 'Snape's housemates' because it conjures up images of him sharing a damp student house with Bella, Lucius and the Lestrange brothers, and everyone hexing each other over who has to do the washing up! From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 10:53:05 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:53:05 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113514 > > khinterberg replied: > This theory actually sounds rather believable, except for a bit of > canon I came across: > > "Harry had escaped from the same attack with nothing more than a > scar on his forehead, where Voldemort's curse, instead of killing > him, had rebounded upon its originator." - PoA p 6 U.S. pb > > I can't read this passage any way other than that Voldemort cast the curse that rebounded (be it AK or something else ). Hannah: Yes, that's a good point, however, IMO it is just filling in narrative, giving the accepted view of what happened. I suppose it depends on the individual interpretation - but the narrative only gives information from Harry's point of view at that time (with the exception of the first chapter of PS/SS). It would be like referring to Scabbers always as 'the evil animagus disguised as a rat' - it would be correct, but not coherent with Harry's pov (and a bit of a plot spoiler). The narrative tells us what is happening, what Harry thinks and feels, and gives a resume of events as Harry thinks they occurred. The narrative in PS/SS states that Lily and James died in a car crash. This isn't true, but it is what Harry considers to be the truth at that time. This is just my opinion. I can perfectly understand your point. Hannah From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 21 11:55:42 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? Message-ID: <001401c49fd1$ed89d170$20c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113515 Angie said: "Does anyone else wonder what "thrice defied" means in the prophecy in OOP? Does that mean Lily & James and the Longbottoms refused to join LV three times each? Or does "defy" mean something else? Regardless of what it means,why would LV give them a second or third chance to defy him? Unlike DD, I would imagine LV doesn't believe in second or third chances." DuffyPoo: I don't think it is quite as simple as standing up to LV and saying 'I'm not going to join you.' As you said, I don't think they would have been given a second chance, that way. I think defying is things like joining the Order of the Phoenix, for example. Fighting DEs, having them arrested, could be another. The basic definition in all three of my dictionaries is "to resist openly." We don't know, exactly, what either the Potters or the Longbottoms did, although I think one of Frank and Alice's 'defys' was becoming Aurors hence DE hunters. I've also never really been sure if it means each James and Lily three times, or three times together. I've always thought Sirius Black made his first step of defiance when he left his Dark Wizard family, and another when he joined the OotP, although how many times he defied LV is unknown as he's not part of the equasion. JMO YMMV [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 12:13:34 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:13:34 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113516 Alla wrote: >>Snape being in Gryffindor and somehow ending up with the gang of Slytherins, because Marauders rejected him is one of my favourite speculations.<< HunterGreen: Its one of mine too and it fits with one of my other favorite theories, which is that Snape and Lupin were friends for a short time in their first year. On the surface they seem to have a few things in common, both studious, both interested in the dark arts (Lupin must have had an interest in it to become a DADA teacher later on) both quieter than the boisterous James and Sirius. If they were in the same house it would make a lot of sense if they became friends at first, and it would explain Snape's lasting curiousity about where Lupin went every month (a fact that would be harder for him to find out if they were in different houses). At some point Lupin fell in with James and Sirius, and that might have been where the rift started: Snape was angry that they stole his friend from him. Snape being sorted into Gryffindor only works if he switched houses at some point, however. Otherwise by fifth year he would have known that when Lupin left, Peter, James and Sirius were all missing from the dorm as well, and it would have been a lot easier for him to get them in trouble. Also, I don't know where Sirius/Peter/James studied to be animagi, but it would have been a lot easier if they had a different common room/dorm than Snape. Perhaps after the rift between him and James started, he started bonding more with Slytherins and asked for a transfer (if those are even allowed) to another house at the beginning of his second year. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 21 12:50:36 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:50:36 -0400 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: <002901c49fd9$977e1a40$20c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113517 > DuffyPoo wrote: >Especially since, IMO, TR's mother is much more in the wrong, yet > TR doesn't seem to include her in his wrath. He appears to hold her > in higher regard in this situation. Considering that she deceived > Riddle, Sr for at the least, some weeks and at the most, possibly a > couple years, then once they were married, and she was pregnant, she > informed her Dear Hubby that 'oh, by the way, I'm a witch and I've > been lying to you for all this time.' > [Snip] > Julie said: "TR's mother is more in the wrong in her marriage, and vis a vis her husband. But she's not the one who willfully abandoned her son and left him in an orphanage. Whatever happened between TR's parents, and whoever is more to blame for the failure of the marriage, that's really unrelated to TR, at least from his POV. His mother died, so she couldn't prove or disprove her love, but his father rejected him coldly and deliberately. That's no doubt foremost in TR's mind when he's focusing his wrath on his father." DuffyPoo: I don't see that his father abandoned TR at all, except in TR's mind. Divorce/separation isn't ususally about the kids but about the adults in the situation. Did Riddle, Sr. even know his wife was pregnant or had she just told him she was a witch? Did she even know that she was pregnant, at the time of the magical revelation? That's the real question, especially since we have no idea where she lived from the time Riddle, Sr left her, until TMR was born and he was placed in an orphanage LV says "and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage." TMR only assumes he was abandoned because he has no father in the picture. Riddle, Sr may never have known a baby was on the way/born, until TR, at 18 or so, walked into the house in Little Hangleton. Do you think TMR was going to listen to Dad, at that point, say 'I didn't abandon you, I didn't even know she was pregnant. I left because she lied to me!' " ... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name .. Tom Riddle ..."(GoF) Yet, according to CoS, it was his Mother who named him, "My mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me: Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather." Later in CoS Diary!Tom says "You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name forever? ... I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle, who abondoned me even before I was born, just because he found out his wife was a witch?" This is way too much about Muggle/Wizard relations and not nearly enough about abandonment, IMO, for him to only blame his father for the situation into which he was placed. LV says "he didn't like magic, my father" but there really is no proof of that. Perhaps if Mrs. R had not deceived him for however long, and had been up front with the magic, there may have been no problem at all. It *appears* Riddle, Sr "didn't like magic" because he left his wife upon finding out that she was a witch, but the deception could have been the reason, not the magic. Who among us would stay with someone who had deceived us in a similar manner for, let's say, a year? (Personal story, my cousin and her fiance both agreed they did not want children. They dated for about a year - maybe longer - and always agreed, no children. Within only a few weeks of getting married, the hubby started in about when they were going to have kids. She reminded him that they had agreed not to have children. He informed her he'd only said that to go along with her and that he really wanted a family. She filed for divorce about three months after the wedding.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 13:06:28 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:06:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113518 phoenixgod2000: >>The problem is, the author has described him as as a sadist. So he is one. People can interepret his character in other ways using fan fiction. God knows I do with some characters (Harry/Bella shipper here!), but in canon which is what we are discussing, Snape is a bad teacher and a mean one to boot.<< HunterGreen: (welcome to the list phoenixgod2000) Well, she didn't exactly call him a 'sadist', but a 'sadistic teacher', which IMO, are two different things. Just because he may act sadistic in the classroom, doesn't mean he's a sadist. In any case, there's a line between authorial intent and what people interpret based on what makes it into the books. JKR may be very fond of Lupin or Sirius, for example, but there are plenty of people out there who dislike Sirius and the ESE!Lupin theory is rather conclusive (personally, I cannot stand Hagrid, the fact that the author likes him makes no difference). I think that's the thing with good literature: different people come to different conclusions, and those may or may not fit in with what the author intended. phoenixgod2000: >>I could buy the earlier explanation of frustration with students if Neville and Harry had not demonstrated competency during their OWLS. Their problem. It isn't with not following directions or a lack of care in their work. Neville's problem simply begins with a S and ends with an -nape.<< HunterGreen: I think we'd all agree with that. But that doesn't mean that *Snape* sees it that way. From his perspective (as Alex said in his post), Neville is simply not paying attention to the instructions. Obviously, that is not the case, but Snape is not looking for *deeper* answers. phoenixgod2000: >>He knows exactly what he is doing. Snape is a smart guy and insightful in his own, evil kinda way. He's mean simply because he can be. It makes him feel like a big man.<< HunterGreen: I will agree that on some level that he is enjoys the power. When it comes to Hermione, for example, I think he betrays the speech he made in PS/SS (about not wanting to deal with dunderheads) when it comes to her. Because, clearly, she does always pay attention, and she does always have the answer, and instead of appreciating that, he seems annoyed by it. However, in the case of Neville, I don't think he gets that much of a power fix from taunting him. Neville is, after all, easy to intimidate, and he doesn't really get a rise out of him (and therefore get to punish him) like he does with Harry. Like Pippin(?) has said, if Harry wanted to halt Snape in his tracks, he would just have to stop rising to Snape's bait. I think in the case of Neville, Snape is actually frustrated with him. I see no other reason for him to focus specifically on him like that otherwise, when the only other person we've seen him focus on is Harry. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 13:47:28 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:47:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: <20040921.003304.1984.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113519 SSSusan said: > > I've wondered here before whether Snape might not be a > > much better teacher w/ his NEWT-level classes, since the "riff- > > raff" has been weeded out. Aura: > This is my interpretation exactly. Snape clearly adores > his work, it's just the students that piss him off. NEWT students > (1) chose to take higher-level potions and (2) are older (read: > less annoying). Snape can feel like he's imparting truly > interesting, important (in his opinion) lessons to them, and enjoy > classroom atmosphere with more a sophisticated attitude about his > beloved Potions. I'd dare say that Snape even leans towards > pleasant around the 7th years, or at least not constantly holding > his anger at bay. > > Snape always reminds me of this high school Spanish teacher I had > that we called Senora Psycho. In 9th grade, she was shrieky, weird, > gave us impossible homework and horrifying midterms, and we thought > she was just evil. 12th grade Spanish, though, was sort of a NEWT- > level class -- you only took it if you had excellent Spanish grades > previous, a talent at learning languages, and genuinly liked the > culture. I had Senora Psycho again, and while I still felt she > lacked some social skills, I could forgive most of her quirks, > because difficult people are a part of life. More importantly, I > was glad to be learning from a teacher who really did know and love > her material, who expected more of her students than the > rather low standards of the public school system's expectations, and > really challenged us beyond the typical curriculem. I didn't like > her, but I liked the class. SSSusan: I think you have nailed this, Aura. Of course, I have to confess that there may be some projection going on here on my part, too, because your description of Senora Psycho sounds eerily like me as a teacher. Not that I was actually *psycho* ;-) but I didn't do as well with the non-academic-track freshmen; definitely lost my cool & became frustrated there on occasion. But give me college-bound seniors in Sociology or juniors in High Interest U.S. History, and I was in heaven! They were motivated, they were bright, they were almost adults and so could be reasoned with. They understood the concept of running a classroom with respect at the core. But back to the issue at hand. No, I can't see Snape going quite so far as to dispensing with the sarcasm and surliness altogether, nor can I see him interested in building a classroom based upon mutual respect! He wouldn't be Snape, then. But I CAN picture him being *satisfied* when surrounded with top-notch students who appreciate the value of potion-making and who don't mind being stretched. I know there are folks here who don't think Snape has ANY interest in teaching at ANY level (at least not Potions), but I've just always felt that little speech in the opening Potions class displayed a love for potions that's genuine. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 13:57:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:57:30 -0000 Subject: Is Voldy/Tom IN Harry? (was: Foreshadowings/discoveries in CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113520 Finwitch: > Harry might find out he has a talent he didn't know he had, a talent > he always had. (Parselmouth in CoS, this time probably > Megamorphmagus(sp?) like Tonks - having grown his hair over night!) SSSusan: Okay, I've not yet had my morning coffee, so please forgive if this is total balderdash. In another thread, I was asking whether Harry *unsealed* the Chamber or merely *opened* it after Diary!Tom did the necessary, only-the- Heir-of-Slytheran-can-do-it unsealing. Well, what if Harry DID use his parseltongue to actually UNSEAL the Chamber? Even though he's not, himself, the Heir of Slytherin and *shouldn't* be able to do so? What if he WAS able to do so because some of Voldy/Tom is *in* Harry as a result of the failed GH attack? We know DD believes the ability to speak Parseltongue was "given" to Harry by that attack. Well, as others have suggested, what if Voldy actually (accidentally, of course) put some of himself into Harry at the same time, not just a stray ability or power here or there? *If* Harry could unseal the Chamber because a bit of the Heir of Slytherin is inside him, maybe there are other things he can do because Voldy/Tom became a part of him? Maybe he can actually CONTROL Voldy in a way he doesn't yet even realize? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 14:09:49 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:09:49 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113521 Pat wrote: > > I love Luna's character. She does seem to fill in the missing > > pieces of personality that Hermione lacks. > > But I do think she will be the person who gives Harry permission, > > so to speak, to open up about his grief as well as his anger. > > Hermione is very perceptive--as we saw with her explanation to > > the boys about what girls are thinking and feeling. But when > > Harry has a problem, she's ready to jump in and fix it. Luna > > seems more likely to just let him talk, with a few comments to > > let him know that she understands--such as their conversation at > > the end about ghosts and about the voices behind the veil. Right > > now, Harry needs a good listener, and I think that is going to be > > Luna. Paul: > I agree 100% that Luna is the exact opposite of Hermione. She is > aloof and certainly a non-rational person. I can't see her as the > catalyst of Harry's redemption. Yes she was unwillingly helpful at > the end of OOTP, by creating feelings of pity from Harry to her. > But she was only a deus ex machina in order to de-escalate the > tension of the main character and the readers and give an > optimistic note for the future. Instead Hermione is virtually > living inside Harry's mind, heart and soul. SSSusan: I don't even want to touch the issue of Harry's "redemption," but I would like to talk about Luna's role. As much as Luna annoyed the heck out of me [too much Hermione in me, I suppose], I wonder about something Lexicon_Steve said recently about her [and darn it, I can't find the post--thanks *so* much, YahooMort]. In the post, he was suggesting that Luna was the only one at the end of OotP who could provide any REAL solace or comfort to Harry BECAUSE she has such a strong belief in the afterlife. It was when she said, "It's not as though I'll never see Mum again, is it?" and then talked about the voices beyond the veil, that Harry seemed to settle down a little and really be able to consider what might be. I think that ranks her as more than just a deus ex machina. I'm not arguing that she'll become more important to Harry than Hermione is, but I do think Pat may be right about the way in which Luna could be helpful to Harry. Siriusly Snapey Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 15:33:16 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:33:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: (personally, I cannot stand Hagrid, the fact that the > author likes him makes no difference). Tonks: Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 15:43:27 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:43:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid/ was Snape and Neville OOPS forgot to change it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" > wrote: > > (personally, I cannot stand Hagrid, the fact that the > > author likes him makes no difference). > > > Tonks: > > Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a > sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the > right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? > > Tonks_op From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 15:49:44 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:49:44 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113524 Tonks said: >Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a >sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the >right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? Not only is Hagrid one of my favorite characters, but I'm not so sure about the sharpness, either. He may not be a rocket scientist, and it's clear he didn't have the advantages of an upper-class background (more like Stan the bus driver than like Harry, let alone Hermione or Malfoy). However, I can think of two occasions when he has seen through the fog and gotten things right when others did not: once when discussing Voldemort and he dismissed the claims that Voldemort was dead as "codswallop" and said that Voldemort was not human enough to die, and once when, despite the body of evidence to the contrary, he told the trio that "Snape wouldn't hurt a student" and was not trying to kill Harry or steal the Stone. And those are just what come to my mind out of PS/SS; I'm sure there were others. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 16:38:48 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:38:48 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113525 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Susana da Cunha wrote: > Ok. Someone is bound to have come out with this, but I was annoyed > at the posts suggesting the Marauders Map didn't show inside of > Hagrid's hut and only then it stroke me. > > From PoA chap. 17, Lupin says: > > ""The point is, even if you're wearing an Invisibility Cloak, you > still show up on the Marauder's Map. I watched you cross the grounds > and enter Hagrid's hut. Twenty minutes later, you left Hagrid, and > set off back to the castle. But you were now accompanied by someone > else."" > > My point is, either way, as soon as Ron/Harry/Hermione arrived at > Hagrid's, Lupin would have seen the Harry/Hermione in the forest, > deleted the map, tossed it in his pocket and run to Dumbledore's > office. > > Bookworm: > ... But it doesn't answer your original question of why > Pettigrew didn't show up on the map. If the occupants of > Hagrid's hut were visible on the Map, then Pettigrew's name > would have been right there .... > > Pettigrew had been missing for several days, and as a Marauder he > would have know that the inside Hagrid's hut was a safe place to > hide. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm bboyminn: Some points I've made on this issue before. 1.) Think about the nature of the map itself. First, it's for mischief making. It's purpose is to allow the Marauders to roam the school and the grounds without detection. Therefore, hallways, primary areas, and teacher offices are most important. In this context, the gamekeepers house is not very important; the gamekeeper is not a very authoritarian figure, gamekeeper's house is away from the castle and a significantly safe distance from the Whomping Willow, gamekeepers house is not in a location that would prevent the Marauders from moving about freely, etc.... 2.) Next, in the same vein, consider the size of the school relative to the size of the map. When Harry says things on the map are miniscule, minute, and tiny, he is not kidding. Based on my research, no castle anywhere in the muggle world even comes remotely close to the magnitude of Hogwarts Castle. Today, Winsor Castle is the largest working (lived in, non-museum) castle in the world. It is positively dwarfed by the size of Hogwarts. Many castles may have reach the height of 7 stories, but none that I have been able to find ever had main buildings that had 7 floors. The old Keep-style castles may have reached 90 feet but rarely had more than 3 or 4 floors. Hogwarts with 7 full floors and mutliple wings with its many towers which are at least twice as high as the main buildings, would be easily over 100 feet high, and that's conservative. That would make the towers 200 feet. This assumes 15 foot ceilings which is actually a very low estimate for buildings of this type and magnitude. Although height isn't my real point, it size, number of rooms, and complexity of layout. Remember that this 7 floor multi-winged many-towered castle is laid out on one small piece of parchment.If this were done in standard architectual daft/drawing format, it would take a 3 or 4 inch thick stack of 18" x 24" inch sheets. This point? When Harry says the writing is tiny, minute, and miniscule that is an extreme understatement. Many times Harry has to put his face right up to the map to be able to read it-- tiny, tiny, tiny. And that more than anything explains why you don't see anything other than what you are specifically looking for. Lupin was specifically watching for Harry/Ron/Hermione, and was specifically watching for them to go to Hagrids. Therefore, any of the near microscopic writing that was not in his immediate field of vision would have been visual background noise. Which means if he could have seen Peter, he would have because he was specifically focused on Hagrid's hut. But, it means he would not have see time traveling Harry and Hermione because they were out of his focal field near the edge of the map. Also, hiding in the woods, at times, may have put them off the edge of the Map. So, in summary, the map has a context, it is an Aid to Michief Making, and is selective to that purpose. Which means one could conclude that there is no reason for the interior of the Gamekeep's hut to show on the map. I feel the context of the story also points toward this conclusion. Although, I admit, it's not a crystal clear fact. Second, the content of the map is not tiny or miniscule but must be near microscopic when you consider the amount of information it contains. Therefore, peripheral things are not easily noticed. To read the Map takes a very tight and narrow field of focus. Anything outside that narrow field is a blur. Conclusion, Peter would have been seen if he could have been seen, and it's not likely that the second TT!Harry/Hermione would have been noticed. I will admit that there was one time when it was possible to see all four (Har/Herm and TT!Har/Herm) and that was when they were all four in the entrance hall right before H/H/R went down to Hagrid's. That would have put all of them in the same field of focus. However, Lupin implies that he first sees them when they are walking down to Hagrid's. So, he missed his one chance to see them all together. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 16:56:52 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:56:52 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mrs. Norris?/Ginny's riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > > > > > DuffyPoo : > > > > In CoS, Riddle says "She [Ginny] set the Serpent of Slytherin > > > > on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." Ginny was the one > > > > setting the basilisk on people, she knew who were Muggle-borns > > > > and who were not > > > > > > MAC: > > > I always felt in reading of CoS that Ginny was being used simply > > to open the chamber. DiaryTom could take it from there. > > > > If this ISN'T true then why would Ginny not get herself petrified > > .... > > > Mac > Julia: > Hmm...I've thought that Ginny didn't open her eyes in the chamber... > ....edited... > > Julia bboyminn: First, let's remember that it's not looking at or being looked at by a Basilisk that is dangerous. It's looking into the Basilisk's eyes. Not looking at them, but looking into them. (Fantasic Beasts... "Anyone looking DIRECTLY into these (eyes) will suffer instant death.") So, there is a difference between seeing someone's eyes and seeing into them. Until Tom has sufficient corporal form to at least be ghost-like, he would have had to rely on Ginny's body in order to move around. And that is clearly what he did. Ginny does not remember killing the roosters or writing on the wall. At those times, Tom had taken over her body and was using it. In order to open the Chamber and direct the Basilisk, Tom would have needed a voice. He had no body, therefore, he had no voice, and I doubt that the Basilisk can read. So, he possessed Ginny and used her body to transport himself, and used her voice to direct the events. It was only in the Chamber in the final chapters where Tom had grown strong enough to manifest some degree of corporal form, and he was doing that by draining the life from Ginny. Something he was not able to do previously, although he may have had the ability, because he still needed Ginny. Once down in the Chamber, Ginny's life, body, and voice became insignificant, and getting ready to confront Harry became his priority. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 17:55:32 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:55:32 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Pat wrote: > > > I love Luna's character. She does seem to fill in the missing > > > pieces of personality that Hermione lacks. > > > > But I do think she will be the person who gives Harry permission, > > > so to speak, to open up about his grief as well as his anger. > > > Hermione is very perceptive--as we saw with her explanation to > > > the boys about what girls are thinking and feeling. But when > > > Harry has a problem, she's ready to jump in and fix it. Luna > > > seems more likely to just let him talk, with a few comments to > > > let him know that she understands--such as their conversation at > > > the end about ghosts and about the voices behind the veil. Right > > > now, Harry needs a good listener, and I think that is going to be > > > Luna. > > Paul: > > I agree 100% that Luna is the exact opposite of Hermione. She is > > aloof and certainly a non-rational person. I can't see her as the > > catalyst of Harry's redemption. Yes she was unwillingly helpful at > > the end of OOTP, by creating feelings of pity from Harry to her. > > But she was only a deus ex machina in order to de-escalate the > > tension of the main character and the readers and give an > > optimistic note for the future. Instead Hermione is virtually > > living inside Harry's mind, heart and soul. > > > SSSusan: > I don't even want to touch the issue of Harry's "redemption," but I > would like to talk about Luna's role. As much as Luna annoyed the > heck out of me [too much Hermione in me, I suppose], I wonder about > something Lexicon_Steve said recently about her [and darn it, I can't > find the post--thanks *so* much, YahooMort]. In the post, he was > suggesting that Luna was the only one at the end of OotP who could > provide any REAL solace or comfort to Harry BECAUSE she has such a > strong belief in the afterlife. It was when she said, "It's not as > though I'll never see Mum again, is it?" and then talked about the > voices beyond the veil, that Harry seemed to settle down a little and > really be able to consider what might be. I think that ranks her as > more than just a deus ex machina. > > I'm not arguing that she'll become more important to Harry than > Hermione is, but I do think Pat may be right about the way in which > Luna could be helpful to Harry. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Antosha: I don't want to get overly allegorical--these books are wonderful in large part because the DON'T fall into the CS Lewis trap of having Character A symbolize Virtue X while Character B symbolizes Vice Y. Nonetheless, I think that the expansion of the trio in the last part of OotP was clearly meant to open up a larger spectrum of options to Harry (not to mention a more interesting set of possibilities for shippers--but that's another post). And I think it's clear that Luna and the other new additions to the core group add new attributes that balance the original trio's strengths and weaknesses interestingly. Neville has continued to grow as a character in our eyes, not so much because his ineptitude has lessened, but because we are becoming more and more aware of his true courage. He is, if you will, Harry's shadow--the person Harry is always afraid he really is, that Dudley and his parents always told Harry he was: clumsy, awkward, stupid. But look what's happening! Neville is actually every bit the hero. Ginny starts out, similarly, as the Ron that Ron would hate to be--lost, emotional, dependent. But she has continued to grow as well--no longer simply a girl in reaction to her own emotion, but someone with every bit as much courage as any of her brothers, a sense of humor to match the twins, and the spirit to challenge Harry directly--something even Ron doesn't do. (When he's angry with Harry in GoF, what does he do? Sulk. Hang out with Gred and Forge and Dean and Seamus. Not that Harry does much better.) Luna, then, is clearly Hermione's mirror. I think Hermione's rationalism, which is such an important part of the trio's dynamic, has it's downside: an unwillingness to leap before looking; a fear of the unknown. We've watched Hermione freeze up in just about every book because her studies haven't provided her with the answer. Usually Ron and Harry have to pull/ prod/jolly Hermione past these crises ("Are you a witch or aren't you!"). Freud and Jung would say that the thing you're afraid of is the thing you buried, the thing you secretly want to do. But now we have Luna who is Hermione's physical photo-negative (blonde fluffy hair instead of brown), who is, like Hermione, brainy, if in an entirely different way, and who EMBODIES all of the things Hermione most lacks: intuition and faith. Not big-F Faith, because, thankfully, we haven't gotten a straight sermon in the books yet, and if we do I'll scream. But little-f faith in the possibility of the world operating on laws that transcend the limits of mere physics, chemistry and biology. (This is, after all, a universe where magic works.) I think that Luna's 'fuzziness' gets under Hermione's skin precisely because it is so SCARY to her. But I think it is part of the support that Harry needs in order to stay sane while facing the horrors of the mysteries that he must face in the years to come. And I betcha knowing Luna forces Hermione to grow to. Besides, how fun, someone else for Hermione to bicker with. And possibly to fight over Ron with. Whooopee! I'm a rationalist, myself, and love Hermione for her logic and her intellect--and her loyalty. But I think it is wonderful that JKR has inserted Luna, and with her a door to all of those unanswerable mysteries the DoM has been struggling with. It allows JKR to touch on issues like death and love and time and responsibility on a larger scale than merely life-within-the-plot without resorting to a religious or even secular creed that would lessen, rather than increase, the books' impact, since whatever belief she espouses would be at odds with that of 90% or more of her readers. Antosha, who has an abiding faith in the power of literature From hannah at readysolve.com Tue Sep 21 18:07:22 2004 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:07:22 -0000 Subject: 2 serpents /was Dumbledore in CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113528 > > Tonks: > > Reading this I thought of the 2 smoke serpents that Dumbledore saw > in Book 5. "In essence divided". So does this all involve both Harry > and LV? Do both have to open the Chamber of Secrets? There is > something about the 2 serpents here and in book 5. Any ideas as to > what it all means? Isn't there some symbol of something, other than > the doctors, from ancient times? ) The doctors' symbol was adopted from Hermes' rod, which enabled him to guide souls to the afterlife. It was given to him by Apollo in exchange for a lyre. Both gods were at times regarded as the god of physicians. I'm not sure if this is what you were thinking of, but it does tie in with some of the death symbolism in the series. And Harry uses the two serpents to enter the Chamber of Secrets, which is a little like the underworld itself, just as Hermes used the rod to travel to and from Hades. I wonder if this has any relevance? Khilari. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 21 18:14:09 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:14:09 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113529 I'm reading back and forth between GoF and OoP and something jumped out at me. In GoF Crouch!Moody performs the Forbidden Curses in class. Harry proves adept at resisting the Imperius Curse. A long time ago, our group discussed whether DD knew about this. We ended up with two disagreeing camps as I recall. In GoF in the graveyard, LV performs the Imperius and again Harry is able to resist. In OoP Snape is starting Occlumency classes and comments that Harry has some skill in resisting the Imperius Curse, comparing it to resisting Legilimency. How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius? If C!M was working as Moody under DD's instructions, he could have reported it DD. But why would C!M tell DD? And why didn't LV know that Harry could resist it? Do you think Crouch!Moody forgot to tell him? So, do you think DD told Snape? I wouldn't think C!M did. They didn't seem the type to sit around and discuss students with each other. Do you think Snape learned about it from a DE contact who told him about the graveyard events? Or, was Snape there afterall? Potioncat: once again full of questions and no answers! From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 18:13:51 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:13:51 -0000 Subject: The Fourth Floor WAS (Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113530 > > Valky: > > At the very least he created a secret entrance > > to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to > > Hogsmeade. > > > > Geoff: > Can you enlarge on your source material for suggesting that? > Valky: Why, certainly Geoff. In POA when Harry is introduced to the Marauders map by Fred and George they inform him that the secret passage on the Fourth Floor that leads to Hogsmeade suddenly and by no reason apparent to them became caved in and blocked during the winter of the previous year. The Winter of the previous year was of course Christmas of the year COS a time when "Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys had the run of Gryffindor Tower....." because noone else stayed. Between Gryff Tower and the Fourth floor are the Sixth which we know nothing about and quite possibly is passed over by the staircases because no canon ever places Harry there in five years, and the Fifth which is the prefects bathroom floor that Harry discovers, to his surprise, exists after he is told about it. Suffice to say, it appears somewhat that the Gryffindor common room might lead out to a staircase usually facilitating the lower grade/Non prefect students direct access from the GT entrance to the Fourth Floor and bypassing the two between floors. So to say that if Tom!Ginny was having the run of Gryff Tower with her unsuspecting brothers in the winter of COS, the opportunity for Tom to become easily acquainted with the relative immediate surrounds of Gryff Tower is likely to have been _in the Winter of COS_. So it flows like this: Before Christmas, Ginny gets private tour of GT from F and G they tell her, and so likeise Tom, about the secret passage, later dismissing it from their minds. After Christmas, while HRH are busy with their polyjuice potion and the ensuing events, Tom!Ginny find themselves some bit more alone than usual and Tom takes advantage of the quiet moment to slip down to the mirror and use the knowledge he has gained. Or even during the Christmas feast where I simply cannot find Ginny anywhere. Either way the unexplained collapse of the fourth floor passage in winter of COS and the lack of Tom!Ginny having anything satisfying to do at that particular time leads well into suspicion dont you agree? And this is my theory. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 21 18:47:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:47:16 -0000 Subject: The Fourth Floor WAS (Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Valky: > > > At the very least he created a secret entrance > > > to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to > > > Hogsmeade. > > > > > > > Geoff: > > Can you enlarge on your source material for suggesting that? > > > > Valky: > Why, certainly Geoff. > In POA when Harry is introduced to the Marauders map by Fred and > George they inform him that the secret passage on the Fourth Floor > that leads to Hogsmeade suddenly and by no reason apparent to them > became caved in and blocked during the winter of the previous year. > The Winter of the previous year was of course Christmas of the year > COS a time when "Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys had the run of > Gryffindor Tower....." because noone else stayed. > > Between Gryff Tower and the Fourth floor are the Sixth which we know > nothing about and quite possibly is passed over by the staircases > because no canon ever places Harry there in five years, and the > Fifth which is the prefects bathroom floor that Harry discovers, to > his surprise, exists after he is told about it. > > Suffice to say, it appears somewhat that the Gryffindor common room > might lead out to a staircase usually facilitating the lower > grade/Non prefect students direct access from the GT entrance to the > Fourth Floor and bypassing the two between floors. > > So to say that if Tom!Ginny was having the run of Gryff Tower with > her unsuspecting brothers in the winter of COS, the opportunity for > Tom to become easily acquainted with the relative immediate > surrounds of Gryff Tower is likely to have been _in the Winter of > COS_. > > So it flows like this: > > Before Christmas, Ginny gets private tour of GT from F and G they > tell her, and so likeise Tom, about the secret passage, later > dismissing it from their minds. > > After Christmas, while HRH are busy with their polyjuice potion and > the ensuing events, Tom!Ginny find themselves some bit more alone > than usual and Tom takes advantage of the quiet moment to slip down > to the mirror and use the knowledge he has gained. Or even during > the Christmas feast where I simply cannot find Ginny anywhere. > > Either way the unexplained collapse of the fourth floor passage in > winter of COS and the lack of Tom!Ginny having anything satisfying > to do at that particular time leads well into suspicion dont you > agree? And this is my theory. Geoff: Now my view. The following is a repost of message 90496 which was my reply on the question of the passageways: 90496 From: "Geoff Bannister" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:03 pm Subject: Re: Entering the Chamber --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" wrote: Constance Vigilance: > I think this fact was demonstrated when Ron's wand malfunction in > the Chamber tunnel FAR below Hogwarts was able to cause a cave-in > and block the roomy passageway way up on the 4th floor. This is the > secret passageway that the twins and Sirius mention. I think this > is good evidence that at least those two passageways are related. I > think most or all of them are related - and many of them lead out. Geoff: I must be being a bit thick but where did that idea come from? According to canon, Fred speaking.... "'Don't bother with the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor. We used it until last winter but it's caved in - completely blocked.'" (POA "The Marauder's Map" p.144 UK edition) This is in the November of 1993. So the cave-in was in the winter of 1992. but Harry's confrontation with the basilisk was in the summer of '93 at the end of his second year. "Ten minutes into the class, Professor McGonagall told them that their exams would start on the first of June, one week from today." (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.210 UK edition) And Ginny was taken into the chamber three days before this date (i.e. 29th May). "Three days before their first exam, Professor McGonagall made another announcement at breakfast." (p.211 same chapter) Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 18:56:20 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:56:20 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113532 How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius? If C!M was working > as Moody under DD's instructions, he could have reported it DD. But why would C!M tell DD? And why didn't LV know that Harry could > resist it? Do you think Crouch!Moody forgot to tell him? > > So, do you think DD told Snape? I wouldn't think C!M did. They > didn't seem the type to sit around and discuss students with each > other. Do you think Snape learned about it from a DE contact who > told him about the graveyard events? Or, was Snape there afterall? > Hannah: I don't think Snape could have been in the graveyard that night, simply because he can't disapparate/ apparate from Hogwarts. He wouldn't have had time to get out of the grounds without being noticed, and to get back so fast afterwards. His absence ties in with LV's comments about the missing DE's, and DD apparently asking him if he's prepared to return to spying and wishing him luck later that evening. I'm guessing either Crouch!Moody mentioned it in the staffroom (it would be in character for Moody) or that DD found out somehow (he supposedly knows everything that goes on, and keeps an especially close eye on Harry), and gave Snape this information when he asked him to teach Harry occlumency. As for Crouch!Moody not telling LV, I doubt they had a lot of contact, they'd have had to be pretty careful, being right under DD's nose. When they got in touch, they probably discussed the details of the plan and not much else. I doubt Crouch considered it even relevant to LV that Potter could resist the curse. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 19:22:15 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:22:15 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113533 > Hannah originally wrote: > > The only thing that doesn't quite work out to my mind is how he discredited Crouch Sr. using his son. I think the other DE's (doubtless led by Malfoy) actually did this for a different reason. > > >Crouch Jr. is a fanatical LV supporter - would he have gone along >with anything that Malfoy, who'd immediately run to the ministry >pleading the imperio curse, suggested? > > Meltowne replied: > >>Crouch Jr. is a fanatic by the time of Goblet of Fire, but was he > always? > HunterGreen wrote: > We don't even know for sure if Crouch Jr. was a DE at all before he was arrested. Hannah: Well, he had a place in the circle of DE's. In the graveyard in GoF, it seems that they all stand in set places, and LV refers to one of the empty places as belonging to his loyalist servant, the one who delivered Potter etc. Crouch Jr. in other words. So he was certainly a DE. I admit that the extent of his fanatacism may be due to his time in Azkaban. I think that he was probably that devoted all along, but that is just my opinion. >Huntergreen: > >He's definitely got a romanticized (no, not *that* kind of >romantic) vision of Voldemort when he's caught in GoF. Hannah: Yes, he does, but that might just be because he hadn't been a DE for very long, so hadn't seen the worse of LV yet, or simply because he only saw what he *wanted* to see in him. >Huntergreen wrote: > The DEs might have tricked him into going with them to the > Longbottoms, planning to just frame *him* (but the other three got > caught by accident). Or Lucius Malfoy, knowing what they were up to, tricked Barty Jr. on his own and got all four of them arrested > because he *didn't want* Voldemort found. Hannah: I don't think Bella and co. were interested in such machinations, they only wanted LV back. I think Malfoy was the one behind any trickery, whether it was of Barty alone or of all four. IMO, he wanted all of these fanatics out of the way for the very reason Huntergreen gives above - he didn't want LV found. >Huntergreen continued: >The way he reacts in the penseive scene seems very genuine. Hannah: But so does his portrayal of Moody. He's a gifted actor. From CariadMel at aol.com Tue Sep 21 15:01:38 2004 From: CariadMel at aol.com (Annette) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:01:38 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > ( snip.....) > Anyway, in a nutshell I think it's Dd decides the houses. I would > say that it's too important a decision for a magical object to be > left in charge of, but of course the goblet of fire makes a VERY > important decision and to the complete surprise of DD so that one > maybe won't wash. Even so, I think it's DD (or GG as the hat) who > makes the decision? > > Thoughts etc please ***** My first thought was to quote Arthur Weasley's advice: "Never trust anything that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain" .. or something to that effect. I think you have a point here mac. DD must influence the hat in some way regarding choice of house, then again ... Also, I didn't realise it was Godric Gryffindor's hat, just that his sword emerged from it in the CoS. Annette. From hautbois1 at comcast.net Tue Sep 21 15:30:29 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:30:29 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowings/discoveries in Chamber of Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113535 Finwitch wrote: > > So what's left for Book #6? A discovery Harry makes in Chamber of > Secrets foreshadows another discovery (sure, we discussed about > discoveries in the Secret Chamber of Slytherin, but Rowling may have > meant the BOOK, giving that clue) I just reread book 2 a week or so ago looking specifically for the forshadowing. I had a lot of the same ideas as you here, but I had one other thought. It'd be rather blatant on JKR's part, but she knows that sometimes we're too busy trying to figure out where Mars was in the sky in '91...so... After Harry leaves the Chamber, he and Dumbledore speak of Harry's house placement (Harry having doubts about where he should have been placed.) Dumbledore says 2 very interesting things. One, (major paraphrasing as my book is at home) that it's the choices we make that matter. I think this on its own is a discussion and a half, so I'll skip that. It's the second thing he says that interests me. Again, I'll paraphrase, though I'm pretty sure on this one. When Harry voices his doubts about the house he was placed in Dumbledore says: "Only a true Gryffindor could pull that [Godric's sword] from the hat." The hat being the Sorting Hat, which I believe belonged to Gryffindor. (correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's curious that Dumbledore should word his comment this way. Since we just saw that only the REAL heir of Slytherin could open the chamber (Riddle) it's possible that only the real heir of Gryffindor could "pull the sword from the hat". Perhaps this is what Dumbledore really meant, though it was put rather off-handedly. Add to this the fact that the Potter's lived in Godric's Hollow. It's possible that this is Harry's discovery from the CoS. Just a thought... Patrick From rob.kristjansson at gmail.com Tue Sep 21 18:07:13 2004 From: rob.kristjansson at gmail.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:07:13 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113536 > Paul: > > I agree 100% that Luna is the exact opposite of Hermione. She > > is aloof and certainly a non-rational person. I can't see her > > as the catalyst of Harry's redemption. Yes she was unwillingly > > helpful at the end of OOTP, by creating feelings of pity from > > Harry to her. But she was only a deus ex machina in order to > > de-escalate the tension of the main character and the readers > > and give an optimistic note for the future. Instead Hermione > > is virtually living inside Harry's mind, heart and soul. Rob: I'd have to disagree here. A deus ex machina, as I understand it, would strictly be a cheezy device introduced late in the third act to resolve otherwise insoluble plot problems. For example: Ron: Again, I can't believe we made it out of there alive. Hermione: There is no way we should have survived. I mean, the very thought is - Harry: Thank Dennis Creevey. He's the one who [insert miraculous and implausible escape scenario here] Luna's 'situation,' for lack of a better word, is completely different. She never saves the day, and nothing she does (vs. what she says) comes out of left field. She is an active player throughout the entire book. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Tue Sep 21 17:24:30 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:24:30 -0000 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER In-Reply-To: <002001c49fb8$f9b257b0$3dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113537 JoTwo said: > I've checked on the web and there is such a thing as delayed > twins (or delayed interval delivery) in real life. This is > when one twin is born first and then labour (or labor in the > US) stops and the second twin is born later. In the > past the first twin usually died because it was too premature > but these days it is not unknown for both babies to survive. > As JKR has allegedly written the phrase delayed twins, > this is further evidence for my big idea that Tom Marvolo > Riddle was one of a set of twins. Karen L. If your theory is correct, and TMR is a twin, wouldn't that twin had also been a wizard?...assuming of course that we are talking about identical twins. Chances are they would have met at Hogwarts, because from what I understand, Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in the UK. If we are talking about fraternal twins, and the other twin is not a wizard, then the whole twin thing is a moot point. Now, if his "twin" who was not a wizard had a child that turned out to be a wizard that would be a very interesting twist, because that child may be at Hogwarts at the same time as HP! Voldy's nephew at Hogwarts with HP..that would be interesting to see! From bethg2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 20:23:39 2004 From: bethg2 at yahoo.com (bethg2 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:23:39 -0000 Subject: How VM knew - Snape's value Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113538 I've been thinking about how Lord VM knew 1. Enough about present day Sirius to make a believable vision in the DOM 2. How VM knew that Sirius meant that much to Harry in the first place Now, some of this information could have come from Wormtail in the SS, but Wormtail wouldn't know that Harry and Sirius had developed any type of relationship. Some may believe that this knowledge could come from VM mind link with Harry, but we really have no evidence that VM is able to randomly poke around in Harry's memories. I think that it is likely a piece of information Snape was able to offer the DEs to restore his position. Kind of a "hey, I've got some information on how to get to the Potter brat" thing. In theory, from DD's point of view this would be a relatively harmless piece of information for VM to have. After all, in theory Sirius is well hidden and quite capable of protecting himself, at least more so then other likely targets such as Ginny or Hermione. BethG2 From hughes_keli at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 19:27:35 2004 From: hughes_keli at yahoo.com (keli hughes) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Heir of Slytherin (was: Dumbledore in CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040921192735.94301.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113539 > Yonna wrote: > > Parseltongue is required to open the Cos sink entrance and > > the serpent door below. If not, anyone could simply open the > > CoS and not "only" the true heir to Slytherin. > SSSusan wrote: > But Harry *isn't* the Heir of Slytherin. So I guess what Harry > was doing was opening the Chamber, whereas Tom unsealed it. > Hannah now: I have a different way of interpreting the true heir > of Slytherin. I think that Slytherin was taking a bit of a gamble > when he created the chamber, assuming that, parseltongue being so > rare, only descendants of his were likely to be able to speak it, > so only an heir of his would be able to open the chamber. I agree with Hannah. I think that when Slytherin created the chamber, he thought that he was safe in locking it so that only a parseltongue could open it. He thought that the only people with the gift parseltongue in the future would be his decendents. He obviously overlooked the possibility of a curse backfiring and transferring this gift to another and so put no other precautions in place. Quite lucky he did really, or we may have had to say goodbye to Ginny and hello to a second LV. Keli From BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 20:14:40 2004 From: BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com (bamajenny12) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:14:40 -0500 Subject: Foreshadowings/discoveries in Chamber of Secrets References: Message-ID: <00f401c4a017$b4448d60$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113540 Patrick said: Again, I'll paraphrase, though I'm pretty sure on this one. When Harry voices his doubts about the house he was placed in Dumbledore says: "Only a true Gryffindor could pull that [Godric's sword] from the hat." The hat being the Sorting Hat, which I believe belonged to Gryffindor. (correct me if I'm wrong) Jenny's question: Is it Gryffindor's hat? I don't have my books here, but all I remember is 'Sorting Hat'. I don't remember it being called GG hat. Harry pulled GG's sword out of the hat because HP was a true Gryffindor, and because that was what HP needed (any maybe what GG could provide to HP) to defeat the basillisk. If HP had been in another house, he probably would have pulled something associated with RR or HH from the hat. From elaine_munn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 20:39:31 2004 From: elaine_munn at yahoo.co.uk (elaine_munn) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:39:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Snape (PoA) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113541 Hi there, I have been reading the posts for some time but have never posted before. I enjoy reading your theories and wondered what you all thought about this. I am currently reading PoA (again) and a couple of things have stood out to me. (I apologise if these have been discussed before, but I couldn't find them in the archive.) Ok firstly, when Lupin saw Harry, Hermione, Ron and then Pettigrew on the marauders map, under the invisibility cloak, did he not see Hermione and Harry arrive after they had used the time turner? Could it be he just didn't notice them through shock of seeing Pettigrew or maybe just didn't find the right time to say something? I would love to hear what you guys think. Secondly, in the shrieking shack the door opened and a floor board creaked just before the whole story about what really happened at Godricks Hollow came out. Then after the story was told Snape appeared from under Harry's cloak. I wonder how much of the whole tale Snape heard? Enough to know Sirius was innocent MMMmmm....... I look forward to hearing you thoughts. Elaine xx From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 21 20:49:15 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:49:15 -0000 Subject: How VM knew - Snape's value In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, bethg2 at y... wrote: > I've been thinking about how Lord VM knew > > 1. Enough about present day Sirius to make a believable vision in > the DOM > 2. How VM knew that Sirius meant that much to Harry in the first > place SSSusan: I think the first question is easily answered by saying that Voldy was in contact w/ the Malfoys, and Narcissa is a Black. Also, Sirius's photograph was circulated all over the place when he first escaped from Azkaban. The second question was answered by DD in his Big Talk with Harry. It was Kreacher who, though forbidden to hand out details about Order doings, WAS able to let Narcissa Malfoy know that Sirius meant more to Harry than anyone else. "...--but Kreacher's information made him realize that the one person whom you would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius Black" [US hardback, 831]. I just don't think Snape was necessary for either of these pieces of info to have gotten to Voldy. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 20:50:41 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid (was: Re: Snape and Neville) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040921205041.11684.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113543 --- Tonks wrote: > Tonks: > > Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a > sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the > right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? > I liked Hagrid in PS/SS but I really think JKR made a mistake when she made him a teacher. He went from being a plainspoken, wise man whose expertise wasn't in books to being a one-note joke who fumbled lesson plans and introduced the kids to inappropriate "interestin' creatures". As a teacher Hagrid is much more one-dimensional and we don't get a chance to see him at his best. Frankly I just find him boring to read now and I still can't believe we didn't get to see Ron's moment of glory because we had to listen to some stupid story about going to the giants for help. And don't get me started on the Grawp subplot. The big Grawp-saves-the-kids moment was a total photocopy of the Flying Ford Anglia rescuing the kids from the spiders in COS. One of the few times in the whole series when I felt cheated as a reader. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 21:08:52 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:08:52 +0100 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer References: Message-ID: <003201c4a01f$4d59fd30$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113544 Mac asked two questions: 1. was Hagrid's hut built when the marauders made their map (I suspect it was, but we don't know)? If not, then could it evade the map's magic? I really like Ravenclaw Bookworm's suggestion that of course Pettigrew would know to hide there if it wasn't on the map. ---------------------- Oh, I hate the way muggles think! But hey, if someone can do a scientific explanation of a magical map, that would be little muggle me (I doubt a wizard could - except for Hermione, maybe). Ok, if the hut is not on the map, what will it show instead of the hut? Open field, right? Then wouldn't it show Hagrid and Pettigrew in that open field? Are you suggesting there is a 'black hole' there? Let me try to make a logical explanation of a completely illogical thing. I need to beg your amnesty here because there will be no canon to support what I'll say. I don't see LWP&P measuring the distance between the lake and the castle and doing scale conversions to fit the parchment. What they probably did was bewitch the parchment to show the surroundings. And they probably had to do it by stages: the surroundings of the north tower, the surroundings of the trophy room, the surroundings of the third floor corridor (hang on, what's that? It looks like a tunnel! Starts here behind this statue of a one-eyed witch... probably has a password. Hey, Prongs, weren't you bragging about knowing a spell that retrieves passwords last Christmas?). The thing is, I don't believe they measured (or even looked at) all the corners of the castle to bewitch the parchment. Would they have to enter every broom closet? Every teacher's office? Every classroom?... They wouldn't need to be in inside the hut to put it on the map. Then they would put in the moving parts: people, ghosts, animals (at least Mrs. Norris shows up), and they didn't pour a list of students and staff into it (Harry wouldn't be on that list - he wasn't born). Instead, they bewitch the parchment to reveal 'things with names' on each location. Let me explain 'things with names': a spider is an animal, it moves, there must be hundreds in the castle, yet it doesn't show up because it has no name (the same with the basilic - unless Salazar or Tom named their little pet). OTOH, Buckbeak has a name, so do Peeves, Mrs. Norris, and Peter Pettigrew. The map searches the names, not movement or life. As to how the map does that - hey, I'm a muggle! How should I know? So what happens if they move the greenhouse to the other side of the castle? (I've got canon! I've got canon!) From PoA: "Don't bother with the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor. We ised it until last winter, but it' s caved in - completely blocked." - The tunnel didn't disappear from the map after collapsing. So, if they move the greenhouse (or Hagrid's hut) I assume the map doesn't adapt. But hey, it doesn't adapt either way: if the hut had been built after the map, it wouldn't create a 'black hole' in the map, where you'd stop seeing the 'things with names'. The only 'black hole' I'd admit in the map would be the room of requirement. Since the map doesn't adapt, what would it show there? -- running to check in OotP - "He pulled out the Marauder's Map again and checked it carefully for signs of teachers on the seventh floor. He let them all leave in threes and fours, watching their tiny dots anxiously to see that they returned safely to their dormitories". Argh! It doesn't saayyyy! But then again, can the room of requirement turn into a Quidditch pitch or does it have limited space? I'm getting off track here. It doesn't matter, anyway. If the map adapts, then it will *certainly* show Hagrid's hut. Ok, about Pettigrew: he doesn't strike me as the sharp and intelligent type. Personally, I have no problem believing he doesn't know what he's doing. If he knows about the map he's double-panicking: he has to watch out for Sirius AND Harry (or Lupin? Does he know the map was confiscated?) He knows he has to leave, but he doesn't know where to go. He's accustom to sleeping all day and being provided for. Half the way to the forest, Hagrid's hut could have seem very tempting: food to steal, warmth, away from Ron's bed where Sirius is looking for him, Harry is restricted to the castle and not likely to visit (ok, I'm pushing his stupidity). But I'd rather think Pettigrew is an idiot acting extra stupid on account of panic, than to think the map has a 'black hole' in the place of Hagrid's hut. --------------------- 2. Since harry II and Hermione II are there magically (though yes of course physically too) can the Marauder's map plot them? Might they be unplottable/detectable by magic (as JKR says Wizards can make themselves - how Sirius wasn't found, nor can Voldemort be). --------------------- Can the Marauder's map plot H2/H2? Off course. Why wouldn't it? It can show every thing with name *except people who came back in time*? Time-turners get you back in time *with an undetectable enchantment*? The undetectable by magic issue is a different thing. H2/H2 were not undetectable: we followed them and no magic of the sort was mentioned - ok, I don't know what 'the sort' is. But if the undetectable is part of time-turning, when was it removed, afterwards? (An interesting thought just occurred to me: how confused would an owl be trying to deliver a letter in that situation?) But note: Sirius *was* undetectable, and he showed up on the map. Susana -- amazed at LP&P cleverness and having no problem thinking W was just tagging along. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 21:08:36 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:08:36 +0100 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer References: Message-ID: <003101c4a01f$4c2a08b0$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113545 Bboyminn wrote: "Although height isn't my real point, it size, number of rooms, and complexity of layout. Remember that this 7 floor multi-winged many-towered castle is laid out on one small piece of parchment.If this were done in standard architectual daft/drawing format, it would take a 3 or 4 inch thick stack of 18" x 24" inch sheets." ----------------- Great post, Steve. I can't believe you actually made the calculations! That's the reason I've always picture the map as something much smaller then a muggles road map, which shows only the part of the castle/grounds the wizard wishes to see. People would be tiny, tiny, tiny dots, even so. -------------- Bboyminn wrote: "Conclusion, Peter would have been seen if he could have been seen, and it's not likely that the second TT!Harry/Hermione would have been noticed." ------------ Ah, but I have argued that Lupin *was* looking in the forest for signs of Sirius. That's how he saw TT!Harry/Hermione but not Pettigrew. Susana From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 21:13:00 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:13:00 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowings/discoveries in Chamber of Secrets In-Reply-To: <00f401c4a017$b4448d60$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113546 > > Jenny's question: > Is it Gryffindor's hat? I don't have my books here, but all I > remember is 'Sorting Hat'. I don't remember it being called > GG hat. Harry pulled GG's sword out of the hat because HP > was a true Gryffindor, and because that was what HP needed > (any maybe what GG could provide to HP) to defeat the > basillisk. If HP had been in another house, he probably would > have pulled something associated with RR or HH from the hat. One of the Sorting Hat's annual poems tells the tale of it's creation when Godric Gryffindor, in an effort to solve the problem of sorting future classes of incoming students after he and the other founders had passed on, by snatching the hat he wore off his head and enchanting it to perform the sorting operation. -cunning spirit From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Sep 21 21:19:39 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:19:39 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowings/discoveries in Chamber of Secrets In-Reply-To: <00f401c4a017$b4448d60$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113547 > Patrick said: > > When Harry voices his doubts about the house he was placed in > > Dumbledore says: "Only a true Gryffindor could pull that > > [Godric's sword] from the hat." The hat being the Sorting Hat, > > which I believe belonged to Gryffindor. (correct me if I'm wrong) > > > Jenny's question: > Is it Gryffindor's hat? I don't have my books here, but all I > remember is 'Sorting Hat'. I don't remember it being called > GG hat. Aha! Was difficult to find. Yes, it is. In GOF (the Sorting Hat song): "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!" So, yes it was Godric's hat, but the other founders put their 'brains' in. Christelle From ryokas at hotmail.com Tue Sep 21 21:53:12 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:53:12 -0000 Subject: Does this ship have a name yet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: {snip} >(Harry/Bella shipper here!) {snip} This is a new record: My mind was utterly and completely broken in no more than four words, greatly improving upon the previous record- holder (The description of a King Kong [COUPLE OF SENTENCES DELETED FOR A VERY GOOD REASON] a Barbie). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt this particular piece of speculation has its own name yet. It definitely should have one. What would be a good name or acronym for it? A pity GOOD LORD and MAKE IT STOP have neither a 'H' or a 'B' in them... You can almost hear Theory Bay going "there goes the neighbourhood" already, can't you? From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 21:56:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:56:13 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew in Hagrid's hut - an answer In-Reply-To: <003201c4a01f$4d59fd30$5c2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > Mac asked two questions: > 1. was Hagrid's hut built when the marauders made their map (I > suspect it was, but we don't know)? If not, then could it evade the > map's magic? I really like Ravenclaw Bookworm's suggestion that of > course Pettigrew would know to hide there if it wasn't on the map. > ---------------------- > > Angie replies: Maybe the Marauders just wanted to give Hagrid or whomever, some privacy. I'm assuming they determined the scope of the invasion of privacy that is the Marauder's Map. I'll be the Chamber of Secrets isn't on there either, because they didn't know about it. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Tue Sep 21 21:58:01 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:58:01 -0000 Subject: How VM knew - Snape's value In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113550 > bethg2 at y... wrote: > > I've been thinking about how Lord VM knew > > > > 1. Enough about present day Sirius to make a believable > > vision in the DOM > SSSusan: > I think the first question is easily answered by saying that Voldy > was in contact w/ the Malfoys, and Narcissa is a Black. Also, > Sirius's photograph was circulated all over the place when he > first escaped from Azkaban. Karen L, Also, Voldy could have gotten a "picture" of what Sirius looked like directly from Harry himself via "mind reading". IMHO From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 21 22:28:48 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:28:48 -0400 Subject: Delayed twin? Maybe a SPOILER Message-ID: <000e01c4a02a$5ddd20a0$afc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113551 JoTwo said: > As JKR has allegedly written the phrase delayed twins, > this is further evidence for my big idea that Tom Marvolo > Riddle was one of a set of twins. Karen L. "If your theory is correct, and TMR is a twin, wouldn't that twin had also been a wizard?...assuming of course that we are talking about identical twins. Chances are they would have met at Hogwarts, because from what I understand, Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in the UK. If we are talking about fraternal twins, and the other twin is not a wizard, then the whole twin thing is a moot point. Now, if his "twin" who was not a wizard had a child that turned out to be a wizard that would be a very interesting twist, because that child may be at Hogwarts at the same time as HP! Voldy's nephew at Hogwarts with HP..that would be interesting to see." DuffyPoo: Chiming in on this again as I just thought of something else. The twin would have to be dead as DD said that "Lord Voldemort -- who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin" (CoS) so the twin wouldn't serve any useful purpose anyway, now. As long as Mrs. R. - a direct descendant of old SS carried both babies, then both would be descendants of SS. LV is the last remaining one, according to DD. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 22:40:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:40:59 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's reaction (was Re: HP's powers_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113552 I (Carol) wrote: > > > Harry's parents were regarded as powerful wizards ("CAR CRASH?" shouts Hagrid indignantly in SS/PS. "How could a car crash kill Lily an' James Potter?") and they were particularly good at Transfiguration and Charms, respectively. > > >Kneasy responded: > > Just an interjection - I've always considered that the Hagrid > > shock/horror wasn't because of any powers the Potters may or > > may not have had, but because wizards don't use cars. > > > Sandy thought: > To Hagrid, James and Lily were heroes who had died trying to save the wizarding world, fighting against the The Evil Ome. I think his reaction to the car crash story is a) horror and disgust that their heroics would be ignored and covered up as something so mundane as a car crash b) horror and indignation that Harry has absolutely no idea how his > parents died and that they died as heroes, not simply roadkill. > > Obviously, wizards do use cars in some forms (the ministry of Magic > has a fleet) and they do crash -- Harry and Ron crash in CoS, for > instance. Carol: But Harry and Ron aren't killed in the crash, though a Muggle companion might have been (at least if he'd fallen out of the car). I still think Hagrid is appalled at the idea that a mere car crash could kill Lily and James. Neville survives being dropped out a window (he bounces); witches and wizards survived burning at the stake in medieval times and survive "splinching" in modern times. Quite simply, IMO, a car crash, even a very bad one, would not have killed even a moderately powerful wizard (e.g., Gilderoy Lockhart) and certainly would not have killed Lily and James. Carol From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 22:45:59 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:45:59 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > > > HunterGreen wrote: > > We don't even know for sure if Crouch Jr. was a DE at all before > he was arrested. > > Hannah: Well, he had a place in the circle of DE's. In the > graveyard in GoF, it seems that they all stand in set places, and LV refers to one of the empty places as belonging to his loyalist servant, the one who delivered Potter etc. Crouch Jr. in other words. So he was certainly a DE. I admit that the extent of his fanatacism may be due to his time in Azkaban. I think that he was probably that devoted all along, but that is just my opinion. > snip snip snip mhbobbin: I'm sorry to raise the ghastly endless unresolved discussion of *GASP* The Three Missing Death Eaters, but when it is said that Crouch Junior had an empty place in the DE Circle, that is an unresolved assumption. The one we are led to believe by Madame Rowling, who likes to send us wandering down the wrong path. If only someone had thought to --when Crouch Junior reappeared as the Polyjuice Potion wore off--lift the sleeve on his shirt and look for the Death Mark. Because of that omission we are condemned to wonder whether Crouch Junior was truly the Third Death Eater. Until proven, I think that assumption is best written in pencil not ink. The key is the word *re-entered* my service. If we absolutely knew that Crouch Junior was a DE before the Fall, then it would be safer to assume he was the most faithful servant, stationed at Hogwarts that LV refers to. IMO, JKR left the door open just wide enough for us to consider it just might be Snape that is the Third Death Eater. And at the moment that LV is saying it, there are two other suspicious characters at Hogwarts: Ludo Bagman and Fudge. That is, in addition to Karkoroff. In the first reading of GOF, it seemed to make sense that the three missing DEs were Karkoroff, Snape (left me forever) and Crouch Junior. But subsequently, I am less convinced. Crouch Jr's involvement with the DEs before LV's fall is still an open question, IMO, and until it is shown that Crouch Jr. was guilty of torturing the Longbottoms etc. then it's hard to conclude that he is the DE that "reentered my service" and more than a Primary Suspect of being the Third Death Eater. mhbobbin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 22:48:53 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:48:53 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Snape (PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elaine_munn" wrote: > Hi there, I have been reading the posts for some time but have never > posted before. I enjoy reading your theories and wondered what you > all thought about this. > > I am currently reading PoA (again) and a couple of things have stood > out to me. (I apologise if these have been discussed before, but I > couldn't find them in the archive.) > > Ok firstly, when Lupin saw Harry, Hermione, Ron and then Pettigrew on > the marauders map, under the invisibility cloak, did he not see > Hermione and Harry arrive after they had used the time turner? Could > it be he just didn't notice them through shock of seeing Pettigrew or > maybe just didn't find the right time to say something? I would love > to hear what you guys think. > Meri: There are many theories about how the Marauder's Map works, which I can't all remember from memory, but I would check the Lexicon, as I am sure I recall reading an excellent essay about just this sort of thing. My personal belief is that the MM being something both very magical and very perceptive (ie: recognizing Prof. Snape and insulting him) the MM shows only what the viewer is either looking for, or chooses to notice. The Hogwarts castle and grounds being so big would support a more limited view being shown on the map itself. So Lupin, who was looking for Hermione, Harry AND Ron, would either not have noticed or not been able to see just Harry and Hermione. But I do think that JKR has sort of painted herself into a corner with that "the Marauder's Map never lies" comment. > Secondly, in the shrieking shack the door opened and a floor board > creaked just before the whole story about what really happened at > Godricks Hollow came out. Then after the story was told Snape > appeared from under Harry's cloak. I wonder how much of the whole > tale Snape heard? Enough to know Sirius was innocent MMMmmm....... Meri: No, Snape was not in the room long enough to hear or see anything that would convince him of Sirius' innocence. Scabbers was not revealed to be Peter Pettigrew until after HRH knocked Snape out with their wands and after that he remained unconscious until after TT!Harry conjured the Patronus and Wormtail was long gone. The whole story of Godric's Hollow didn't come out until after Snape was out cold, IIRC. Snape never actually saw Pettigrew, the only proof of Sirius' innocence. Meri, wondering whether or not Snape would have believed it even if he had seen Pettigrew... From hannah at readysolve.com Tue Sep 21 22:54:37 2004 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:54:37 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113555 There have been a lot of theories about this lately, and about the question we should have asked,ie why LV did not die when the curse rebounded. But what occured to me recently was, why did his body disintegrate? Avada Kedavra kills without leaving a mark, we know that from canon. On the other hand inanimaate objects can be blasted by it and disintegrate (I think, does this happen to the gravestone in GoF?)and a killing curse sets fire to the concierge's desk in OotP. So, in order for LV's body to be destroyed, it should have been inanimate. Is this possible? His steps towards immmortality could have ended in making his body into an object which his spirit controlled rather than a proper part of him. So the AK only hit his body, destroying it, but not the resident spirit. I'm not sure about any of this, but the odd effect of the AK seemed worth mentioning. Khilari. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 21:56:23 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:56:23 +0100 Subject: How does Snape know? References: Message-ID: <00c101c4a030$ac490f00$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113556 Pointicat wrote: "In OoP Snape is starting Occlumency classes and comments that Harry has some skill in resisting the Imperius Curse, comparing it to resisting Legilimency. How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius?" ----------------------- It seems to me Barty Crouch wouldn't comment on the lesson with either Snape or DD (I strongly suspect he wasn't following the school program). But he would, however, comment with Voldy, after the events on the graveyard. Before would be too risky and Voldy wouldn't have tried it if he had known - the idea was to prove how hopeless Harry Potter was before him. At the end of GoF, Snape goes back to Voldy and the DE's. He does 5 months of spying (July to December) before he starts occlumency with Harry. I suppose the other DE's would fill him in on both the DA lessons and the events in the graveyard. Susana From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 22:20:02 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:20:02 +0100 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? References: Message-ID: <00c201c4a030$ad49dd30$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113557 Angie wrote: "Does anyone else wonder what "thrice defied" means in the prophecy in OOP? Does that mean Lily & James and the Longbottoms refused to join LV three times each? Or does "defy" mean something else? Regardless of what it means,why would LV give them a second or third chance to defy him? Unlike DD, I would imagine LV doesn't believe in second or third chances." ------------------------- Dumbledore's intrepretation from OotP: "He saw himself in you before he had ever seen you, and in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far - something that neither your parents, nor Neville's parents, ever achieved." Susana From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 22:43:53 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:43:53 +0100 Subject: Is Voldy/Tom IN Harry? (was: Foreshadowings/discoveries in CoS) References: Message-ID: <00c301c4a030$ae4469d0$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113558 SSSusan wrote: "Okay, I've not yet had my morning coffee, so please forgive if this is total balderdash. In another thread, I was asking whether Harry *unsealed* the Chamber or merely *opened* it after Diary!Tom did the necessary, only-the- Heir-of-Slytheran-can-do-it unsealing. Well, what if Harry DID use his parseltongue to actually UNSEAL the Chamber? Even though he's not, himself, the Heir of Slytherin and *shouldn't* be able to do so? What if he WAS able to do so because some of Voldy/Tom is *in* Harry as a result of the failed GH attack? *If* Harry could unseal the Chamber because a bit of the Heir of Slytherin is inside him, maybe there are other things he can do because Voldy/Tom became a part of him? Maybe he can actually CONTROL Voldy in a way he doesn't yet even realize?" ----------------- Not balderdash at all IMO. I often wandered myself, but not on account of the chamber. Until JKR proves me wrong, I'm set on believing their connection is a completely two-way bridge. And Voldemort didn't just put in some extra thoughts in Harry's mind; when Voldemort was laughing, Harry laugh (fiscally, uncontrollably). Why not the other way? As for the chamber, maybe the "unsealing" was figurative. Meaning he alone could find it - not a secret-keeper kind of finding; a "the school was searched many times and no such chamber was found" kind of finding. Harry only found it using deduction (playing Sherlock Holmes). Susana From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 21 23:13:14 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:13:14 +0100 Subject: Hagrid (was: Re: Snape and Neville) References: <20040921205041.11684.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c401c4a030$b096e550$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113559 > Tonks: > Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a > sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the > right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? Magda wrote: "I liked Hagrid in PS/SS but I really think JKR made a mistake when she made him a teacher. He went from being a plainspoken, wise man whose expertise wasn't in books to being a one-note joke who fumbled lesson plans and introduced the kids to inappropriate "interestin' creatures". As a teacher Hagrid is much more one-dimensional and we don't get a chance to see him at his best. Frankly I just find him boring to read now and I still can't believe we didn't get to see Ron's moment of glory because we had to listen to some stupid story about going to the giants for help. And don't get me started on the Grawp subplot. The big Grawp-saves-the-kids moment was a total photocopy of the Flying Ford Anglia rescuing the kids from the spiders in COS. One of the few times in the whole series when I felt cheated as a reader." ---------------- I don't think Teacher!Hagrid is one-dimensional at all, not even *much more* one-dimensional. I agree the Grawp subplot was booorring, but that's because giants are booorring! The way Hagrid acted in regard to Grawp reminds me of the way Hermione acts regarding house elves. (I wouldn't have found it boring to see that plot in house elves, I would have loved it!) With a little luck, Hermione will teach Hagrid about giants and Hagrid will teach Hermione about house elves. Tolerance and understanding of other races fits poterverse like hand in glove. But your analogy to Flying Ford Anglia is right on target! It was fun the first time because they were children. At the age of 15 I'd expect they would get out of a mistake that could have cost them their lives by their own efforts and not by a fluke of luck. I was disappointed (not cheated, no) but mostly I was scared. If Harry vanquishes Voldemort by luck I... Susana -- hoping she'll never need to verbalize that thought! From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 21 23:23:53 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:23:53 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113560 > > > HunterGreen wrote: > > > We don't even know for sure if Crouch Jr. was a DE at all before he was arrested. > > > > Hannah originally: Well, he had a place in the circle of DE's. > mhbobbin responded: > I'm sorry to raise the ghastly endless unresolved discussion of > *GASP* The Three Missing Death Eaters, but when it is said that > Crouch Junior had an empty place in the DE Circle, that is an > unresolved assumption. The one we are led to believe by Madame > Rowling, who likes to send us wandering down the wrong path. > > If only someone had thought to --when Crouch Junior reappeared as > the Polyjuice Potion wore off--lift the sleeve on his shirt and look for the Death Mark. Because of that omission we are condemned to wonder whether Crouch Junior was truly the Third Death Eater. Until proven, I think that assumption is best written in pencil not ink. > > The key is the word *re-entered* my service. If we absolutely knew that Crouch Junior was a DE before the Fall, then it would be safer to assume he was the most faithful servant, stationed at Hogwarts that LV refers to. IMO, JKR left the door open just wide enough for us to consider it just might be Snape that is the Third Death Eater. > Hannah now: I don't have my copy of GoF on hand, but IIRC doesn't LV go on and say something about the loyal DE at Hogwarts being the one responsible for Harry being present? And that seems certain to be Crouch, by his own admission under veritaserum. The 're-entered my service' comment I took to refer to re-entering after LV's fall. I assumed that their service was taken to have ended at that point, so all of them were re-entering. Also, if Snape was a spy right up to the fall, then from LV's pov he hadn't left his service any more than the other DE's had. But till the 6th/ maybe 7th book I'll agree that the identity of the missing DE's is written in pencil only. Hannah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 23:27:26 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:27:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113561 > Olivier: > > It is true that in PoA he never destroys the Boggart. Why would > he destroy it when it is such a nice practical test for students?< > > Pippin: > But he does allow Neville to destroy a Boggart. "Forward Neville, > and finish him off.'" Carol: Which leads me to wonder how he taught his other third-year students (the Slytherins, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs) to deal with boggarts, unless their classes came before the Gryffindors'. And what about the students in other years? Did he teach them the same curriculum he taught the third-years? If so, how did they learn to banish boggarts if Neville had finished the boggart off? If not, who taught them? Certainly not from Lockhart or Crouch!Moody or Umbridge, and probably not Quirrell, either. Oops, Lupin. Bad move. Better search the castle for another boggart, and keep this one intact until the last student has confronted it. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 23:38:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:38:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius Laughing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113562 Marianne wrote: > Maybe Sirius was not laughing all that madly. > We've only heard about this from people like Fudge, who might have > built up the story of the capture of Voldy's Pure Evil Right-Hand Man > because it makes him, Fudge, look brave and daring. Or, to give > Fudge the benefit of the doubt, maybe Sirius did vent with a few > howls of disbelief, grief, or whatever, and, through the passage of > time, that has been enlarged into great gales of insane cackling. Carol: I'm almost certain that the laugh was real, that Fudge heard it, and that it more than anything else convinced him that Sirius was insane. Compare his laugh in the Shrieking Shack after Pettigrew accuses him of having dark powers that enabled him to escape Azkaban: "Black started to laugh, a horrible, mirthless laugh that filled the whole room" 368). I think it was the same laugh that convinced Fudge and everyone else who heard it, including the squad of Hit Wizards who subdued him, that Black was a homicidal maniac. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 21 23:50:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:58 -0000 Subject: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113563 sad1199 wrote: > > > > My point was that while teaching Harry at school Trelawney says that she thinks he is born in mid-winter (under Saturn). But she made the prophecy about a boy born in the last days of July and then Harry bounced Voldemort's curse back at him. She, being a person of knowledge, should be able to dedeuce that Harry was the boy from the > prophecy and know that he was born in July. > A.J. responded: >But this assumes that she even knew about the prophecy. Dumbledore > and the eavesdropper heard it-- that's all we know-- and we know that in POA (Chapter Sixteen-- have just the boxed set paperbacks with me at the moment) she was surprised when Harry quoted her new prophecy, and said that he must have been dreaming. I assume she may well not have realized about making the first prophecy either. Carol: Right. Remember, she doesn't recall making the second prophecy (the one in PoA about the servant of the Enemy appearing tonight)? As I understand it, a prophecy is not made BY but THROUGH the Seer--just as the Oracle at Delphi was "inspired" by Apollo, who spoke through her (in ambiguous terms). So Trelawney probably doesn't know that she spoke the first prophecy, either, and almost certainly doesn't know what it said, unless Dumbledore for some reason has told her, and I don't think he would do so. (And the eavesdropper only knows part of it, not the whole thing.) Carol From susanadacunha at gmx.net Wed Sep 22 00:28:37 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:28:37 +0100 Subject: Does this ship have a name yet? References: Message-ID: <00dc01c4a03b$1d45e110$5c2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113564 "phoenixgod2000" wrote: {snip} >(Harry/Bella shipper here!) {snip} kizor0 wrote: "This is a new record: My mind was utterly and completely broken in no more than four words, greatly improving upon the previous record- holder (The description of a King Kong [COUPLE OF SENTENCES DELETED FOR A VERY GOOD REASON] a Barbie). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt this particular piece of speculation has its own name yet. It definitely should have one. What would be a good name or acronym for it? A pity GOOD LORD and MAKE IT STOP have neither a 'H' or a 'B' in them... You can almost hear Theory Bay going "there goes the neighbourhood" already, can't you?" ---------------------------- That would be: UNBELIEVABLISH Unquestionably Not Believable Existing Ludicrous Ideas Even Vaguely Articulating Bellatrix Loves Intensely Sweet Harry This was the first time I tried this. Don't laugh. (I had fun, though) Susana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 00:37:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:37:00 -0000 Subject: unselfish love vs. sacrificial love (was: Harry's protection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113565 Phabala wrote: > I think the word "sacrifice" itself is important here--it implies > that someone is giving up something that's very important to them > for the sake of another person, simply because he loves them. But > that still doesn't mean it's completely altruistic, as in the Harry > example. With Lily, however, she didn't know that her sacrifice > would do what it did. She put herself in front of her child out of > sheer desire not to see him hurt. > > Then again, maybe she did know, and it was all a big conspiracy... > but probably not. > > -Phabala Carol: Actually, I think she did know, and that's why she was so insistent that Voldemort kill her. Either she knew that self-sacrifice in it self was a form of "ancient magic" that would save Harry when nothing else would or could, or more likely, she had used her (canonical) skill at Charms to protect him using a more complicated form of "ancient magic," and her self-sacrifice was required to activate the protective charm. And note that there's a difference between "sacrifice" (giving up something you care about or love) and "self-sacrifice" (willingly giving up your life to save someone or something else). I know that Voldemort thinks that Lily unwittingly triggered the "ancient magic," but we know how little he understands love, especially sacrificial love. I have a feeling that he doesn't understand how the magic works any better than he understands or appreciates the concept. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 00:51:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:51:08 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113566 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Hannah now: > >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way.<<< > > SSSusan earlier: > >> Personally, I'm going for #2, with the change from yours that > Lucius simply wanted to bring about DD's OUSTER from Hogwarts. << > > Geoff: > >> So I think all his actions were directed to unseating Dumbledore > who is probably the most difficult obstacle for Malfoy to deal with. > The other possibilities would be merely spin-offs from the main > game - helpful no doubt - but not the major aim. In fact, I'm not > totally sure that he would try very hard to restore Voldemort.....<< > > Bookworm: > > In general, I think he was trying to stir up trouble. If it would > > bring back Voldemort, great. If he gets rid of Dumbledore and/or > > Arthur Weasley, even better. Geoff makes a good point. Is Malfoy > > a loyal DE or just using Voldemrot to gain his own power? > > > SSSusan now: > I would say *neither*. That is, I think he is neither a loyal DE > nor using **Voldy** to gain power. I think Lucius is smart enough & > cautious enough to know that if Voldy's *around*, his own climb to > power will only be as far as Voldy will let him rise. During CoS-- > when Voldy is *nowhere around*, Lucius is using *Tom's* diary to try > to gain power, not accompanying or using an active & alive Voldy. > (Hoping that distinction makes sense.) > > Again, if I'm right about this, then I wonder whether Voldy has been > schnookered or is aware that Lucius truly *is* "slippery"? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol asks: But wouldn't Lucius know (via Draco) that Voldemort had been in the back of Quirrell's head? Dumbledore tells Harry that "the whole school knows" what happened between him and Professor Quirrell (obviously an exaggeration, and what they knew was probably a distorted version), but surely the other students didn't think that eleven-year-old Harry had *killed* a teacher who was a secret Dark Wizard. (Quirrell died, as LV tells the DEs, when LV left his body--or rather, his head.) Much later, in OoP, Harry mentions the inconvenient fact that Voldemort was "sticking out the back" of Quirrell's head (a remark for which Umbridge gives him detention), but it's clear that his Gryffindor classmates know this already. So wouldn't the rest of the school know it, too? Or wouldn't Lucius Malfoy have figured out something of the truth from the version of events that Draco gave him? I think that's how he knew it was time to bring the diary into action. Carol From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 00:57:03 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:57:03 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > > > HunterGreen wrote: > > > > We don't even know for sure if Crouch Jr. was a DE at all > before he was arrested. > > > > > > Hannah originally: Well, he had a place in the circle of DE's. > > > > mhbobbin responded: > > I'm sorry to raise the ghastly endless unresolved discussion of > > *GASP* The Three Missing Death Eaters, but when it is said that > > Crouch Junior had an empty place in the DE Circle, that is an > > unresolved assumption. The one we are led to believe by Madame > > Rowling, who likes to send us wandering down the wrong path. > snip snip snip> > The key is the word *re-entered* my service. If we absolutely knew that Crouch Junior was a DE before the Fall, then it would be >safer to assume he was the most faithful servant, stationed at Hogwarts that LV refers to. IMO, JKR left the door open just wide > enough for us to consider it just might be Snape that is the Third > Death Eater. > > > > Hannah now: I don't have my copy of GoF on hand, but IIRC doesn't LV > go on and say something about the loyal DE at Hogwarts being the one > responsible for Harry being present? And that seems certain to be > Crouch, by his own admission under veritaserum. > > The 're-entered my service' comment I took to refer to re-entering > after LV's fall. I assumed that their service was taken to have > ended at that point, so all of them were re-entering. Also, if > Snape was a spy right up to the fall, then from LV's pov he hadn't > left his service any more than the other DE's had. > > But till the 6th/ maybe 7th book I'll agree that the identity of the missing DE's is written in pencil only. mhbobbin: In Ch 33 The Death Eaters: "One too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who i believe has left me forever..he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already re-entered my service. He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..." It is straightforward to think that the three are Karkoroff (who leaves that nite and has not been heard from since), Snape, and Crouch Junior. Except through Book 5, Snape is alive and apparently a good buddy of Lucius. Not threatened in any way we know. Maybe LV plans to kill him later. Maybe he's changed his mind. And if Snape was the first DE--has he been made to pay? No word yet. The wording about the the Third Death EAter is most interesting. If Crouch Junior was conclusively a DE prior to LV's Fall, then I would be more comfortable assuming that the Third DE was Crouch Jr and that he had *re-entered* the service. But that is far from clear, and significant doubt has been sown. No resolution yet. The wording could also refer to Snape. Whether Snape can be trusted and why DD has faith in Snape is one of the big mysteries of the story. This is fuel for that fire. And I believe the wording is precisely the way it is so that Snape cannot be ruled out as the Third Death Eater. But it doesn't quite fit what happens in DD's office after Harry tells his story. Snape certainly doesn't behave like someone who has already *re-entered" the service, not even to fool LV as a double-agent. Showing Fudge his death mark is a nice touch. Could the description fit anyone else? Well, Ludo Bagman was once accused of being a DE, was very suspicious, and he fits the description at the time LV makes the statement. He's at Hogwarts. He has helped deliver Harry. And he is AWOL during Book Five. And how about Fudge? He's one of the judges for the final Task, at Hogwarts when LV describes the third DE. Could Bagman be the First DE? Possibly. I like the words "he will pay" as a clue. Then Karkoroff could be the second DE. Maybe he's already dead. This makes me crazy. I lean towards thinking it's Crouch Junior but that seems so straightforward for this author who likes to point us in one direction so she can surprise us later. It gets back to the word **re-entered*. If Crouch Jr. is the 3rd DE, it means that the wrenching trial scene in the Penseive is all an act. Crouch Jr. isn't innocent and deserves his father's wrath. Interesting how JKR has given us two absolutely known former DEs (Snape, Kark.), two suspected DEs (Bagman, Crouch Jr.) and at least other character (Fudge) to consider for these three missing death eaters. mhbobbin From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Sep 22 01:10:08 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:10:08 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113568 Paul wrote: > > I agree 100% that Luna is the exact opposite of Hermione. She is > aloof and certainly a non-rational person. I can't see her as the > catalyst of Harry's redemption. Yes she was unwillingly helpful at > the end of OOTP, by creating feelings of pity from Harry to her. But > she was only a deus ex machina in order to de-escalate the tension > of the main character and the readers and give an optimistic note > for the future. Instead Hermione is virtually living inside Harry's > mind, heart and soul. Don't get me wrong this is not a shipping > comment. We know that his conscience is talking with Hr's voice. We > also know that in almost every case he acts having Hr's opinion for > him in his mind. She knows him and understands him better than > anyone else, and vice versa. So it is logical to assume that > Hermione will be the key player if not the sole player for Harry's > survival and redemption. Debbie: I agree wholeheartedly that Luna is the "anti-Hermione" but must disagree with the statements that Luna's only value at the end was to create feelings of pity, and that Hermione is virtually living inside Harry. It was at the beginning of Harry's conversation with Luna -- when Luna commented "serenely" how people take her possessions -- that Harry felt pity. I think the importance of their meeting was her own experience with and ability to accept death despite her acknowledgement that the loss of her mother still make her sad. (I see that Siriusly Snapey Susan has posted a similar comment.) Also, Luna's acceptance of herself, despite the fact that others take her possessions and call her Loony Lovegood behind her back, may be the catalyst that will allow Harry to grow to accept the role that has been thrust upon him. She doesn't need to do it proactively. She doesn't even need to appear in HBP. The brief conversation at the end of OOP was all that was needed to plant the notion in Harry's mind. It's not a "redemption", just an idea that nudges him in the right direction. Hermione, on the other hand, tends to take a pro-active approach to things. She is a keen observer and implemented a number of schemes to deal with his problems, but there's plenty of evidence that she was not truly in sync with Harry. A simple example is the homework planner she gave him for Christmas. She was trying to impose her own organization and study methods on him, and it didn't work. And she nagged him again and again about Occlumency without seeming to appreciate Harry's attraction to the corridor. Again, Hermione is advocating her solutions to his problems instead of trying to understand his needs. Now, if Luna is a counterbalance to Hermione, why did JKR wait until now to introduce Luna to the story? My simple answer to that question is that JKR introduced her so late, and made her so odd, so that we would not become too attached to her before JKR kills her off. If you think about it, her calm acceptance of death and belief in the afterlife would soften the blow considerably. JKR has also laid a foundation for reader acceptance of that death. In addition to her speech to Harry, Luna's oddness (kooky jewelry, upside down reading habits, lack of concern for her material possessions) is itself an otherworldly characteristic. She refuses to conform to adolescent norms and seems at times to be very detached from the world of the living; nevertheless, she does not embrace death as a suicide-obsessed teen might. There's also a parallel between Luna's introduction and Sirius' (and Cedric's, too). Sirius was not introduced as a character until PoA (though he's mentioned in PS/SS ch. 1), and manages to last approximately 2 books after we meet him. We also don't get to know him very well until OOP. Likewise, Luna is introduced in OOP (with an offhand reference to her family in GoF (the Portkey chapter), and if she lasts through two books, her demise would take place sometime in Book 7. Cedric is introduced ever so briefly in POA and we never really get to know him well before he is dispatched in GoF. Yes, unfortunately, I believe Luna may be history before the series is done. Debbie who approaches problems like Hermione but wears her wand like Luna From garybec101 at comcast.net Wed Sep 22 01:48:42 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:48:42 -0000 Subject: Hagrid/ was Snape and Neville OOPS forgot to change it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113569 patientx3 at a...> wrote: (personally, I cannot stand Hagrid, the fact that the author likes him makes no difference). Tonks: Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? Tonks_op Becki here; Don't get me wrong, I do like Hagrid, but there is one thing that bothers me. In PS/SS, the dreaded dragon egg incident. First he was so thick to even except it and then, hatch it, and then let Harry and Hermione take the fall for trying to get rid of it, when they were just trying to save his butt! They lost 150 house points for that one and the humiliation from the rest of the school, and they had to do detention, which Hagrid implemented! What is wrong with this picture?! To let some 11 year olds take the fall for your own stupidity! That is just wrong. And I don't ever remember him apologizing for getting them in trouble. I feel that was very low, and he should have gone to Dumbledore and confessed. Becki (who just finished listening to her new copy of PS audio. Funny how a different actor brings a different perspective). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 01:51:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:51:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113570 I (Carol) wrote: > > It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. > > > SSSusan: > I know this is off the main topic of what you, Alla, Potioncat & > others are discussing, but when I see this comment, I just have to > say "STOP!" I would argue, Carol, that we do NOT know this! Yes, > Lily's sacrifice protected him--I do believe that was essential--but > how do we know that there wasn't *also* Something About Harry in > addition to that charm? > > Perhaps Lily's protective charm is what prevented Harry from dying > but it was the Something About Harry that caused the actual rebound > that vaporized Voldy? This is ancient magic, we've been told, but do > we know of any other witch or wizard who survived an AK before, > ever? It seems not. So I would argue that it's reasonable to > consider that it might have required the combination of Lily's > ancient magic sacrifice-charm AND the Something About Harry to have > accomplished it. > > Until told directly otherwise by JKR, I don't think I will ever give > up the idea that there WAS something special about Harry from the get- > go. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol responds: Let me rephrase it, then. Harry, age fifteen months, did nothing *deliberate* and remembered nothing of what happened (till the Dementors brought a few more details to his mind) except a bright green flash and a high, cold laugh. We have his own word for that. He didn't even know he was a wizard until he was eleven and certainly didn't know any spells that would counter an AK when he was an infant. Crouch!Moody says there's no countercurse for AK, but he also says that the spell Harry survived was an AK, so something must have protected Harry from it. I hold with my theory that it was Lily's "ancient magic" that protected Harry, not some gift or power that he was born with. There is at least canon to support my view, which I've repeated on numerous occasions. If you know of any canon that suggests that he was *born with* the power to survive an AK, please cite it. I suppose the Prophecy can be interpreted to mean that he was born with the power to destroy Voldemort, but if that were true, surely he would have (inadvertently) done so as an infant and there would be no HP series. When I posted, though, I was thinking of Snape, who clearly holds the view that Harry is not special (except as Voldemort's chosen nemesis, though I don't think Snape would admit that to Harry) and is not yet ready to confront Voldemort even at fifteen, a point he makes clear in OoP. Carol, who didn't mean to imply that her interpretation was fact and apologizes for creating that impression From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 02:29:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:29:30 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update (spoiler alert) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113571 > What I find interesting on the rubbish page is a family tree looking > diagram. It has "Harry and Hermione" on the left and "Ron" on the > right.Then a line going down from them to "Sirius Black". Then a line > going down from him with (I think) "Rubeus Hagrid" and what looks > like "something Potter"(?) and a name that's scribbled out. > > What could this mean? Does it lend any weight to the H/H ship, with > Ron going dark or at least a rift between them? > > Joj, who finds the diagram more intersting than the drawings in the > scrapbook. Spoiler space (if you haven't seen the new drawing, skip this post) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I thought it was interesting that JKR referred to Nearly Headless Nick as being from the Elizabethan era, which fits with the ruff he wears in one of the books but does not fit at all with a 1492 death date. In SS/PS he says he hasn't eaten for *400* years, but in CoS we have his *500th* death day (Halloween 1992 if we accept the Lexicon chronology). Clearly If Nick is intended to be an Elizabethan, SS/PS is right and he died in 1592, not 1492. Elizabeth reigned from 1558-1603. Her grandfather, the usurper Sylvia and I do not name (okay, Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII--forgive me, Sylvia and RIII!) was king in 1492. (He was very adept at chopping off heads, or his executioners were, and they would not have botched NHN's execution. But another scrapbook item shows that neither the Tudor nor his famous granddaughter had anything to do with the matter.) Carol, who wears her roses white From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 03:03:36 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:03:36 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: snip. > I'm guessing either Crouch!Moody mentioned it in the staffroom (it > would be in character for Moody) or that DD found out somehow (he > supposedly knows everything that goes on, and keeps an especially > close eye on Harry), and gave Snape this information when he asked > him to teach Harry occlumency. Alla: Since we know that Crouch!Moody tried to teach kids how to resist Imperius! for his own purposes (whatever they were), I doubt that he mentioned it in the staff room. When I read that comment, I had not doubt in my mind that Dumbledore told him. Although I wonder how that conversation went. Poor Dumbledore . He probably tried to tell Snape that Harry is special , that he may succeed in Occlumency with proper teaching instructions. That Snape should try and forget all this prejudice and ill will he harbored against Harry. :o) Yeah, nice try that probably was. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 03:40:48 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:40:48 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113573 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > Hannah now: > > >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way.<<< Tonks here: Well Malfoy is very upset when DD comes back to the school, so getting rid of DD could have been his plan. But I have another thought. How do we know that Malfoy Sr. knows what the diary will do? Maybe he couldn't get a good price for it or that Knockturn Alley store (can't remember name) would not take it. So he had to get rid of it and it seemed like a good idea to stick it in her book, might get her father in trouble instead of Malfoy. Maybe he had no idea what it could do. If he didn't want LV back and didn't know what the diary could do then he would not have known that it could help open the chamber again. Maybe he just wanted to get rid of something of LV's and not have it around the house. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 03:46:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:46:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Crouch Jr. (Was: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113574 sad1199 asked: does Snape > have some idea that Moody is Barty Jr.? He knew something was amiss > with Quirrell. Carol responds: I think Barty Jr. is very lucky in that his victim, Alastor Moody, has grounds for hating, or at least thoroughly disliking, both Karkaroff and Snape, and knows about their background as former DEs (or in Karkaroff's case, a traitor and turncoat who actively betrayed other DEs). So Crouch Jr. finds it quite easy to play the role of Moody and make Snape both angry and uneasy without arousing suspicion regarding his true identity. Also Snape has reason to suspect *Harry* of breaking into his office to steal potion ingredients, so he doesn't put the pieces together with quite his usual astuteness. Still, I think Snape must have reported the midnight encounter with "Moody" to Dumbledore, including the burning sensation in his arm, as somehow suspicious, and I think that incident combined with several others (Imperioing and transfiguring his own students, showing up a bit too quickly when Crouch Sr. was acting strangely, and quite possibly visibly stunning Fleur de la Couer at the Tri-Wizard Tournament) helped Dumbledore (not Snape) to figure out who "Moody" was and how he transformed himself. But I think that Snape himself, though suspicious and resentful of "Moody," was too uncomfortable around that roving eye to spend much time in "Moody's" company and his own suspicions of Harry kept him from suspecting that "Moody" might be an imposter out to endanger Harry. Certainly his astonishment on seeing "Barty Crouch!" lying prone in Moody's office is genuine. In fact, his reaction and McGonagall's are so similar that it's almost comical. So, as intelligent and shrewd as Snape is (he knew perfectly well who was standing on top of the stairs in his invisibility cloak, for example), Crouch's choice of people to impersonate (or his luck in the victim chosen for him) combined with Snape's belief that Harry put his own name in the cup prevented Snape, IMO, from figuring out that Moody was an imposter with a sinister ulterior motive. And of course it would have been most unlikely for Snape to suspect Crouch Jr., whom he thought had been dead for thirteen years. However, Dumbledore, using the Pensieve, had been examining memories and their relationships in various contexts throughout the year. The incident with Winky and the Dark Mark, and Mr. Crouch's odd behavior and apparent illness probably led to his studying a number of Crouch-related memories, including the one involving Barty Jr., and he must have thought about them again after the madness and disapearance of Mr. Crouch. His conclusion that "Moody" was Barty Jr. was not based simply on Moody's taking Harry to his office against orders. It was based on a year-long examination of odd events, making connections between seemingly unrelated thoughts using the Pensieve. (See previous paragraph.) Snape did not have that advantage. Anyway, that's my interpretation, which is not so much an answer to "why didn't Snape know?" as to "how in the world did Dumbledore know?", the big question that came to my mind when I first read GoF. Carol, with apologies for the somewhat jumbled thoughts, but I don't have a Pensieve, either From juli17 at aol.com Wed Sep 22 03:47:37 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:47:37 EDT Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: <1ee.2b4750c7.2e824fd9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113575 > Julie said: > "TR's mother is more in the wrong in her marriage, and vis a vis her > husband. But she's not the one who willfully abandoned her son > and left him in an orphanage. Whatever happened between TR's > parents, and whoever is more to blame for the failure of the > marriage, that's really unrelated to TR, at least from his POV. > His mother died, so she couldn't prove or disprove her love, but > his father rejected him coldly and deliberately. That's no doubt > foremost in TR's mind when he's focusing his wrath on his father." > DuffyPoo: > I don't see that his father abandoned TR at all, except in TR's mind. > Divorce/separation isn't ususally about the kids but about the adults in the > situation. Did Riddle, Sr. even know his wife was pregnant or had she just told > him she was a witch? Did she even know that she was pregnant, at the time of > the magical revelation? That's the real question, especially since we have > no idea where she lived from the time Riddle, Sr left her, until TMR was born > and he was placed in an orphanage LV says "and she died giving birth to me, > leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage." TMR only assumes he was > abandoned because he has no father in the picture. Riddle, Sr may never have > known a baby was on the way/born, until TR, at 18 or so, walked into the house > in Little Hangleton. Do you think TMR was going to listen to Dad, at that > point, say 'I didn't abandon you, I didn't even know she was pregnant. I left > because she lied to me!' > > " ... I revenged myself upon him, that fool who gave me his name .. Tom > Riddle ..."(GoF) Yet, according to CoS, it was his Mother who named him, "My > mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the orphanage she > lived just long enough to name me: Tom after my father, Marvolo after my > grandfather." Later in CoS Diary!Tom says "You think I was going to use my filthy > Muggle father's name forever? ... I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle, > who abondoned me even before I was born, just because he found out his wife > was a witch?" This is way too much about Muggle/Wizard relations and not > nearly enough about abandonment, IMO, for him to only blame his father for the > situation into which he was placed. > > LV says "he didn't like magic, my father" but there really is no proof of > that. Perhaps if Mrs. R had not deceived him for however long, and had been up > front with the magic, there may have been no problem at all. It *appears* > Riddle, Sr "didn't like magic" because he left his wife upon finding out that > she was a witch, but the deception could have been the reason, not the magic. > Who among us would stay with someone who had deceived us in a similar > manner for, let's say, a year? (Personal story, my cousin and her fiance both > agreed they did not want children. They dated for about a year - maybe longer > - and always agreed, no children. Within only a few weeks of getting > married, the hubby started in about when they were going to have kids. She reminded > him that they had agreed not to have children. He informed her he'd only > said that to go along with her and that he really wanted a family. She filed > for divorce about three months after the wedding.) > Julie sez: That is interesting speculation. If TR's father didn't know about his wife's pregnancy, then TR is placing the blame on the wrong person. I've always assumed TR acted on some knowledge that his father had knowingly rejected him as well as his mother, but it may not be so. I guess we'll have to wait for HPB and more of TR's backstory to find out whether his father is really culpable. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 22 03:51:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:51:52 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113576 Hannah, > As for Crouch!Moody not telling LV, I doubt they had a lot of > contact, they'd have had to be pretty careful, being right under > DD's nose. When they got in touch, they probably discussed the > details of the plan and not much else. I doubt Crouch considered it > even relevant to LV that Potter could resist the curse. > Potioncat: It may be one of those details which is not particularly important. But it jumped out at me. IRRC, Snape says, "I'm told you're able to resist the Imperius." He does seem to think it is important relative to learning Occlumency. We just don't know how he found out. To me the big issue, once again, is did DD either permit C!M to demonstrate the Unforgivables, or learn about it later, or never know? Because yes, DD would have reason to tell Snape about it. And secondly, did a DE tell Snape, "Boy, when the Big Guy hit the kid with an Imperius, the kid shook it right off!" Because LV doesn't seem to know that Harry can resist it. And as far as I can tell, C!M did have ways of communicating with LV. He sent an owl to LV to tell him Crouch Sr was dead. Of course, it could be that Crouch JR had his own non-LV related reasons to perform these curses, and he wasn't too keen to let LV know about it. Potioncat From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Sep 22 04:40:58 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:40:58 -0000 Subject: The Fourth Floor WAS (Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113577 > > Valky: > Before Christmas, Ginny gets private tour of GT from F and G they > > tell her, and so likeise Tom, about the secret passage, later > > dismissing it from their minds. > > > > After Christmas, while HRH are busy with their polyjuice potion and the ensuing events, Tom!Ginny find themselves some bit more alone than usual and Tom takes advantage of the quiet moment to slip down to the mirror and use the knowledge he has gained. Or even during the Christmas feast where I simply cannot find Ginny anywhere. > > > > Either way the unexplained collapse of the fourth floor passage in winter of COS and the lack of Tom!Ginny having anything satisfying to do at that particular time leads well into suspicion dont you agree? And this is my theory. > > Geoff: > message 90496 which was my reply on the question of the passageways: > > 90496 From: "Geoff Bannister" > Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:03 pm > Subject: Re: Entering the Chamber > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan Miller" > wrote: > > Constance Vigilance: > > I think this fact was demonstrated when Ron's wand malfunction in the Chamber tunnel FAR below Hogwarts was able to cause a cave-in > > and block the roomy passageway way up on the 4th floor. > > Geoff: > I must be being a bit thick but where did that idea come from? > Valky Now: I don't understand? I am *not* proposing that the collapse of the passageway had anything at all to do with the events of May/June 1993. My theory is that the passage way was disillusioned to *appear* collapsed by Tom Riddle and made impenetrable using Ginny at Christmas of 1992. And is now some form of access available exclusively to Tom in and out of Hogwarts. Therefore consistent with the story from Fred and George that the tunnel was not collapsed before winter and was collapsed after winter. I don't know if I am making myself clear, because the post you have shown has very little relevance to what I have theorised. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 22 05:20:04 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:20:04 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Annette, resonding to Pippin: > > Although I admit the similarities between Harry and Snape are > > compelling, both having been victims of child abuse. > > > SSSusan: > A bit of nitpicking, perhaps, since it's not the key part of your > argument, but I'm not sure we *know* that Snape was a victim of child > abuse. [snip] > Siriusly Snapey Susan Pat here: First of all, I think it's brilliant of pippin to point out the similarities between Harry and Snape in this particular situation-- Dudley Demented. I hadn't really put those two together, but the thing I did notice was that Harry had taken on the role of the bully- -a reversal of his previous relationship with Dudley. I agree with SSSusan that the little bit we saw of the man yelling doesn't prove that Snape was abused, but it does show that there were some emotionally unhealthy things in his past--whether he was the child or the adult (which I hadn't thought of before). I also fault Snape for his reactions to Harry because, as an adult, and a fairly intelligent one, he should have moved on. But as DD finds out the hard way, Snape obviously hasn't. I think that one of the things that JKR might be getting at with this whole story line is that some of the things that happen in our childhood are so emotionally painful that we just don't move on. Some people are forever stuck in that period of time, not able to see that a bully is truly the coward or, at the least, insecure about who they are. So rather than reacting in an adult way, a person who feels this way (i.e., Harry and Snape) lashes out, seizing the opportunity to be the one in control--the bully. No one's childhood is perfect, though some of us have it much better than others. We know that Harry's childhood was pretty bleak, while he was with the Dursleys. We suspect that Snape may have had a similarly unhappy childhood--we at least know that his school experienes were less than wonderful. So now the comparison can be, not so much that they were bullied as children, but the choices they make as adults. We can see that Snape is still is the mode of taking out his anger and frustration on anyone he can--since he doesn't limit his bullying to Harry, but also picks on Neville, Hermione, and some of the others. With Harry, he isn't to the adult level yet, and has taken advantage of the opportunity to pay Dudley back for all the nean things he endured as a child. I can only hope that Harry will realize, like Snape has not, that bullying someone else is briefly satisfying, but in the long run, it's not going to repair the emotional damage that was done. When Harry gets a glimpse of what Snape went through as a student, he feels sorry for him, and has no intention of gloating or using that information to humiliate Snape. Snape, of course, is still in that mental state that only leaves him seeking revenge for his hurts. So perhaps Harry has already moved on. Later we see that he is also sorry that people pick on Luna by taking her things, and much to Harry's credit in his time of extreme grief over Sirius's death, Harry offers to help Luna find her things. One of the strongest themes throughout the books is choice. DD says it several times, and this difference between Snape's and Harry's reactions is yet another example of the choices we all must make-- and how those choices affect what kind of person we become. Pat From ABadgerFan2 at msn.com Tue Sep 21 23:50:47 2004 From: ABadgerFan2 at msn.com (abadgerfan2) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:50:47 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113579 I imagine the group has discussed the various Dept. of Mysteries rooms seen late in Bk 5. Still, my archives search reveals too little discussion on the room that intrigues me the most ? the one with the amphitheatre seating looking down to the stage with the veil. You know, the veil behind which Harry and Luna hear whispered voices, and through which Sirius later falls, disappearing. What actually happened to his body? The way the book is written, it seems clear that the body is nowhere to be seen! What logical purpose would such a room serve for the MoM? A stage is for performances, and amphitheatre seating is for an audience what possible uses have been made of this room, is it a means of communication between the dead and the living, as we saw from the workings of the dueling wands of HP and LV in Goblet of Fire? If the dead can still be heard of from their paintings, might this stage be yet another means of communication between the living and dead? Could this even be some kind of portal that plays a crucial role later in the series? Questions abound. Has anyone uncovered answers, either from other portions of the books, or from interviews of JKR herself? Educate me, oh wise ones! From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Wed Sep 22 07:52:54 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:52:54 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113580 > > Debbie wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly that Luna is the "anti-Hermione" but must > disagree with the statements that Luna's only value at the end was > to create feelings of pity, and that Hermione is virtually living > inside Harry. It was at the beginning of Harry's conversation with > Luna -- when Luna commented "serenely" how people take her > possessions -- that Harry felt pity. I think the importance of > their meeting was her own experience with and ability to accept > death despite her acknowledgement that the loss of her mother still > make her sad. (I see that Siriusly Snapey Susan has posted a similar > comment.) > > Also, Luna's acceptance of herself, despite the fact that others > take her possessions and call her Loony Lovegood behind her back, > may be the catalyst that will allow Harry to grow to accept the role > that has been thrust upon him. She doesn't need to do it > proactively. She doesn't even need to appear in HBP. The brief > conversation at the end of OOP was all that was needed to plant the > notion in Harry's mind. It's not a "redemption", just an idea that > nudges him in the right direction. > > Hermione, on the other hand, tends to take a pro-active approach to > things. She is a keen observer and implemented a number of schemes > to deal with his problems, but there's plenty of evidence that she > was not truly in sync with Harry. A simple example is the homework > planner she gave him for Christmas. She was trying to impose her > own organization and study methods on him, and it didn't work. And > she nagged him again and again about Occlumency without seeming to > appreciate Harry's attraction to the corridor. Again, Hermione is > advocating her solutions to his problems instead of trying to > understand his needs. > > Now, if Luna is a counterbalance to Hermione, why did JKR wait until > now to introduce Luna to the story? My simple answer to that > question is that JKR introduced her so late, and made her so odd, so > that we would not become too attached to her before JKR kills her > off. If you think about it, her calm acceptance of death and > belief in the afterlife would soften the blow considerably. > > JKR has also laid a foundation for reader acceptance of that death. > In addition to her speech to Harry, Luna's oddness (kooky jewelry, > upside down reading habits, lack of concern for her material > possessions) is itself an otherworldly characteristic. She refuses > to conform to adolescent norms and seems at times to be very > detached from the world of the living; nevertheless, she does not > embrace death as a suicide-obsessed teen might. > > There's also a parallel between Luna's introduction and Sirius' (and > Cedric's, too). Sirius was not introduced as a character until PoA > (though he's mentioned in PS/SS ch. 1), and manages to last > approximately 2 books after we meet him. We also don't get to know > him very well until OOP. Likewise, Luna is introduced in OOP (with > an offhand reference to her family in GoF (the Portkey chapter), and > if she lasts through two books, her demise would take place sometime > in Book 7. Cedric is introduced ever so briefly in POA and we never > really get to know him well before he is dispatched in GoF. > > Yes, unfortunately, I believe Luna may be history before the series > is done. > > Debbie > who approaches problems like Hermione but wears her wand like Luna Dear all thank you very much for your answers. I don't try to run down Luna's role in the HP saga. At the end of OOTP HP was in a bad state and unable to get out from the endless loop between grief, anger and guilt. Luna was indeed the right person at the right time. She created feelings of pity inside Harry and therefore Harry temporarily escaped his isolation and introversion. That's the significant point. He was ready to think even for a while something else beside Sirius loss. I don't dissagree with the significance of the whole conversation between Luna and Harry but what JKR wanted was to alleviate Harry's bad emotional state at least for a while. Both the mirror and the headless Nick didn't work. Luna as the Deus Ex Machina made the difference. Consider her as an Aspirin. The real cure on the other hand is certainly Hermione (Not a shipping comment, Cease fire). Hermione during the whole saga has proved that she knows Harry like the back of her hand and understands him perfectly. She is the only one that can soothe him with her presence and her words and until now she was never wrong. All her actions helped him in the long run and that is what counts. Cheers, Paul From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 22 08:26:49 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:26:49 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113581 Alla: > Although I wonder how that conversation went. Poor Dumbledore . He probably tried to tell Snape that Harry is special , that he may succeed in Occlumency with proper teaching instructions. That Snape should try and forget all this prejudice and ill will he harbored against Harry. :o) > I think we heard that conversation, only it was between Dumbledore, Snape and Sirius. DD told them they were on the same side now and they should trust each other, but that he'd settle in the short term for a lack of open hostility. If you read Snape's words, in the Occlumency chapter, ignoring the adverbs and the constructions that Harry puts on them ie "malevolently" ,"contemptuously", "insulting" "dangerously" etc. they're not hostile. Snape becomes very angry, but he does not make any verbal attacks on Harry. He does call him a lamentable potionmaker, but Harry would be the first to admit that was true. BTW, since Harry demonstrated his ability to throw off Imperius in front of all the Gryffindor fourth years, it would be remarkable if the whole school didn't know about it. Pippin From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Sep 22 08:37:27 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:37:27 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113582 Khilari: >But what occured to me recently was, why did [Voldemort's] body > disintegrate? Avada Kedavra kills without leaving a mark, we know > that from canon. On the other hand inanimaate objects can be blasted > by it and disintegrate (I think, does this happen to the gravestone > in GoF?)and a killing curse sets fire to the concierge's desk in OotP. > So, in order for LV's body to be destroyed, it should have been > inanimate. Is this possible? His steps towards immmortality could > have ended in making his body into an object which his spirit > controlled rather than a proper part of him. So the AK only hit his > body, destroying it, but not the resident spirit. Do we know that his body was destroyed? Voldemort says that he was "ripped from" his body. If there was no body I wonder how exactly the WW knew that Voldemort was "dead" with no witnesses to the event, or at least ones likely to advertise it (as far as we know) surviving. As you say, I think the rebounding AK *did* kill Voldemort's body, but that the transformations he had undergone stopped *him* from dying, leaving him still with an earthly but non-corporeal existence. But I don't think that we know that his body was destroyed as such. I don't think it's an AK that damages the gravestone in GoF. The marble angel that Harry dives behind is damaged by spells which manifest as jets of *red* light, whereas AK is characterised by green light. We don't know what the killing curse was that set fire to the security guard's desk, although it's a fair guess it was an AK as it was as part of a volley of green jets of light directed at Dumbledore by Voldemort. It *is* inconsistent, though. If an AK can set fire to something, then you would expect that even if the bodies of its victims were unmarked, their clothing would show some sign of the curse. We have to account for the effect of the failed curse on the house at Godric's Hollow. My guess is that it was destroyed by the power released when Voldemort's essence was ripped from his body (similar to the power which is released in Pullmans HDM universe when human and daemon are separated). ~Eloise From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Sep 22 08:48:12 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:48:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113583 Tonks: >>Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ??<< HunterGreen: He just gets on my nerves is all. He's so exuberant about his emotions, almost childlike, and I find the oxymoron of the "tall scary-looking guy with a heart of gold" sort of tiresome. Sometimes I just wish he'd get a little dignity, like in the case of the hippograff attacking Malfoy in PoA, afterwards he falls apart and wants to quit then spends the rest of the year teaching about flobberworms. I was excited at first when he was announced as the COMC teacher, because it seemed so suited for him, but he squandered it for the most part (wasting most of his classes in the third book on flobberworms, and then the skewerts in GoF which were most likely illegal and he therefore shouldn't have been teaching to a class). Also, I'll echo what Becki said about the dragon egg in PS/SS, and what Madga said about the Grawp storyline in OotP (honestly, that was putting Harry and Hermione in a *horrible* position, he should have never involved them in it). I'll also add telling Ron and Harry to follow the spiders in CoS, which nearly got them killed. Perhaps they got some information out of it, but that wasn't worth their lives. Hagrid only annoys me to *read*, in the medium-that-must-not-be- named, I actually enjoy his character, and if he were a real person, I'd probably like him. (I feel the opposite about Sirius, he's my favorite character, but I'm sure I wouldn't like him if he were a real person...unless I was Harry that is). From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 10:30:21 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:30:21 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113584 > > Hannah originally: > > >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut down. > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along the way.<<< > Carol asked: > But wouldn't Lucius know (via Draco) that Voldemort had been in the > back of Quirrell's head? Dumbledore tells Harry that "the whole school knows" what happened between him and Professor Quirrell (obviously an exaggeration, and what they knew was probably a distorted version), > but surely the other students didn't think that eleven-year-old Harry had *killed* a teacher who was a secret Dark Wizard. (Quirrell died, as LV tells the DEs, when LV left his body--or rather, his head.) > > Much later, in OoP, Harry mentions the inconvenient fact that > Voldemort was "sticking out the back" of Quirrell's head (a remark for which Umbridge gives him detention), but it's clear that his > Gryffindor classmates know this already. So wouldn't the rest of the school know it, too? Or wouldn't Lucius Malfoy have figured out > something of the truth from the version of events that Draco gave him? I think that's how he knew it was time to bring the diary into action. Hannah: This is a good question, Carol. I always assumed that the students knowing 'everything' didn't extend to the presence of LV, and was surprised when Harry made that comment in OoP and got so little reaction. Why wasn't more fuss made in the WW at the time? You'd think that they'd take LV's return more seriously at the end of GoF if they knew he'd nearly managed it a few years before. As for its bearing on the timing of the diary incident, I think it probably wasn't related. Dobby tells Harry at the end of July (one month after Quirrel!Mort is defeated) that he has known about the plot for months. Unless Dobby is exaggerating, it seems likely that Lucius has been planning to use that book since before Quirrel!Mort and Harry have their confrontation. Tonks also replied: > Well Malfoy is very upset when DD comes back to the school, so > getting rid of DD could have been his plan. But I have another > thought. How do we know that Malfoy Sr. knows what the diary will > do? Maybe he couldn't get a good price for it or that Knockturn > Alley store (can't remember name) would not take it. So he had to > get rid of it and it seemed like a good idea to stick it in her > book, might get her father in trouble instead of Malfoy. Maybe he > had no idea what it could do. If he didn't want LV back and didn't > know what the diary could do then he would not have known that it > could help open the chamber again. Maybe he just wanted to get rid > of something of LV's and not have it around the house. > Hannah now: It sounds good in theory, but as I've said before, Malfoy hands out the diary *after* Dobby has warned Harry about a plot to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts, which he claims he has known about for months. So Malfoy was definitely planning to use the diary to ill effect. From earendil_fr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 10:55:26 2004 From: earendil_fr at yahoo.com (earendil_fr) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:55:26 -0000 Subject: Another theory about the collapsed passage (was: The Fourth Floor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113585 > > > Valky wrote: > > Before Christmas, Ginny gets private tour of GT from F and G they > > > tell her, and so likeise Tom, about the secret passage, later > > > dismissing it from their minds. > > > > > > After Christmas, while HRH are busy with their polyjuice potion > and the ensuing events, Tom!Ginny find themselves some bit more > alone than usual and Tom takes advantage of the quiet moment to slip > down to the mirror and use the knowledge he has gained. Or even > during the Christmas feast where I simply cannot find Ginny anywhere. > > > > > > Either way the unexplained collapse of the fourth floor passage > in winter of COS and the lack of Tom!Ginny having anything > satisfying to do at that particular time leads well into suspicion > dont you agree? And this is my theory. Earendil: Here is another theory about the collapsed passage on the fourth floor in winter. I didn't follow the collapsed passage thread very closely when it started a couple of weeks ago, so sorry if it's already been suggested. The first attack of the basilisc happened before winter/christmas IIRC, which means the basilisc started using the pipes to move around Hogwarts before christmas. Considering its weight, I wouldn't be surprised if, while moving in the pipes near that fourth floor passage, it had provoked the collapse... Just my two cents. Earendil. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 22 11:01:53 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:01:53 -0000 Subject: The Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Anyway, in a nutshell I think it's Dd decides the houses. I would > say that it's too important a decision for a magical object to be > left in charge of, but of course the goblet of fire makes a VERY > important decision and to the complete surprise of DD so that one > maybe won't wash. Even so, i think it's DD (or GG as the hat) who > makes the decision? > Possible. I've wondered before whether the Hat had been fixed - the first time in post 87319 and again later in 93246; I've made comments in other posts too. But really what raised my suspicions are that the disparate characters of Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville, each of whom can be easily allocated to other Houses, all being stuffed into Gryffindor - though only after pondering and/or alternatives have been considered by the Hat. Except for Ron - he's an archetypal Gryffindor. Plus the possibility that the same had been done with James, Sirius, Remus and Peter. Generational parallels. The older generation attended Hogwarts at a time that overlaps the first rise of Voldy; the younger generation as he's revitalised for a re-match. The Hat starts burbling about Houses standing together and Headless Nick tells us that this isn't the first time it's taken this line. It all fits nicely into the PuppetMaster!DD scenario. Friendly, smiling Albus is stacking the deck - again. Kneasy From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 13:00:15 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:00:15 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113587 > > Pippin: > BTW, since Harry demonstrated his ability to throw off Imperius > in front of all the Gryffindor fourth years, it would be remarkable > if the whole school didn't know about it. > ******* Actually, I believe the whole school must know, even V.Krum knew that, if we infer from Hermione's conversation with Harry when she is trying to make him understand that he can teach them Defense, in OoTP. Marcela From hannah at readysolve.com Wed Sep 22 13:09:20 2004 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:09:20 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: > Khilari: > > >But what occured to me recently was, why did [Voldemort's] body > > disintegrate? Avada Kedavra kills without leaving a mark, we know > > that from canon. On the other hand inanimaate objects can be > blasted > > by it and disintegrate (I think, does this happen to the gravestone > > in GoF?)and a killing curse sets fire to the concierge's desk in > OotP. > > So, in order for LV's body to be destroyed, it should have been > > inanimate. Is this possible? His steps towards immmortality could > > have ended in making his body into an object which his spirit > > controlled rather than a proper part of him. So the AK only hit his > > body, destroying it, but not the resident spirit. > > Do we know that his body was destroyed? Voldemort says that he > was "ripped from" his body. If there was no body I wonder how exactly > the WW knew that Voldemort was "dead" with no witnesses to the event, > or at least ones likely to advertise it (as far as we know) surviving. > > As you say, I think the rebounding AK *did* kill Voldemort's body, > but that the transformations he had undergone stopped *him* from > dying, leaving him still with an earthly but non-corporeal existence. > But I don't think that we know that his body was destroyed as such. > > I don't think it's an AK that damages the gravestone in GoF. The > marble angel that Harry dives behind is damaged by spells which > manifest as jets of *red* light, whereas AK is characterised by green > light. We don't know what the killing curse was that set fire to the > security guard's desk, although it's a fair guess it was an AK as it > was as part of a volley of green jets of light directed at Dumbledore > by Voldemort. > > It *is* inconsistent, though. If an AK can set fire to something, > then you would expect that even if the bodies of its victims were > unmarked, their clothing would show some sign of the curse. > > We have to account for the effect of the failed curse on the house at > Godric's Hollow. My guess is that it was destroyed by the power > released when Voldemort's essence was ripped from his body (similar > to the power which is released in Pullmans HDM universe when human > and daemon are separated). > > ~Eloise It was definitely a killing curse that set fire to the desk, I checked. "He sent another killing curse at Dumbledore, but missed, instead hitting the security guard's desk, which burst into flame." As to the body being destroyed, perhaps I was wrong about that, does anyone remember LV saying anything else about this? Khilari. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 12:44:26 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040922124427.69270.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113589 > Hannah, > As for Crouch!Moody not telling LV, I doubt they had a lot of > contact, they'd have had to be pretty careful, being right under > DD's nose. When they got in touch, they probably discussed the > details of the plan and not much else. I doubt Crouch considered > it even relevant to LV that Potter could resist the curse. I assume that since he taught it in class, Crouch!Moody would have written it up in his classnotes and the classnotes came into Dumbledore's possession after GOF. Crouch!Moody did have to go through the motions of being a teacher, after all, and that includes recording class lessons. Once Dumbledore had the notes he read them. And of course Crouch!Moody also says that Dumbledore wants them to learn about the unforgiveables so if that was true then Dumbledore would have followed up at the time. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From jmmears at comcast.net Wed Sep 22 13:41:13 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:41:13 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113590 Debbie wrote: > Now, if Luna is a counterbalance to Hermione, why did JKR wait > until > now to introduce Luna to the story? My simple answer to that > question is that JKR introduced her so late, and made her so odd, > so > that we would not become too attached to her before JKR kills her > off. If you think about it, her calm acceptance of death and > belief in the afterlife would soften the blow considerably. > JKR has also laid a foundation for reader acceptance of that > death. > In addition to her speech to Harry, Luna's oddness (kooky > jewelry, > upside down reading habits, lack of concern for her material > possessions) is itself an otherworldly characteristic. I really thought that I was the only one who feels that Luna will be the sacrificial lamb of the "expanded" trio (now, sextet). Debbie's explanation really rings true for me, and as I'm pretty sure that JKR will have to have some losses among the students closest to Harry, Luna seems to be by far the most likely candidate. In addition to the excellent analysis above, Luna's serene acceptance of death seems to reflect Dumbledore's. Given the many clues supporting the expectation that Dumbledore will die before the end of the series, Luna's character development seems to fall in line with the way JKR prepares the reader for that eventual outcome. Paul wrote: > Both the mirror and the headless Nick didn't work. Luna as the Deus > Ex Machina made the difference. Consider her as an Aspirin. The real > cure on the other hand is certainly Hermione (Not a shipping > comment, Cease fire). Hermione during the whole saga has proved that > she knows Harry like the back of her hand and understands him > perfectly. She is the only one that can soothe him with her presence > and her words and until now she was never wrong. All her actions > helped him in the long run and that is what counts. I'm afraid that I can't agree that Hermione really knows Harry "like the back of her hand". There are too many examples of her misreading his emotional state to support the notion that she really "gets" him. Debbie wrote: > Hermione, on the other hand, tends to take a pro-active approach > to > things. She is a keen observer and implemented a number of > schemes > to deal with his problems, but there's plenty of evidence that she > was not truly in sync with Harry. A simple example is the > homework > planner she gave him for Christmas. She was trying to impose her > own organization and study methods on him, and it didn't work. > And > she nagged him again and again about Occlumency without seeming to > appreciate Harry's attraction to the corridor. Again, Hermione is > advocating her solutions to his problems instead of trying to > understand his needs. She does seem to frequently misread Harry's nedds. A fairly trivial, yet telling example in GoF, was her dismissal of the idea that Harry would want a game of Quidditch to take his mind off his worries. Another from OOP would be her assumption that Harry wants to ask Cho out (Ron shrewdly suggests that he doesn't *want* to ask her), and her presuming to vanish his remaining Invigoration Draught after Snape has destroyed his first sample, causing him to get another zero. I think these episodes illustrate that Hermione, while meaning well, often misreads Harry's wants and needs. Jo Serenadust From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 13:41:52 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:41:52 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113591 > mhbobbin then wrote: > In Ch 33 The Death Eaters: > "One too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who i believe has > left me forever..he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already re-entered my service. He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..." > > It is straightforward to think that the three are Karkoroff (who > leaves that nite and has not been heard from since), Snape, and > Crouch Junior. > > The wording about the the Third Death EAter is most interesting. If Crouch Junior was conclusively a DE prior to LV's Fall, then I would be more comfortable assuming that the Third DE was Crouch Jr and that he had *re-entered* the service. > The wording could also refer to Snape. Whether Snape can be trusted and why DD has faith in Snape is one of the big mysteries of the story. This is fuel for that fire. And I believe the wording is > precisely the way it is so that Snape cannot be ruled out as the > Third Death Eater. > > Could the description fit anyone else? Well, Ludo Bagman was once > accused of being a DE, was very suspicious, and he fits the > description at the time LV makes the statement. He's at Hogwarts. He has helped deliver Harry. And he is AWOL during Book Five. > > And how about Fudge? He's one of the judges for the final Task, at > Hogwarts when LV describes the third DE. > > Could Bagman be the First DE? Possibly. I like the words "he will > pay" as a clue. Then Karkoroff could be the second DE. Maybe he's > already dead. > > This makes me crazy. I lean towards thinking it's Crouch Junior but that seems so straightforward for this author who likes to point us in one direction so she can surprise us later. It gets back to the word **re-entered*. If Crouch Jr. is the 3rd DE, it means that the wrenching trial scene in the Penseive is all an act. Crouch Jr. > isn't innocent and deserves his father's wrath. > > Interesting how JKR has given us two absolutely known former DEs > (Snape, Kark.), two suspected DEs (Bagman, Crouch Jr.) and at least other character (Fudge) to consider for these three missing death eaters. Hannah now: It is interesting, and there probably is a surprise in there somewhere, this being JKR! Brilliant post mhbobbin, sorry to hav snipped bits of it. I agree that it's not written in indeliable ink, but I still believe that the 'loyal servant at Hogwarts' has to be Crouch Jr., by elimination. 'It was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight.' What actions led to Harry being at the graveyard? First, putting his name in the goblet (Crouch Jr.) Second, getting him through the tasks alive and with a reasonable mark (Crouch Jr.). Third, portkey-ifying the triwizard cup to get him there (Crouch Jr.) Fourth, rigging the maze so that Harry could get through and reach the cup first (Crouch Jr.) The one person who, IMO, can take credit for Harry being there is Crouch Jr. Let's look at the alternatives for the 'loyalist DE' (sounds like we're deciding on an award or something!) Snape: as far as we can tell has done nothing to contribute to Harry being there. He is angry when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet and doesn't even disguise his feelings very well, suggesting he is also surprised. He certainly gives Harry no help with his tasks. Fudge: He doesn't have much to do with the triwizard tournament, as far as I can tell. He only turns up to judge the final task when Crouch is missing. He can't really be considered responsible for Harry being there. Karkaroff: Can't take the credit for Harry being there. He tried to stop Harry competing at all, and then gave him very low marks. And ran away at the end. Bagman: He does give Harry high marks in the tasks, and would probably have helped him cheat if Harry had asked, but ultimately he isn't the one who put Harry's name in the goblet or rigged the tasks. The high marks aren't that important in getting him through - although it's easier for Crouch Jr. to get Harry to the cup when he has a head start, he could probably have still managed it if he'd not had it. So I think that Crouch Jr. is the only person he could possibly be referring to with that comment. I do believe the pensieve scene is an act - we do know that Crouch Jr. is a good actor. As for the other 2 missing DE's... I've never been able to make up my mind, and am sure they aren't who we're meant to think they are. Hannah From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 22 13:51:38 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:51:38 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113592 This question of the link ? or lack of it ? between the passage behind the mirror on the fourth floor and that leading to the Chamber of Secrets crops up from time to time and, having just been involved yet again in a discussion, I decided to pull together some of the details we have. Having started, I'm not sure whether I haven't created more loose ends and questions to deal with than I've managed to tick off on the list! First, the time line for the tunnel which I did discuss back in message 90496. Harry is given the Marauders' Map by the twins in December 1993. I did originally say November but re-reading POA showed me that I was wrong: `To everyone's delight except Harry's, there was to be another Hogsmeade trip on the very last weekend of term.' (POA "The Marauders' Map" p.143 UK edition) [Completely OT, I just realised that the apostrophe is in the wrong place in the name] It was on this day that Fred and George gave the map to Harry and mentioned the cave-in on the fourth floor tunnel and that it had happened `last winter' which could cover a period from roughly November 1992 to February 1993. Since the collapse of the Chamber of Secrets tunnel can be closely dated to the 28th-29th May 1993, there was obviously no link between the two events. I do not feel that there can be any physical link between the tunnels either. The Hogsmeade tunnel starts on the fourth floor and the Chamber of Secrets link is underground and accessed via the pipe from the first floor. I am sure that Fred and George have explored all the tunnels carefully and would have noticed if there was a branch off the upper tunnel in a different direction. I feel the suggestion that Tom did something to make the tunnel appear collapsed doesn't hold water. "Disillusionment" is used to make a person or object almost invisible against its background ? viz Moody's use of one on Harry in the Dursley's kitchen in OOTP ("The Advance Guard" pp. 53-54 UK edition). Again, Hermione points out somewhere (I haven't managed to locate it) that Hogwarts is enchanted so that any Muggle coming near sees only an old mouldering ruin with a sign saying "Keep off. Dangerous" but visible normally to wizard eyes. So if Voldemort tied to make the passage look blocked, the twins would presumably see it as usual. Now to the diary which produces another whole crop of questions. To begin with, why did Tom Riddle decide to create the diary? His logic in COS seems odd: `"I knew it wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was still at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work.' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition) Why create the diary at all? Does he think he is going to suffer amnesia when he walks out of the Hogwarts gates? He is not going to waste those years; he has the information safely locked up in his head. Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been used? Did he know how to access it? Or want to? Perhaps after Voldemort's unscheduled exit in 1980, Lucius felt that the less known about the diary the better. But.... When the wretched book reappears in 1992, why didn't Lucius try to get to the Chamber himself or why not give it to Draco and get him to create mayhem and mischief rather than give it to Ginny who might not even get as far as trying to use it? I wonder whether Lucius knew precisely what it was or whether he dumped it onto Ginny in the hope that she might be a vehicle for it to lead to the undermining of Dumbledore's influence and the possible end of Hogwarts. Finally, the memory "preserved in a diary for fifty years" (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.227 UK edition). Again, questions, questions . Has Tom Riddle been able to take on a form in those fifty years? Frequently - or not at all until Ginny came along to provide the way for him to regain shape? Was Memory!Tom able to leave the confines of the Chamber? Is he only able to function as a message writer when someone actually writes in the book? What triggers him into "Projection" mode? Tom Riddle, he of the Chamber of Secrets, is one of Jo Rowling's more interesting creations, reminding me slightly of the holodecks in Star Trek. He was apparently around, probably dormant, while Voldemort was still creating terror and havoc. So, what is or was his function? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 15:16:43 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:16:43 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113593 Serenadust wrote: > She does seem to frequently misread Harry's nedds. A fairly trivial, > yet telling example in GoF, was her dismissal of the idea that Harry > would want a game of Quidditch to take his mind off his worries. > Another from OOP would be her assumption that Harry wants to ask Cho > out (Ron shrewdly suggests that he doesn't *want* to ask her), and > her presuming to vanish his remaining Invigoration Draught after > Snape has destroyed his first sample, causing him to get another > zero. I think these episodes illustrate that Hermione, while > meaning well, often misreads Harry's wants and needs. Now Cory: I might somewhat buy into your first two examples, but I think you're reaching a bit with the third one. Is the fact that she vanished his draught in potions class really a good example of her "misreading his wants and needs"?? Or perhaps, was she just cleaning up after class? If she hadn't cleaned up what was left of his draught and Snape hadn't destroyed his sample, those who insist on over-analyzing everything would inevitably say "See, Hermione doesn't understand Harry at all; she never does anything for him -- she wouldn't even help him clean up his draught after class!" I wouldn't read too much into this; as so many others have said before me, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. For me, the bottom line is that, althought Hermione might not *perfectly* understand Harry in all respects, she does understand certain aspects of his psyche better than anyone else. She doesn't understand him in the same way that most girls her age don't understand boys their age in general (i.e. Quiddich and Cho), but in some ways, she does understand him better than Ron does (i.e. in GOF, understanding how he feels about his fame, and about the unfairness of Ron being jealous of him for getting into the tournament). The reality is, Hermione, Ron, Ginny and Luna each undetstand Harry in different ways, and each has something to offer him. --Cory --Cory From relay_hpfgu at fictionalley.org Wed Sep 22 15:20:04 2004 From: relay_hpfgu at fictionalley.org (hpfgu_elf) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:20:04 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Why create the diary at all? Does he think he is going to suffer amnesia when he walks out of the Hogwarts gates? He is not going to waste those years; he has the information safely locked up in his head. > > Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it (how old was he in 1942?)? < Pippin: Wow! You could be on to something here. Maybe the diary wasn't sixteen year old Tom Riddle's creation at all--maybe it was made by present day Voldemort! With a little help from Quirrell? *Dobby knows that Harry defeated Voldemort "just weeks" ago, but the diary plot has been underway "for months" *JKR says on her website that she can't tell us what would have happened if the Diary plot had succeeded but that it would have made present-day Voldemort much stronger. * Diary!Riddle says Voldemort is his past, present and future... *Harry thinks, when he gets the map, that it's the same kind of magical object as the diary. *Ernie says a Dark Lord wouldn't want another Dark Lord competing with him. What if Quirrellmort created the diary, using the same kind of magic Lupin used to help create the Marauder's Map? Maybe Quirrell slipped it into Lucius Malfoy's possession the same way Malfoy slipped it into Ginny's. We know Quirrell was in Diagon Alley the same day that Lucius was there, and that Quirrell was there to pick up a book on vampires. He could have met Lucius in Flourish and Blotts. Voldemort's goal would be to create a human body that he could return to once he had obtained the stone. Lucius would think that the diary is genuine, an artifact of the Dark Lord's early years, why should he not? He makes his plot with Diary!Riddle, not realizing that present-day Voldemort is involved. Dobby, of course, would not know this either. Malfoy's goal would be to dislodge Dumbledore from Hogwarts and discredit Arthur -- I'm sure if he had thought there was any chance the Diary would aid corporeal Voldemort's return, he'd have chucked the thing down a toilet himself. Pippin who would like to make a case for ESE!Lupin being behind it all, but has to admit that Quirrell would do as well From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 22 16:03:14 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:03:14 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khilari2000" wrote: > There have been a lot of theories about this lately, and > about the question we should have asked,ie why LV did > not die when the curse rebounded. But what occured to > me recently was, why did his body disintegrate? Avada > Kedavra kills without leaving a mark, we know that from > canon. On the other hand inanimate objects can be blasted > by it and disintegrate (I think, does this happen to the > gravestone in GoF?)and a killing curse sets fire to the > concierge's desk in OotP. > So, in order for LV's body to be destroyed, it should have > been inanimate. Is this possible? As others have pointed out, we don't know what happened to the corporate Voldy, though since there's no mention of his corpse specifically it's a reasonable assumption that it probably disintegrated somehow. Though we could get into a lot of trouble making assumptions with a writer that deliberately concocts red herrings for the sheer fun of it. AKs though. A few of us on site wonder if Voldy actually cast an AK at Harry or if it was something else entirely. When you consider what we've been told, well - it makes you think. There is no defence or counter-curse to an AK. Yet Harry was protected. AKs leave bodies unmarked. Yet Harry has a scar. AKs are a green flash. Harry remembers one - presumably the one that killed Lily, because after it he hears a high pitched laugh - so it wouldn't be the one that 'bounced'; Voldy was still under the impression he was in charge. But he doesn't remember a second flash - the one that was supposedly thrown at him. If by some miracle and underhand work by JKR an AK had been thrown at Harry and bounced (leaving an absolutely unique scar) and hit Voldy, where is Voldy's unmarked body and why the hell did the house collapse into ruin? AKs may crack a headstone or even ignite a desk, but that's if they miss the person they're aimed at. But blow up a house - when they've already bounced off one body and hit another squarely enough to separate body from spirit? Does not compute. This AK does not obey any of the known characteristics of AKs: You can be shielded against it, It leaves physical marks, It ain't green, It causes massive damage, It leaves bits of the casters mind in the target. So look at it another way, if the spell/curse did not behave like an AK maybe it wasn't an AK after all. There's only one person in the books that says it was an AK and that's dear departed Crouch!Moody. And how would he know? Ans. He wouldn't. He's making an assumption, at the same time that he's repeatedly telling us that there is no defending against an AK. Remember Ted Sturgeon's Second Law: "There's more ways to futter a cat than by stuffing its head in a sea-boot." Voldy intended the death of Harry, but not by AK. Voldy was having fun trying to access the power in Harry (and mentioned right at the begining of the Prophecy) for his own uses. When the spell bounced it did to him exactly what he intended for Harry - it blew his mind. Kneasy From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 16:26:27 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:26:27 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113596 Geoff wrote: > Now to the diary which produces another whole crop of questions. To begin with, why did Tom Riddle decide to create the diary? His logic in COS seems odd: > > `"I knew it wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was > still at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd > spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work.' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition) > > Why create the diary at all? Does he think he is going to suffer > amnesia when he walks out of the Hogwarts gates? He is not going to waste those years; he has the information safely locked up in his >head. > Hannah now: The diary is actually a pretty good idea. He was Slytherin's last remaining heir. He had probably decided he wasn't likely to have children - and even if he did, they may be suspected if they were to open the chamber. Instead, he creates a way that he can use another child, at some point in the future, to open the chamber, without that child having to have any contact with adult LV. It's an insurance policy - if anything should happen to him (which of course it does) the diary exists as a means to carry on his work, and even to allow him to live again. For someone obsessed with immortality, it's a logical step. If things go wrong in the future, he's got another chance. Geoff continued: > Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been used? Did he know how to access it? Or want to? Perhaps after > Voldemort's unscheduled exit in 1980, Lucius felt that the less known about the diary the better. But.... When the wretched book reappears in 1992, why didn't Lucius try to get to the Chamber himself or why not give it to Draco and get him to create mayhem and mischief rather than give it to Ginny who might not even get as far as trying to use it? I wonder whether Lucius knew precisely what it was or whether he dumped it onto Ginny in the hope that she might be a vehicle for it to lead to the undermining of Dumbledore's influence and the possible end of Hogwarts. > Hannah again: We're back to the tricky question of what Lucius hoped to achieve with the diary, which we're discussing in another thread, so I won't go into now. Why not give it to Draco? Well, it's dangerous for a start - both for Draco personally, and for Lucius in terms of disgrace/ it being traced back to him. And by giving it to Ginny he gets the added bonus of the possibility of disgracing Arthur Weasley. Lucius can't have had it for the entire 50 years. In OoP (or is it GoF?) a newspaper article gives his age as 41. He might be fibbing a bit, but I doubt he's much older than 45. Even if he's old enough to have been alive when Riddle made the diary, he would only have been a baby/ small child, and not to be entrusted with it. Could Riddle have given it to Lucius' father? I have often wondered if Lucius wrote in the diary, and how much he knew about it. I always thought that cagey old Lucius would have been very wary of writing in the diary - I don't imagine he would want to be possessed by Tom Riddle. But he must have had some idea of what it was capable of, presumably from being told by LV or whoever had the diary before him, or perhaps by written instructions kept with the diary? Hannah From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 22 16:42:42 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:42:42 -0400 Subject: JKR web site update (spoiler alert) Message-ID: <001601c4a0c3$3e9a6830$6ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113597 Carol said: "I thought it was interesting that JKR referred to Nearly Headless Nick as being from the Elizabethan era, which fits with the ruff he wears in one of the books but does not fit at all with a 1492 death date. In SS/PS he says he hasn't eaten for *400* years, but in CoS we have his *500th* death day (Halloween 1992 if we accept the Lexicon chronology). Clearly If Nick is intended to be an Elizabethan, SS/PS is right and he died in 1592, not 1492. Elizabeth reigned from 1558-1603. Her grandfather, the usurper Sylvia and I do not name (okay, Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII--forgive me, Sylvia and RIII!) was king in 1492. (He was very adept at chopping off heads, or his executioners were, and they would not have botched NHN's execution. But another scrapbook item shows that neither the Tudor nor his famous granddaughter had anything to do with the matter.), " DuffyPoo: In my newer edition of PS (Canadian, published by Raincoast books in 2000) Nick says he hasn't eaten for nearly *500* years. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 22 16:47:28 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:47:28 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113598 mhbobbin: The wording about the Third Death Eater is most interesting. If Crouch Junior was conclusively a DE prior to LV's Fall, then I would be more comfortable assuming that the Third DE was Crouch Jr and that he had *re-entered* the service. But that is far from clear, and significant doubt has been sown. No resolution yet. Bookworm: Since reading GoF, I've thought that the Karkaroff/Snape/Crouch triumvirate was too easy to assume. At the time, I argued Bagman was the cowardly one (because of the way he was running from his debts to the goblins), but reading this thread makes me think he might have been the faithful DE and his cowardice is a cover. Canon against Crouch Junior being the third missing DE: If Junior was the `most faithful servant' would he have shrieked during his trial: "I didn't, I swear it Father, don't send me back to the dementors - " and "Mother, stop him, Mother, I didn't do it, it wasn't me!" [GoF, Ch30] This doesn't sound very faithful. Bellatrix was standing right next to him, so it is probable she reported it to Voldemort. Fudge, OTOH, was very quick to have him `kissed' so that he couldn't tell anything more. Was it so he couldn't name Fudge? Or so that no one would realize that he [Junior] *wasn't* guilty of earlier crimes? "`The Lestranges should stand here,' said Voldemort quietly. `But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went to Azkaban rather than denounce me....When Azkaban is broken open, the Lestranges will be honored beyond their dreams.'" [GoF, Ch33] The Lestranges were `faithful' and didn't renounce Voldemort. It doesn't make sense that Junior would also be described as `the faithful servant' even though he calls himself that. [GoF, Ch35] Canon for Bagman being the third missing DE: Hannah now: 'It was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight.' What actions led to Harry being at the graveyard? First, putting his name in the goblet (Crouch Jr.) Bookworm: Before Harry's name could go into the goblet, there had to be a tournament. "`There have been several attempts over the centuries to reinstate the tournament,' Dumbledore continued, `none of which has been very successful. However, our own Departments of International Magical Cooperation and *Magical Games and Sports* have decided the time is ripe for another attempt.'" (my emphasis) [GoF, Ch12] Naturally, the Minister for Magical Games and Sports would be involved in the negotiations, but just who `decided the time is ripe'? Bagman plays the bumbling fool very well. His dissembling during his trial put all the blame on Rookwood, but he never specifically denied being a DE. "`She [Bertha Jorkins] told me that the Triwizard Tournament would be played at Hogwarts this year. She told me that she knew of a faithful Death Eater who would be only too willing to help me, if I could only contact him. She told me many things...'" [GoF, Ch33] Who was Bertha's boss who refused to search when she went missing? Bagman. This quote indicates that the Tournament was being planned before Bertha ran into Voldemort. However, we have been told that after Godric's Hollow, the DEs wanted revenge. After Sirius' escape in PoA, discussion of Godric's Hollow and Harry's survival would be a main topic of discussion in the WW, renewing public awareness of Harry. It wouldn't be unusual for Bagman as the `faithful servant' to plot revenge on Voldemort's behalf. When Voldemort turned up personally (in a manner of speaking), Bagman would have delivered Harry to his master. Note that Chapter Seven (where Harry meets him - "Bagman did the smallest of double takes when he heard Harry's name...") is titled *Bagman* and Crouch. Bagman gets more than six pages of text compared to Crouch's two. Throwaway comment by Crouch Senior during Bagman's trial: The day Ludo Bagman joins us will be a sad day for the Ministry...." Could it be that it actually was a sad day...?" mhbobbin: Interesting how JKR has given us two absolutely known former DEs (Snape, Kark.), two suspected DEs (Bagman, Crouch Jr.) and at least other character (Fudge) to consider for these three missing death eaters. Bookworm: We wouldn't want her to make it easy for us, would we? I'm not 100% positive of my own arguments here (I haven't figured out how Fudge fits into this whole picture), but am positive some of you will disagree. Ravenclaw Bookworm From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 17:13:44 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:13:44 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113599 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been used? Did he know how to access it? Or want to? Perhaps after > Voldemort's unscheduled exit in 1980, Lucius felt that the less known about the diary the better. But.... When the wretched book reappears in 1992, why didn't Lucius try to get to the Chamber himself or ...snip Tonks here: I posted earlier that I don't think Malfoy knew what the diary did. I think it has been in the family. He probably got it from his father since Malfoy is 41 and LV is 66 or so. When the MOM was raiding houses to find Dark Magic items Malfoy tried to get rid of the diary. I know that doesn't match the idea that Malfoy was plotting something for month.. but ??? so maybe I am wrong. ;-( Tonks_op Pippin said: *JKR says on her website that she can't tell us what would have happened if the Diary plot had succeeded but that it would have made present-day Voldemort much stronger. Tonks now: I have a theory about that. If Harry had died, Ginny would have died and DD would have been defeated by the powers of darkness. LV would have a body again (when Ginny was closest to death his image was clearer... almost solid.) LV lives on the life energy of other people. DD(and Phoenix) balances LV and prevents his takeover. If Harry hadn't "defended" DD the phoenix might not have come, if Harry hadn't asked for help, Harry and Ginny would have died. Ron and Lockhart would have died too because they would have been trapped there. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 22 17:22:51 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:22:51 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113600 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: Hannah: > Lucius can't have had it for the entire 50 years. In OoP (or is it > GoF?) a newspaper article gives his age as 41. He might be fibbing > a bit, but I doubt he's much older than 45. Even if he's old enough > to have been alive when Riddle made the diary, he would only have > been a baby/ small child, and not to be entrusted with it. Could > Riddle have given it to Lucius' father? Geoff: Thanks for that. I knew I'd seen a reference to Lucius' age and spent quite a bit of today trying to find it and then wondered whether I'd read it in fanfic. I'm sure it's in a Daily Prophet article and I would suspect OOTP since there are more articles quoted. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From jmmears at comcast.net Wed Sep 22 17:28:55 2004 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:28:55 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113601 I wrote: > > She does seem to frequently misread Harry's nedds. A fairly > trivial, > > yet telling example in GoF, was her dismissal of the idea that > Harry > > would want a game of Quidditch to take his mind off his worries. > > Another from OOP would be her assumption that Harry wants to ask > Cho > > out (Ron shrewdly suggests that he doesn't *want* to ask her), and > > her presuming to vanish his remaining Invigoration Draught after > > Snape has destroyed his first sample, causing him to get another > > zero. I think these episodes illustrate that Hermione, while > > meaning well, often misreads Harry's wants and needs. > Now Cory: > If she hadn't cleaned up what was left of his draught and Snape > hadn't destroyed his sample, those who insist on over-analyzing > everything would inevitably say "See, Hermione doesn't understand > Harry at all; she never does anything for him -- she wouldn't even > help him clean up his draught after class!" I wouldn't read too much > into this; as so many others have said before me, sometimes a cigar > is just a cigar. Perhaps Hermione's cleaning up of the draught could be more accurately called presumtuous, rather than misreading Harry's wants and needs. I don't think that even "those who insist on over- analyzing everything" ;-) would criticize her for not cleaning up after him in Potions class. It's not really her job, after all, and the one time we hear about her doing it, it ends up hurting Harry rather than helping him. My point was that she sometimes misreads his needs and sometimes oversteps her "place" (for lack of a better word)in his life. He doesn't seem to like it when she does. Corey continued: > For me, the bottom line is that, althought Hermione might not > *perfectly* understand Harry in all respects, she does understand > certain aspects of his psyche better than anyone else. She doesn't > understand him in the same way that most girls her age don't > understand boys their age in general (i.e. Quiddich and Cho), but in > some ways, she does understand him better than Ron does (i.e. in GOF, > understanding how he feels about his fame, and about the unfairness > of Ron being jealous of him for getting into the tournament). The > reality is, Hermione, Ron, Ginny and Luna each undetstand Harry in > different ways, and each has something to offer him. I agree that each of them understand Harry in different ways, and each have something valuable to offer him. In the case of understanding how Harry feels about his fame, I do think that Ron and Ginny both understand that as well as Hermione. As far as the rift between Ron and Harry in GoF goes, I don't believe that Ron is jealous of Harry (another example of Hermione thinking she understands what's going on, but not getting it quite right); I think he feels betrayed by him. The definitive analysis of this episode can be found in "Anatomy of a Rift" by the amazing Dicentra, part one of which can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52038 . I think it's one of the most insightful posts ever on the dynamics of the relationship between Ron and Harry, and the one time that their friendship falters. Jo Serenadust, wondering where Dicey is these days From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 18:01:22 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:01:22 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Canon for Bagman being the third missing DE: > Bookworm: > Before Harry's name could go into the goblet, there had to be a > tournament. > > "`There have been several attempts over the centuries to > reinstate the tournament,' Dumbledore continued, `none of > which has been very successful. However, our own Departments of > International Magical Cooperation and *Magical Games and Sports* > have decided the time is ripe for another attempt.'" (my > emphasis) [GoF, Ch12] > > Naturally, the Minister for Magical Games and Sports would be > involved in the negotiations, but just who `decided the time is > ripe'? Bagman plays the bumbling fool very well. His > dissembling during his trial put all the blame on Rookwood, but he > never specifically denied being a DE. > > "`She [Bertha Jorkins] told me that the Triwizard Tournament > would be played at Hogwarts this year. She told me that she knew of a faithful Death Eater who would be only too willing to help me, if I could only contact him. She told me many things...'" [GoF, > Ch33] > > Who was Bertha's boss who refused to search when she went > missing? Bagman. Tonks here: Briliant!! I think you are right. So Bagman is the faithful one. LV may not have know about Crouch Jr.. or Bagman knew and he had an Imperius Curse on Crouch Jr. so it looked like Crouch Jr. was the one doing everything. Snape is the one that has left forever. But LV is just saying that as a cover, because Snape is a double agent.. so LV thinks Snape is still on his side and spying on DD. But Snape is working for DD and spying on LV. Malfoy believes that Snape is working for LV and therefore is still friends with him, but other DE's don't know because maybe LV has told Snape to keeping an eye on them too??? Oh, I have a headache now... Tonks_op From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 18:03:57 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:03:57 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113603 serenadust wrote: > Perhaps Hermione's cleaning up of the draught could be more > accurately called presumtuous, rather than misreading Harry's wants > and needs. Now Cory: The thing is, Hermione was trying to be nice and help Harry. It ended up hurting him, but only because Snape destroyed Harry's first sample. Had that not happened, Harry probably would have appreciated what Hermione did. I suppose you could call it presumptuous; it's a little like starting to clean someone's dinner plate without first making sure they're finished eating. It was a mistake, but I certainly wouldn't attach a great deal of significance to it in terms of Hermione's relationship with Harry. Serenadust again: I don't think that even "those who insist on over- > analyzing everything" ;-) would criticize her for not cleaning up > after him in Potions class. Now Cory: Heh -- thanks for not taking offense to that comment; it sounded a lot snippier when I read it the second time than I intended when I wrote it. You're probably right, although I have read much crazier leaps of logic on this board before. --Cory From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Sep 22 18:06:33 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:06:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c4a0ce$e5581a40$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 113604 Jo said Perhaps Hermione's cleaning up of the draught could be more accurately called presumtuous, rather than misreading Harry's wants and needs. I don't think that even "those who insist on over- analyzing everything" ;-) would criticize her for not cleaning up after him in Potions class. It's not really her job, after all, and the one time we hear about her doing it, it ends up hurting Harry rather than helping him. My point was that she sometimes misreads his needs and sometimes oversteps her "place" (for lack of a better word)in his life. He doesn't seem to like it when she does. Sherry now This was what I was trying to figure out how to say. I genuinely like Hermione most of the time, but there are moments, when I get frustrated and irritated with her, because she does overstep her bounds. She didn't need to clean up after Harry's potion and was rather presumptuous in doing so. As a disabled person, I was raised to be extremely independent. I can't even begin to tell how it feels to have people try to do every little thing for you, when you are quite capable of doing it yourself. Different situation, I know, but when this particular incident occurs in the book, I felt anger for Harry. I currently live with dear friends, a whole family of people, who know me well and don't presume to do things for me that I can do myself. For instance, they don't drink coffee, so I clean my own coffee makers and other coffee items. I'd be offended if they started doing it for me. I believe that all of the friends in Harry's life play a very important part, but once in a while, Hermione needs to back off a little and let Harry make his own mistakes or not. As much as I love her, she's the one with whom I'd have to have a very serious talk about letting me take care of myself. Yet, I believe she is an invaluable friend to Harry, and he couldn't have gotten so far without her, as he couldn't have without Ron or Ginny or any of the rest of them. One of the most important things I get over and over out of these books, and what I tell people who haven't read them is that even magic doesn't solve problems. It's the people in your life, the friends and loved ones, the lessons of loyalty and friendship that get Harry through everything, even though he has to face Voldemort alone time after time. Sherry email and MSN messenger: sherriola at earthlink.net From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 18:22:56 2004 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:22:56 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113605 potioncat wrote: > I'm reading back and forth between GoF and OoP and something jumped out at me. In GoF Crouch!Moody performs the Forbidden Curses in class. Harry proves adept at resisting the Imperius Curse. A long time ago, our group discussed whether DD knew about this. We ended up with two disagreeing camps as I recall. > In GoF in the graveyard, LV performs the Imperius and again Harry is able to resist. > In OoP Snape is starting Occlumency classes and comments that Harry has some skill in resisting the Imperius Curse, comparing it to resisting Legilimency. > How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius? If C!M was working as Moody under DD's instructions, he could have reported it DD. But why would C!M tell DD? And why didn't LV know that Harry could resist it? Do you think Crouch!Moody forgot to tell him? > So, do you think DD told Snape? I wouldn't think C!M did. They didn't seem the type to sit around and discuss students with each other. Do you think Snape learned about it from a DE contact who told him about the graveyard events? Or, was Snape there afterall? Kemper now: I agree with Pippin that the entire school knew of Harry throwing off the Imperius curse. It is too bad-ass not to discuss with one's teenage peers or even a close professor or head of house. As to why didn't C!M tell LV... I agree with another poster that they both seem to be in regular contact. But I think that C!M intentionally withheld the Imperius information to make it an interesting fight with LV. C!M seems excited when Harry throws off the curse: "Look at that, you lot... Potter fought! He fought it, and he damn near beat it! We'll try that again, Potter, and the rest of you pay attention--watch the eys, that's where you see it--very good Potter, very good indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you!" Hardback US edition, p232. Every sentence ends in exclamation points! C!M is excited about Harry fighting, resisting. Crouch Jr. seems to be the type who wants the fight, that's part of the thrill. Again, "They'll have trouble controlling you!" From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 22 19:05:50 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:05:50 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113606 > Bookworm wrote: > Since reading GoF, I've thought that the Karkaroff/Snape/Crouch > triumvirate was too easy to assume. At the time, I argued Bagman > was the cowardly one (because of the way he was running from his > debts to the goblins), but reading this thread makes me think he > might have been the faithful DE and his cowardice is a cover. > > Canon against Crouch Junior being the third missing DE: > If Junior was the `most faithful servant' would he have > shrieked during his trial: "I didn't, I swear it Father, > don't send me back to the dementors - " and "Mother, stop > him, Mother, I didn't do it, it wasn't me!" [GoF, Ch30] > > This doesn't sound very faithful. Bellatrix was standing right > next to him, so it is probable she reported it to Voldemort. Fudge, OTOH, was very quick to have him `kissed' so that he > couldn't tell anything more. Was it so he couldn't name > Fudge? Or so that no one would realize that he [Junior] *wasn't* > guilty of earlier crimes? > The Lestranges were `faithful' and didn't renounce > Voldemort. It doesn't make sense that Junior would also be > described as `the faithful servant' even though he calls > himself that. [GoF, Ch35] > Hannah now: But he didn't renounce LV. He only said he didn't do it (torture the Longbottoms). OK, that's a subtle difference, but maybe he genuinely believed he could better serve LV by not getting thrown in Azkaban. It would also explain why he 're-enters' LV's service. Also, his confession at the end of GoF is made under Veritaserum, under which he cannot lie. Therefore he must have done the things that he's claiming. > Hannah originally: > 'It was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here > tonight.' What actions led to Harry being at the graveyard? First, > putting his name in the goblet (Crouch Jr.) > > Bookworm continued: > Before Harry's name could go into the goblet, there had to be a > tournament. > Who was Bertha's boss who refused to search when she went > missing? Bagman. > > the Tournament was being planned before Bertha ran into Voldemort. Hannah now: An event of that size was probably planned for at least a year beforehand (I would imagine). I don't think the whole tournament was brought back to get at Harry. LV found out about it and it and *he* decided to use the event to deliver Potter to him. The lack of a search for Bertha is a bit worrying, but I don't think that it means Bagman was acting out of loyalty to LV at that point. I agree that it is quite possible that Bagman may turn out to have been/ still be a DE. I suppose he may even have been acting in league with Crouch Jr. But I really don't think that he can get the credit for orchestrating everything and for being the loyalist DE. Though you make a good case for it :-) Hannah From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 19:16:51 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:16:51 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113607 Hannah wrote: > (torture the Longbottoms). OK, that's a subtle difference, but > maybe he genuinely believed he could better serve LV by not getting > thrown in Azkaban. It would also explain why he 're-enters' LV's > service. Also, his confession at the end of GoF is made under > Veritaserum, under which he cannot lie. Therefore he must have done > the things that he's claiming. Now Cory: I was thinking the same thing, but there's a problem. We know that a person under Veritaserum cannot lie, and we also know that a person under the Imperius curse is controlled by the person who cursed them. If I'm not mistaken, however, we do not know how these two interract with one another. Thus, *perhaps* (and I'll admit that this is speculation), the effects of Veritaserum might be "trumped" by the effects of Imperius -- meaning a person under Imperius could say something that was untrue after being given Veritaserum if it was the Imperius curse that caused them to do so. Thoughts? --Cory From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 22 19:16:41 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:16:41 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113608 Carol wrote: >>> It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. <<< SSSusan then said: >> I know this is off the main topic of what you, Alla, Potioncat & others are discussing, but when I see this comment, I just have to say "STOP!" I would argue, Carol, that we do NOT know this! Yes, Lily's sacrifice protected him--I do believe that was essential--but how do we know that there wasn't *also* Something About Harry in addition to that charm? Perhaps Lily's protective charm is what prevented Harry from dying but it was the Something About Harry that caused the actual rebound that vaporized Voldy? This is ancient magic, we've been told, but do we know of any other witch or wizard who survived an AK before, ever? It seems not. So I would argue that it's reasonable to consider that it might have required the combination of Lily's ancient magic sacrifice-charm AND the Something About Harry to have accomplished it. Until told directly otherwise by JKR, I don't think I will ever give up the idea that there WAS something special about Harry from the get- go.<< Carol responded: > Let me rephrase it, then. Harry, age fifteen months, did nothing > *deliberate* and remembered nothing of what happened. He > didn't even know he was a wizard until he was eleven and certainly > didn't know any spells that would counter an AK when he was an > infant. > Crouch!Moody says there's no countercurse for AK, but he also says > that the spell Harry survived was an AK, so something must have > protected Harry from it. I hold with my theory that it was Lily's > "ancient magic" that protected Harry, not some gift or power that he > was born with. There is at least canon to support my view, which > I've repeated on numerous occasions. If you know of any canon that > suggests that he was *born with* the power to survive an AK, please > cite it. I suppose the Prophecy can be interpreted to mean that he > was born with the power to destroy Voldemort, but if that were > true, surely he would have (inadvertently) done so as an infant and > there would be no HP series. > > When I posted, though, I was thinking of Snape, who clearly holds > the view that Harry is not special (except as Voldemort's chosen > nemesis, though I don't think Snape would admit that to Harry) and > is not yet ready to confront Voldemort even at fifteen, a point he > makes clear in OoP. > > Carol, who didn't mean to imply that her interpretation was fact and > apologizes for creating that impression SSSusan again: No need to apologize, Carol--you just take it as fact, that's all, which is very understandable. In my view (only my view), it's just that I think it's quite plausible that there *is* something special about Harry and that, yes, the prophecy could be interpreted to mean Harry was *born* with the power to defeat Voldy. No, I don't have AN incident in canon which I can point to to say, "THIS is it! Now I know!" But I think there are possible clues to Harry's "specialness." SNAPE doesn't buy it, perhaps, but I'm not sure I put much stock in this assessment of Harry. :-) I don't think an interpretation that Harry was born w/ special power (s) means necessarily that he would have inadvertently finished off Voldy in the GH attack, either. In my view of things, Harry isn't SO gifted that nothing could touch him from birth. But I think there might be *something* exceptional about him which: 1) gave him an added protection that night; and 2) means he is more capable [or *potentially* more capable] than your average wizard. I actually agree with Snape that Harry, at 15, may well not be ready for a final showdown with Voldy--he will need to focus and work hard. But I think that he has some natural talents & abilities that demonstrate he's not an average wizard. Think of how he can produce that patronus that so impresses everyone in the Wizengamot and at his OWL practical exam. Think of how, under pressure [which would work AGAINST some and FOR others], he is able to Accio his broom to him in the TWT, put up the Protego charm during Occlumency lessons, send away a mass of Dementors descending upon himself & Sirius, exhibit amazing flying skill in the TWT and Quidditch, hang on in a wand duel with Voldy. He is good enough that his peers want HIM to be the leader in DA. I'm not saying that he's the only one who can do things--NOR that he's exceptional at everything [clearly NOT true re: potions & transfiguration]--but that when it comes to DADA skills, at least, he seems to be able to learn quickly and demonstrate advanced skill. In sum, no, I don't have "proof" and so I don't expect to sway your view that there wasn't anything special about Harry at birth. I do agree with you that Harry did nothing deliberately at GH. But I also don't think there's any "proof" that those of us who think there's Something About Harry have to give up that belief just yet. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 20:22:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:22:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113609 > Potioncat wrote: > I know some readers think that DD and Snape are pretty much in > control of the situation and know all the facts correctly. I doubt > it. We know that Harry misjudged Snape in SS/PS when he thought > Snape was after the stone. So it's just as reasonable that Snape > misjudges Harry. And while Snape may be a Potions Master he's no > Emotions Master. (That sounded more clever before I typed it.) > > I'm also beginning to think there is such a thing as HPfGU > contamination. This happens when a HPfGU members have discussed > [insert favorite character here] so often and so well, that the > character no longer resembles the JKR-version. I know it's happened > with Snape and Black. (The treatment is to read two chapters and > post in the morning.) Carol responds: I think you're on to something here. Certainly Snape falsely suspects Harry (though not without cause) of stealing potion ingredients in GoF and also, I'm pretty sure, believes that Harry put his own name into the Goblet (until Dumbledore reveals Imposter!Moody and his intentions). Quite possibly Snape has reassessed the situation by OoP, understanding that he has falsely suspected Harry (even though he still resents him for constantly breaking the school rules and getting away with it--see, for example, his speech to Fudge in PoA, p. 387). Also, he's more aware of the danger that Harry is in--and that Harry *presents* when Voldemort is invading his mind. I honestly think that he's calmer and less sarcastic in dealing with Harry during the Occlumency lessons than he previously would have been, even coming as close as Snape can to praising him, but Harry, having programmed by Sirius to suspect Snape's intentions, doesn't see this attempt at objectivity or self-control. And, of course, Harry inadvertently ruins everything when he looks into the Pensieve. Snape loses control and all his old suspicions return (although maybe the lessons have served their purpose by that time in any case, or DD realizes that they're doing more harm than good and doesn't order Snape to resume them). In any case, despite the Pensieve incident, Snape still does everything he can to save Harry from Voldemort by alerting both Dumbledore and the Order to his peril. IMO, Harry and his friends owe their lives to Snape as much as to the Order members who actually fought in the MoM (and to DD himself, who arrived because Snape alerted him). So, yes. I'd say that Snape and Harry have been misjudging one another from the first day of classes, or before, when Harry sees Snape looking at him and thinks *he's* causing the scar to hurt. At some point, Harry will have to realize that he and Snape really are on his side. (The first step, IMO, is to admit to himself that Snape is not responsible for Sirius's death. The second is to accept Dumbledore's trust of Snape as justified.) And Snape, who has been putting aside his personal dislike for Harry throughout the series because he understands on some level that Harry will be central to Voldemort's defeat, will need to understand that Harry is not James--not his personal enemy unless Snape chooses to make him so, and that his flouting of the rules is not (in most cases) a personal defiance of Snape's authority. Maybe with Sirius dead, they will arrive at some sort of mutual understanding and respect. Not affection, just the realization that they're on the same side and Dumbledore needs them both. Or so I hope. Carol From ExSlytherin at aol.com Wed Sep 22 20:28:19 2004 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Mandy) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:28:19 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113610 > Tonks wrote: > > Well Malfoy is very upset when DD comes back to the school, so > > getting rid of DD could have been his plan. But I have another > > thought. How do we know that Malfoy Sr. knows what the diary will > > do? Maybe he couldn't get a good price for it or that Knockturn > > Alley store (can't remember name) would not take it. So he had to > > get rid of it and it seemed like a good idea to stick it in her > > book, might get her father in trouble instead of Malfoy. Maybe he > > had no idea what it could do. If he didn't want LV back and didn't know what the diary could do then he would not have known that it could help open the chamber again. Maybe he just wanted to get rid of something of LV's and not have it around the house. > Hannah replyed: > It sounds good in theory, but as I've said before, > Malfoy hands out the diary *after* Dobby has warned Harry about a > plot to make terrible things happen at Hogwarts, which he claims he > has known about for months. So Malfoy was definitely planning to > use the diary to ill effect. Mandy here: Also, I would bet Lucius knows all about possessed diary's and how they work, enabling the originator of the diary to correspond with someone who writes inside it. Lucius would have almost certainly written in the diary got a some sort of response from Voldemort/Riddle. Although Lucius may not have realized that LV had the power or ability to resurrect him through the diary, I'm still in two minds on that one. The question I have (which is unanswerable at this point with no canon)is exactly what sort of conversation did Lucius Malfoy have with LV via the diary? And just how much did LV reveal to Lucius about the diary's power? One the one hand if LV was that desperate to come back he would have jumped on the chance to tell Lucius everything, but then again keeping one of your more untrustworthy followers in the dark can be a prudent decision. Diary/LV may have decided to use Lucius to get the diary in the hands of a impressionable, young and easy controlled little girl to open the Chamber of Secrets, and kept quite on the whole reserrection bit. Cheers Mandy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 22 20:55:58 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:55:58 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113611 Kneasy: > If by some miracle and underhand work by JKR an AK had > been thrown at Harry and bounced (leaving an absolutely > unique scar) and hit Voldy, where is Voldy's unmarked body > and why the hell did the house collapse into ruin? > So look at it another way, if the spell/curse did not behave > like an AK maybe it wasn't an AK after all. There's only one > person in the books that says it was an AK and that's dear > departed Crouch!Moody. And how would he know? SSSusan: I do think it's possible that it wasn't an AK, but I'm not wholly convinced. I also know this is not a very FUN answer, but I'm going to offer it anyhow. I guess I've just figured that it's the powerful reaction of an AK hitting an ancient-magic countercharm like Lily's (and possibly some power of Harry's own) that caused the blow-up. Of course, that would beg the question of how Harry was physically okay, other than the scar, when all around him was devastation. Unless there was some kind of "outward blast" away from Harry? Kneasy: > It leaves bits of the casters mind in the target. SSSusan: Ah! Yes, this issue. I was asking about this yesterday in #113520 and have been disappointed that it's not brought in many two knuts. Here's a portion of that post -- >>We know DD believes the ability to speak Parseltongue was "given" to Harry by that attack. Well, as others have suggested, what if Voldy actually (accidentally, of course) put some of himself into Harry at the same time, not just a stray ability or power here or there? *If* [big "if"] Harry could unseal the Chamber because a bit of the Heir of Slytherin is inside him, maybe there are other things he can do because Voldy/Tom became a part of him? Maybe he can actually CONTROL Voldy in a way he doesn't yet even realize?<< Would still LOVE to know what anyone else thinks about this. Siriusly Snapey Susan From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 21:07:19 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:07:19 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113612 Hannah wrote: > I reckon Pettigrew was too worried about Black and Crookshanks at > the time to think much about the map. In the face of these more > obvious and pressing dangers he may not even have realised that he > was in danger of exposure via the map. > > If he did realise, he probably thought that the trio would never > notice his name (and they didn't after all). Maybe he didn't even > know that as an animagus he'd show up? Sorry to jump in so late, but I always thought (despite the movie showing his full name on the map) the Marauders would appear by their nicknames, so I think Pettigrew was safe from discovery. If the trio had seen 'Wormtail' on the map, they wouldn't have known who he was. Harry only "heard" the name when the map insulted Snape, so he knew he was one of its makers, I guess he'd have thought nothing of it. Remus, OTOH, recognized the name as soon as he saw it, since he'd used it for 7+ years. Romulus Lupin, who can only access the net once in a while these days and is horribly behind with messages From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 21:31:13 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:31:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113613 Magda: > >> Well, as I pointed out in my post earlier today, we have three > people > > who make comments indicating that the James-Snape feud wasn't an > > equal one: Lily ("What's he ever done to you?"), Lupin ("Did I ever > > tell you to lay off Snape?") and Sirius himself ("Well you made us > > feel guilty sometimes..." and "...arrogant berks, you mean"). > > > > No one has addressed those comments or explained how they could > jibe > > with a Snape who was could give as good as he got. Lily also > points > > out that James hexed people "who annoyed you just because you > can". > > Not "people who were bullies" or "people who were hassling little > > kids" - but just people who annoyed him. > > > > > Alla: > Well, Lily's comment is the easiest to address. Whatever > ideology underlined James/Snape or Sirius/Snape possible conflict , she may not have known about it. She after all only started to go out with James in his seventh year and may not have known much about him except what was happening on the surface. (snip) Sirius' "arrogant berks". Well, they were "berks". I am just > saying that it is possible OR NOT that Snape was one too. > Romulus Lupin, jumping in late as usual: Maybe I'm the only one, but I remember AD saying somewhere that James' and Snape's relationship was similar to the one between Harry and Malfoy, which sort of implies both gave as good as they got. (Well, seeing how things are going, DM may be the one who always starts things between them, but from his POV he's the victim and Harry's the aggressor. After all he's the one who walks away unscathed). OTOH, when they're discussing James abd Sirius (and they don't know the trio are eavesdropping), Hagrid, McGonagall, Mme Rosmerta all remember them fondly, which to me implies they were troublemaker, yes, but in a friendly way. I doubt the Hogwarts teacher would view JP and SB so affectionately if they really were the jerks some posters make them out to be. I know a lot of posters will disagree, but when I was at school the teachers always knew who the nasty bullies were, even when they couldn't or wouldn't do anything to restrain them. And contrary to what seems to be the general opinion here, the bullies were never really liked by the rest of the students. As for Lily's comment, I always thought she was the one James tormented just because he could, because he wanted to get her attention, you know, the WW counterpart to pulling a girl's tresses to have her notice you. It happens in RL, why shouldn't it be true in the WW? A few months ago one of our doctors was interested in one of the nurses. She ignored him, though, so he started picking on her. Last week a new nurse came. She did something wrong and the doctor justly reprimanded her. The first nurse jumped down his throat and told him "Stop picking on the nurses just because you can". Sounds familiar? Mmm, thought so. Romulus Lupin, who won't believe the Marauders were any worse than the rest unless its spelt out in black and white and in capital letters From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 21:49:34 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:49:34 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113614 I was watching COS again yesterday and a thought struck me. Why did the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 sets of Lockhart's books. Even with Harry giving Ginny his free copies (or is this movie contamination?) they must have dug a large hole in the family finances. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a couple of sets and have the kids swap them on a need to use basis? After all they have DADA lessons at different times (well, of course Fred and George don't) and we saw from Harry's notes on FB that books can be shared. Romulus Lupin, who loves Gilderoy's Italian name better than Lockhart (In Italian his name is Gilderoy Allock, which is an anglicization of allocco, a name reserved for barn owls and morons, which Gideroy definitely is) From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 22:01:16 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:01:16 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's heir or Gryffindor's heir? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113615 Old Salazar built the COS, right? Only his heir could open it, right? So how come both times it was opened a GRYFFINDORE was suspected? WE know it was opened by TMR (both times) who is Slytherin's last descendant/ancestor, and so does AD, but the rest of the students/teachers suspected Hagrid (a Gryff) and Harry (another Gryff). Ok, Hermione says that Harry *could* be Salazar's (x-times)-greatgrandson, after so many years (and this applies to Hagrid as well), but shouldn't this have raised some questions? Wouldn't a Slyth have been more likely to be suspected, at least once? I can see Harry being suspected, since he was a parselmouth, but I agree with Diary!Tome (shudders)Hagrid was a really unlikely culprit. Romulus Lupin, who thinks this definitely proves the WW doesn't have a lick of sense. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 22:12:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:12:04 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113616 > Angie wrote: > > > > But if MWPP left the map to other students, it looks like Wormtail > > would have worried about being caught because he wouldn't know the > > map was in Filch's office. Maybe he felt that he had no choice > but to risk it? > > > > > Potioncat: > Filch confiscated it from the Marauders. The twins wouldn't have > told Percy about stealing itl So it's likely Pettigrew never knew > they had the map. Some readers think Lupin was looking for it when > he "searched" for a Boggart in Filch's office. > > Does anyone remember when Ron found out about the map? Had Scabbers > already fled? > Potioncat Carol: Ron found out about the map (but didn't actually see it) right after Harry surprised him and Hermione by showing up at Honeydukes just before Christmas (PoA 198). Scabbers was presumably in Ron's pocket and must have overheard the conversation. He would also have heard McGonagall, Fudge, et al. discussing his supposed death in the Three Broomsticks that same day, so he would not want Harry to see his name on the map and realize that he was alive. But it's not until February--just before Sirius Black's second attack--that Scabbers/PP fakes his own death. Ron and Harry hear Neville tell Sir Cadogan that he's lost the passwords (249), and then Ron goes upstairs to give Scabbers his tonic and discovers that Scabbers has been "killed" (250-51). That same night Sirius Black slashes Ron's bedcurtains with a twelve-inch knife. Somehow Scabbers knows that Crookshanks (who, of course, has always known that Scabbers was an animagus and really has been trying to kill him) has given Black the passwords and that his life is in very real danger. The map, Crookshanks' claws, the sneakoscope going off--none of these was enough in itself or even in combination to spur lazy Peter to action. But he must have seen Crookshanks take the passwords from Neville's bedside table and realized that it was time to take action. Carol, who thanks Angie for making her go back through the sequence of events but still wonders why the twins never saw PP on the map and wondered who he was From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 22:26:53 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:26:53 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113617 --- > > Now Cory: > We know that a person under Veritaserum cannot lie, and we also know that a person under the Imperius curse is controlled by the person who cursed them. If I'm not mistaken, however, we do not know how these two interract with one another. Thus, *perhaps* (and I'll admit that > this is speculation), the effects of Veritaserum might be "trumped" > by the effects of Imperius -- meaning a person under Imperius could > say something that was untrue after being given Veritaserum if it was > the Imperius curse that caused them to do so. > > Thoughts? > > --Cory mhbobbin: When Crouch!Moody is at Hogwarts, isn't he acting under his own power not under the Imperius Curse? He wears out the Imperius Curse that Crouch Senior had placed him under--by the time of the World Cup--and when LV shows up, Crouch Senior is put under the Imperius Curse. But no longer Crouch Junior. Although Cory raises an interesting point about whether Veritaserum or Imperius Curse would win the battle of mind-control, I don't think we have an example of that here. Unless, of course, I'm being thick about something here, which is possible. mhbobbin From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 22:41:40 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:41:40 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113618 mhbobbin: > When Crouch!Moody is at Hogwarts, isn't he acting under his own > power not under the Imperius Curse? He wears out the Imperius Curse > that Crouch Senior had placed him under--by the time of the World > Cup--and when LV shows up, Crouch Senior is put under the Imperius > Curse. But no longer Crouch Junior. > Now Cory: This thread has gotten a little hard to follow because there are too many theories being discussed at once. Let me explain what I was getting at. Someone earlier in the thread (I think it was Bookworm, but possibly not -- I apologize if I'm mixing posters up)...but someone theorized that Crouch Junior might have been placed under Imperius by Bagman when he was at Hogwarts. The implication being that he was in fact *not* acting under his own power while he was there...and if you want to take the argument a step further, it might also be true that he was in fact innocent of his original charges, and in fact not a DE at all. (This is the argument others have made, not my own -- I think it's interesting, but am not sure I'm sold on it.) Hannah then pointed out that his confession in GOF was made while under the influence of Veritaserum, and thus had to be true. My point is that, if you buy into the earlier argument (that Crouch was in fact under Imperius at Hogwarts, either by Bagman or possibly by Fudge), then it *might* be possible that it was Imperius that caused him to say what he said, and not the Veritaserum at all. I apologize if I've mis-attributed or mis-represented anyone's theory. I'm just trying to explain my own point. --Cory From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 22 23:09:17 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:09:17 -0000 Subject: C!M and Imperius (was: How did Snape know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113619 Kemper wrote: > I agree with Pippin that the entire school knew of Harry throwing > off the Imperius curse. It is too bad-ass not to discuss with > one's teenage peers or even a close professor or head of house. > As to why didn't C!M tell LV... I agree with another poster that > they both seem to be in regular contact. But I think that C!M > intentionally withheld the Imperius information to make it an > interesting fight with LV. C!M seems excited when Harry throws off > the curse. > Hardback US edition, p232. > Every sentence ends in exclamation points! C!M is excited about > Harry fighting, resisting. Crouch Jr. seems to be the type who > wants the fight, that's part of the thrill. Yb's turn: I'm not sure C!M wanted to make it an "interesting fight" between LV and HP. I think the Imperius curse in the graveyard was a spur-of- the-moment thing LV was doing to show off. He didn't have the original charm he had before, and his followers were probably wondering if this sort-of human was really the LV they had feared and worshipped. He was showing off to prove he was the more powerful wizard, that Harry's past /two/ escapes were simply luck. Had C!M known LV was going to use an Imperius, he would certainly have mentioned the fact that Potter was adept at shaking it off. And why was C!M so darn psyched about HP throwing it in the first place? Because he (C!M) spent 12 years under it! I would imagine he liked using it on his father, as vengeance, but he probably HATES that curse, absolutely HATES it. Harry could shake it, quite easily and we know C!M is a VERY powerful wizard, so throwing his Imperius off would be a huge deal, not only to the students, but to C!M as well. C!M would of course be excited. Harry can NEVER be controlled the way he was, and C!M would probably never wish that on his worst enemy, to be held prisoner that way. (Well, maybe his father...) It could almost be a jealousy thing, too: Harry didn't require 12 years to shake the curse, he needed more like 12 seconds. ~Yb From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Sep 22 23:14:52 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:14:52 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mandy" wrote: > > The question I have (which is unanswerable at this point with no > canon)is exactly what sort of conversation did Lucius Malfoy have > with LV via the diary? And just how much did LV reveal to Lucius > about the diary's power? One the one hand if LV was that desperate > to come back he would have jumped on the chance to tell Lucius > everything, but then again keeping one of your more untrustworthy > followers in the dark can be a prudent decision. Diary/LV may have > decided to use Lucius to get the diary in the hands of a > impressionable, young and easy controlled little girl to open the > Chamber of Secrets, and kept quite on the whole reserrection bit. > Carolyn: I think you are right that Lucius only knew part of Tom's intentions, but how would Diary!Tom know that Lucius was potentially untrustworthy? Lucius was not even born when Tom created the diary. Tom would have to find a way of checking whether Lucius was a loyal supporter of Tom's future self, and whether anything he (L) said was true. It is possible, of course, that Tom was at school with Lucius' father, and the Malfoy family have always been long-term supporters of the Dark Arts, so he may have had that history to go on. However, if Diary!Tom had had this conversation with Lucius, surely he would have discovered the key facts about Harry that way, and would not have had to extract most of the story from Ginny? 'Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry.' said Riddle. 'Your whole fascinating history.'...'I knew I must find out more about you, talk to you, meet you if I could.' (Ch 17, CoS). Ginny would only have known the hearsay story about Godric's Hollow; Lucius would have been in a far better position to speculate on exactly what might have happened/gone wrong at Godric's Hollow. Yet Tom seems to have needed to get the details from Harry. This is also a problem if we speculate that Diary!Tom and LV have full knowledge of each other's memories, and are one and the same person through time. If that were the case (and it is hinted at by the 'odd red gleam' in Tom's eyes), then why does he say 'that killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me any more.. for many months now, my new target has been - you.'? If he has the adult Voldie's memories available to him, he knows all about why Harry has to be not a new, but an enduring target. I agree that Lucius must have had some inkling about the powers of the diary, or there would have been no point in the plot, and part of what he must have been told by Diary!Tom is that giving it to a student would enable a monster to be unleashed once again to kill mudbloods. DD makes it clear that he assumes this was Malfoy's intent, and Malfoy's reaction confirms it. But if Lucius knew this much, why did he not take more steps to protect his son? Did he not know that the monster was a Basilisk? Draco evidently did not have any idea - 'father won't tell me anything...he says that it was all kept quiet and it'll look suspicious if I know too much about it.' (Ch 12). Did Lucius not have any concerns that his son might accidentally walk into the Basilisk? Being pure-blood would not have saved Draco if he had looked into its eyes. Whilst Draco is not really worth losing much sleep over, I assume Lucius has the usual dynastic aspirations for his only son and heir. And he did do his best to have Hagrid sacked, and Buckbeak executed, just because Draco got a well-deserved nip on the arm in PoA. So Lucius was partly duped, and may not have gone along with any of the plot at all if he had thought it would lead to LV's return. In turn, he perhaps partly duped Diary!Tom, and did not fully explain that LV was, to all intents and purposes, dead? Instead, all he asked for was a little light murder and mayhem to help wrest control of Hogwarts from DD? But surely Tom would have wanted to know what happened to him in the future, and found a way of extracting that from Malfoy, once he found a DE sympathiser writing to him? Questions, questions. Carolyn From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 23:21:12 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:21:12 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > wrote: > > > Hannah now: > > > >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > > > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > > > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > > > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school > shut down. > > > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods > along the way.<<< > > Tonks here: > > Well Malfoy is very upset when DD comes back to the school, so > getting rid of DD could have been his plan. But I have another > thought. How do we know that Malfoy Sr. knows what the diary will > do? Maybe he couldn't get a good price for it or that Knockturn > Alley store (can't remember name) would not take it. So he had to > get rid of it and it seemed like a good idea to stick it in her > book, might get her father in trouble instead of Malfoy. Maybe he > had no idea what it could do. If he didn't want LV back and didn't > know what the diary could do then he would not have known that it > could help open the chamber again. Maybe he just wanted to get rid > of something of LV's and not have it around the house. > > Tonks_op I Know it's hard to read the back-posts (BOY do I know!), but is Dobby time-travelling when he, at huge danger to himself, warns harry potter there's a plot against him? Please see: 113331 and posts at the time. And please don't say perhaps Dobby's psychic (a true seer or whatever) as part of special elf magic - he got it wrong (of course). From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 23:42:20 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:42:20 -0000 Subject: Resurrection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113622 There is a 'recommended post' (82192 - by Sandy) in which she makes a powerful case about resurrection not fitting into HP books (e.g. of Sirius, or Lily or even Voldermort after GH). However, having been through more recent back-posts I'm reminded that had Harry not managed to do what he did in CoS, Diary!Tom would have gained his body and 'become real' having been formerly only spirit (if that) - a 'memory'. Who would *that* 'Lord Voldemort' have been? Not real in the same way as the photos, and the paintings which (who?), despite JKR's description in the August 2004 Edinburgh interview as being 'limited', form friendships with one another, run scared from knife attacks, sulk, advise etc Arguably LV's been doing resurrection before (arguably in SS/PS, though he didn't get his 'own' body back of course) and since with of course spectacularly successful results in GoF. But it's not resurrection I hear you protest. Voldy hasn't died. Well hmmmmmmmmmm Surely that's the point - He has defied death (as phoenixes arguably do)and is the exception to the rule that wizards and muggles are mortal. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 22 23:42:42 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:42:42 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113623 Potioncat asked: > > Does anyone remember when Ron found out about the map? Had > > Scabbers already fled? And Carol replied: > Ron found out about the map (but didn't actually see it) right > after Harry surprised him and Hermione by showing up at Honeydukes > just before Christmas (PoA 198). Scabbers was presumably in Ron's > pocket and must have overheard the conversation. He would also > have heard McGonagall, Fudge, et al. discussing his supposed death > in the Three Broomsticks that same day, so he would not want Harry > to see his name on the map and realize that he was alive. But it's > not until February--just before Sirius Black's second attack--that > Scabbers/PP fakes his own death. Ron and Harry hear Neville tell > Sir Cadogan that he's lost the passwords (249), and then Ron goes > upstairs to give Scabbers his tonic and discovers that Scabbers > has been "killed" (250-51). That same night Sirius Black slashes > Ron's bedcurtains with a twelve-inch knife. Somehow Scabbers knows > that Crookshanks (who, of course, has always known that Scabbers > was an animagus and really has been trying to kill him) has given > Black the passwords and that his life is in very real danger. The > map, Crookshanks' claws, the sneakoscope going off--none of these > was enough in itself or even in combination to spur lazy Peter to > action. But he must have seen Crookshanks take the passwords from > Neville's bedside table and realized that it was time to take > action. Yb's up to bat: Well, I don't agree with your entire post: I don't think our favorite Rat-man was in Hogsmeade with Ron. If he had been, he would have certainly heard about the Map, and surely would have disappeared over the holidays. Not waiting until February, for sure. He would have been concerned with exactly what Carol was thinking earlier: someone would have seen the name "Peter Pettigrew" and started wondering. So I don't think he knew about the map, unless it works differently that we presumed, and we presume that it would show Peter as "Peter." Plus, Harry didn't use the map between Dec. and Feb., so Rat-man wouldn't have heard about it. Ron was keeping him in the dorm room most of the time to keep him safe from Crookshanks. I do agree that he may have been hiding and seen Crookshanks steal the passwords. He would have then given them to Sirius (who needed a night when the guard was down to get in), without knowing that Rat- man had escaped. And as for why the twins never noticed a Peter Pettigrew? Well, there are several reasons: 1) As someone pointed out a few posts ago, when canon says the print on the MM is miniscule, it means /miniscule/. There's no way every detail of a huge castle could be on the map, and even if it was, the name would be written so small and probably so far away from where the twins were that they never noticed. 2) It's pretty clear that students (Gryffindors, at least) don't associate with other students outside their house and/or year. In the off chance that the twins noticed a Peter Pettigrew, they may have written it off as a student they don't know. Whether Hogwart's has 400 or 1000 students, not even Gred and Forge would know all of them by name well enough to recognize one that didn't belong. This assumes that on the off-chance they noticed a Peter Pettigrew on the map, he wasn't in Ron's dorm room, snoozing. I'm betting that they never noticed him. 3) Gred and Forge's main concerns were finding hiding places, secret tunnels, secret rooms, and in general doing things they shouldn't have been doing, most likely out of bed after hours. Thus their main concern would have been who was in the hall they were in, who was close enough to hear them, and perhaps which professors were where. (If they saw Snape coming, they'd probably run and hide, whereas Trelawny on patrol might buy some wild story about why they were out of bed at night.) They wouldn't need to look at the dorm rooms (where Rat-man usually hung out), because, aside from Poindexter Percy, no one in the dorm rooms would give them any trouble. I think that's enough reasons... what do you think? ~Yb From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 00:06:02 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:06:02 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: snip. IMO, Harry and his friends owe their lives to > Snape as much as to the Order members who actually fought in the MoM > (and to DD himself, who arrived because Snape alerted him). > Alla: Unsurprisingly, Carol, I disagree with such contention. I will not even go into the fact that Snape carelessly put Harry's life in danger when he did not resume Occlumency (and yes, yes, yes, harry was NOT supposed to look in the Pensieve). I am talking more about Neri's VERY persuasive argument IMO, that Snape behaved very carelessly that night and delayed notifying the order that Harry and Co went into MOM. Yes, I remember the rebuttal arguments on the timeline, but again, I remained persuaded by Neri. Snape, IMO breached his duty of care to his students so badly that night, that even if he attempted to rectify the mistake and eventually notified the Order (and yes, I believe that he did do that - notified the order), he should not be given much credit, in my opinion, of course. Actually, I will not be giving Dumbledore much credit for that night either. Yes, he showed up eventually and were willing to fight a good fight and fought a good fight, but since he screwed Harry up so badly during the whole year, he does not get much credit either from me. Harry and other children fought a good fight and first and foremost they have to think themselves for geting out alive and of course other adults from OOP for eventually occupying DE attention and capturing them. I am especially wondering how Harry owes his life after MoM to ANYBODY, after his possession. Sure, Tonk threw a hex at Lucius, sure, Dumbledore fought Voldie, but Dumbledore was unable to stop Voldemort from possessing Harry(hello, Occlumency failure) and we all know how Harry fought it . From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 00:09:30 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:09:30 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: <20040922124427.69270.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > Hannah, > > As for Crouch!Moody not telling LV, I doubt they had a lot of > > contact, they'd have had to be pretty careful, being right under > > DD's nose. When they got in touch, they probably discussed the > > details of the plan and not much else. I doubt Crouch considered > > it even relevant to LV that Potter could resist the curse. > > > I assume that since he taught it in class, Crouch!Moody would have > written it up in his classnotes and the classnotes came into > Dumbledore's possession after GOF. Crouch!Moody did have to go > through the motions of being a teacher, after all, and that includes > recording class lessons. Once Dumbledore had the notes he read them. > And of course Crouch!Moody also says that Dumbledore wants them to > learn about the unforgiveables so if that was true then Dumbledore > would have followed up at the time. > > Magda > It is being forgotten that all the students in the class 'know' because C!m tells them he's impressed (IIRC). certainly Harry and Hermione know and any of these Gryffindors (the class I mean not HRH necessarily) might mention it to a slytherin who thence conveyed it to Snape. Or else told DD in passing (he forsts nothing) or McGonaggle etc etc. My point is it wasn't as secret as all that. Alternatively, Snape might have had it from DD who got it direct from Harry by legilimency either during the school year after the event or some time during his de-briefing of Harry post graveyard where harry had resisted not only any old imperio but one from the bad guy himself. Lastly, yes there are a hundred ways Snape could have got the knowledge from a non-Hogwart's source - as has probably been argued, including as one of the DE's in the ring at the graveyard or else (if you don't believe he was there) as Malfoy's trusted spy at Hogwart's (since LM we know was there). If Snape was NOT at the graveyard in GoF (and it seems really unlikely, though not impossible), then why does Malfoy (Sr or Jr, or LV for that matter) still trust him? - he can't have been a very senior DE perhaps, not in the 'inner circle'. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 00:26:19 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:26:19 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: Kneasy wrote: > > AKs may crack a headstone or even ignite a desk, but that's > if they miss the person they're aimed at. But blow up a house > - when they've already bounced off one body and hit another > squarely enough to separate body from spirit? > Does not compute. This AK does not obey any of the known > characteristics of AKs: > You can be shielded against it, > It leaves physical marks, > It ain't green, > It causes massive damage, > It leaves bits of the casters mind in the target. We already have canon that not every AK works the way it should - priori incantatum in GoF - rare, but something completely unpredictable resulted. LV clearly says Adava Kadavra and fires at harry but Harry's counterspell (protego? expelliarmus - can't recall) makes something weird happen. GH is Harry V LV but as opposed to having a wand Harry has Lily's protection so again the spell does something completely against type. This particular AK might either have been 'vicious' enough (i.e. LV put as much power and hate into as possible) so that when it failed it did so spectacularly or else the addition of Lily's 'old magic' and Harry inherent power, even as a 15 month old, added extra and devastating power. Lastly, as a kind of extra controvesial thing - someone suggested Lily threw the spell at Harry - I hardly think so!!!!!!!! (even if not impossible to conceive). It did get me thinking though about whether Harry was born with green eyes or only has them since GH. Is there a part of Lily in her son additional to that which any mother (muggle or witch) normally conveys to her children? From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 01:23:46 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:23:46 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: > I was watching COS again yesterday and a thought struck me. Why did > the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 > sets of Lockhart's books. Even with Harry giving Ginny his free > copies (or is this movie contamination?) they must have dug a large > hole in the family finances. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a > couple of sets and have the kids swap them on a need to use basis? > After all they have DADA lessons at different times (well, of course > Fred and George don't) and we saw from Harry's notes on FB that > books can be shared. > > Romulus Lupin, who loves Gilderoy's Italian name better than > Lockhart (In Italian his name is Gilderoy Allock, which is an > anglicization of allocco, a name reserved for barn owls and morons, My own take on this is that despite poverty the Weasley's hold with the old school (UK) view that every student should have a copy of the recommended text. Umbridge for example would have gone bonkers if any of her students hadn't been able to 'open your book at page 7 and read the 1st chapter' (or whatever it was). Snape too expects this when he took Lupin's DADA class. FB, on the other hand, is a library book and it is de rigeur to write on these (unless you're Hermione - but see 'pipes') and be repeatedly borrowed. Or maybe I'm thinking of QttA. Even if FB was Harry's personal copy he might still have passed 'his' copy around during homework in the 'common' room to anyone who'd left their copy upstairs in their trunk. > which Gideroy definitely is) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 01:26:41 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:26:41 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's heir or Gryffindor's heir? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113628 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: > Old Salazar built the COS, right? Only his heir could open it, > right? So how come both times it was opened a GRYFFINDORE was > suspected? WE know it was opened by TMR (both times) who is > Slytherin's last descendant/ancestor, and so does AD, but the rest > of the students/teachers suspected Hagrid (a Gryff) and Harry > (another Gryff). Ok, Hermione says that Harry *could* be Salazar's > (x-times)-greatgrandson, after so many years (and this applies to > Hagrid as well), but shouldn't this have raised some questions? > Wouldn't a Slyth have been more likely to be suspected, at least > once? I can see Harry being suspected, since he was a parselmouth, > but I agree with Diary!Tome (shudders)Hagrid was a really unlikely > culprit. > > Romulus Lupin, who thinks this definitely proves the WW doesn't have > a lick of sense. By the suspicion stage the school had already seen Harry as parselmouth (SS's distinguishing gift). Hagrid cos he's a half giant and yes, prejudice rather than sense or logic (of which wizards averagely have little to quote Hermione). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 01:27:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:27:02 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyle (Was: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113629 Kate (I think) asked: > > 1) what year are Crabbe and Goyle? its assumed they are the same > year as Harry and Draco, Yet during the sorting ceremony in book one > thier names are suspiciously absent! > > > Christelle replied: > They're there, hidden by Draco: > > (after his sorting) "Malfoy went to join his friends Crabbe and > Goyle, looking pleased with himself." Carol adds: JKR didn't supply complete information for the Sorting Ceremony. For example, she mentions twin girls, Patil and Patil, and we quickly meet Parvati, who's sorted into Gryffindor, but we don't discover Padma's name and house (Ravenclaw) until GoF. She also mentions Nott, but we don't discover Nott's name and house (Theodore/Slytherin) until OoP. So it's not surprising that she skips over Crabbe and Goyle to get to the characters who interest her. It's probably obvious even to a first-time reader that those two will wind up in Slytherin. But if you need more evidence, just read the various segments on Potions class, where Goyle's potion is the wrong color or he winds up with boils (once from Neville's cauldron melting and once from Harry's deflected spell in a pre-class confrontation). Crabbe is present on those occasions, I think, and is always with Goyle and Draco--at Hogsmeade, in the corridor, at meals, on the Hogwarts Express. IIRC, they also appear together in Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures class, which again indicates that they're in the same year as Draco and Harry. Carol From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Sep 23 01:32:28 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:32:28 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113630 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > I feel the suggestion that Tom did something to make the tunnel > appear collapsed doesn't hold water. "Disillusionment" is used to > make a person or object almost invisible against its background ? viz Moody's use of one on Harry in the Dursley's kitchen in OOTP ("The Advance Guard" pp. 53-54 UK edition). Again, Hermione points out somewhere (I haven't managed to locate it) that Hogwarts is enchanted so that any Muggle coming near sees only an old mouldering ruin with a sign saying "Keep off. Dangerous" but visible normally to wizard eyes. So if Voldemort tied to make the passage look blocked, the twins would presumably see it as usual. > Valky: The disillusionment bit was a rather insignificant part of my theory. Tom may have gotten Ginny to build some other kind of nasty in the tunnel and then blast it behind her to conceal it. The point of my theory is that TOM RIDDLE had a chance to DO SOMETHING by using Ginny in the winter of COS. I lean towards that he created himself a personal entrance to Hogwarts but thats pure speculation. Speculation that surely doesn't need to hold any real water on its own, as long as the fact remains that TOM RIDDLE was making GINNY Do EVIL THINGS in the Winter of COS. Which he was because she threw the book away after Christmas break even though there weren't any attacks then ! As for Lucius and the Diary, Tom and Lucius are entirely separate entities and I am positive that Tom would do as he pleased (using Ginny) with any new information he gleaned as memory!Tom (using Ginny) without it having to ever have been pre-sanctioned or discussed with Lucius Malfoy. So whatever the plans were before Christmas 1992, they wouldn't stop Tom ad libbing his own whenever and where ever the opportunity arose. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 01:39:24 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:39:24 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113631 Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry several times if LV was really back. * on a theme related to how is it that the triwizard cup was a both ways multiple journey portkey (thread a month or so back), WHY would C!M, having achieved his task of sending HP to LV, not 'get the heck out of there'. I know there's a theory that Harry is 'allowed' to escape (taking back misinformation), but if this is NOT the case then it seems LV is callously ordering C!M to stay put and sacrifice himself (possibly LV knows ESE!Fudge is on his way to sort it all out, i.e. silence Crouch Jr for ever more). On that last theme, everyone asks how is it that Fudge got a deatheater there so fast - but could they not use either apparition or, if not closeby enough to central Hogwart's, a MoM approved portkey (DDs brings Harry direct to his office at the end of OotP). Certainly, the DE's show up at Little Whingeing out of thin air in Ch1 OotP and so can either apparate or were sent by an unregistered ministry portkey. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 01:59:00 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:59:00 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: if Diary!Tom had had this conversation with Lucius, surely > he would have discovered the key facts about Harry that way, and > would not have had to extract most of the story from Ginny? > Tom seems to have needed to get the details from Harry. > > This is also a problem if we speculate that Diary!Tom and LV have > full knowledge of each other's memories, and are one and the same > person through time. If that were the case (and it is hinted at by > the 'odd red gleam' in Tom's eyes), then why does he say 'that > killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me any more.. for many months > now, my new target has been - you.'? If he has the adult Voldie's > memories available to him, he knows all about why Harry has to be not > a new, but an enduring target. > > I agree that Lucius must have had some inkling about the powers of > the diary, or there would have been no point in the plot, and part of > what he must have been told by Diary!Tom is that giving it to a > student would enable a monster to be unleashed once again to kill > mudbloods. DD makes it clear that he assumes this was Malfoy's > intent, and Malfoy's reaction confirms it. > Very nice post Carolyn. We must all recall that Ginny spends months with the diary and almost certainly, as Harry did, was taken in, quite literally. Malfoy, on the other hand knew its darkly magical nature and so would handle it with kid (or dragon hide) gloves and, if he wrote in it, would do so as his ONLY means of communication, not allow himself to be taken into its pages as both Harry and Ginny did. In such a 'writing only' conversation (as we each have with one another here in the medium of HPfGU) one can still impart and learn much, exchange ideas, make suggestions, influence etc. So, Malfoy tells Diary!Tom about HP and that he has the power to thwart his future plans/self. Thus Harry should be THE target in the hope that Diary!Tom can succeed where 'physical' LV didn't (at GH). Lucius knows, hopes or suspects that LV might be back and that either way Harry is a threat, so let's use DIARY!Tom to see if he does any better. Nothing lost and many things to be gained, including all the things people have listed. This explanation keeps Harry as the target, makes sense of Dobby's warning and his very early knowledge and, even (for the first time to me), shows why CoS was necessary within the scheme of things (books 1-7 masterplot) over and above revealing the parselmouth/connection thing. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 02:35:21 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:35:21 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" > wrote: > > I was watching COS again yesterday and a thought struck me. Why > did > > the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 > > sets of Lockhart's books. Even with Harry giving Ginny his free > > copies (or is this movie contamination?) they must have dug a > large > > hole in the family finances. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy > a > > couple of sets and have the kids swap them on a need to use basis? > > After all they have DADA lessons at different times (well, of > course > > Fred and George don't) and we saw from Harry's notes on FB that > > books can be shared. > > > > Romulus Lupin, who loves Gilderoy's Italian name better than > > Lockhart (In Italian his name is Gilderoy Allock, which is an > > anglicization of allocco, a name reserved for barn owls and morons, > > My own take on this is that despite poverty the Weasley's hold with > the old school (UK) view that every student should have a copy of > the recommended text. Umbridge for example would have gone bonkers > if any of her students hadn't been able to 'open your book at page 7 > and read the 1st chapter' (or whatever it was). Snape too expects > this when he took Lupin's DADA class. > > FB, on the other hand, is a library book and it is de rigeur to > write on these (unless you're Hermione - but see 'pipes') and be > repeatedly borrowed. Or maybe I'm thinking of QttA. Even if FB was > Harry's personal copy he might still have passed 'his' copy around > during homework in the 'common' room to anyone who'd left their copy > upstairs in their trunk. > > > > which Gideroy definitely is) Not to nitpick, but yes, QttA was the library's copy, FB was Harry's, which he shared with Ron because his fell apart. (And then Hermione adds a note chiding Ron, in typical Hermy fashion, for purchasing a bag of dungbombs instead of a new text, to which Ron replies, and I quote: DUNGBOMBS RULE!) Meri, who, despite having had five years of Italian lessons, now fully appreciates what an expressive and interesting language it is... From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 02:39:21 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:39:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's heir or Gryffindor's heir? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" > wrote: > > Old Salazar built the COS, right? Only his heir could open it, > > right? So how come both times it was opened a GRYFFINDORE was > > suspected? WE know it was opened by TMR (both times) who is > > Slytherin's last descendant/ancestor, and so does AD, but the rest > > of the students/teachers suspected Hagrid (a Gryff) and Harry > > (another Gryff). Ok, Hermione says that Harry *could* be Salazar's > > (x-times)-greatgrandson, after so many years (and this applies to > > Hagrid as well), but shouldn't this have raised some questions? > > Wouldn't a Slyth have been more likely to be suspected, at least > > once? I can see Harry being suspected, since he was a parselmouth, > > but I agree with Diary!Tome (shudders)Hagrid was a really unlikely > > culprit. > > > > Romulus Lupin, who thinks this definitely proves the WW doesn't > have > > a lick of sense. > > By the suspicion stage the school had already seen Harry as > parselmouth (SS's distinguishing gift). Hagrid cos he's a half giant > and yes, prejudice rather than sense or logic (of which wizards > averagely have little to quote Hermione). Alshain: Was it even made public knowledge that the Chamber had been opened the first time? Dumbledore probably deduced it afterwards and the Malfoys probably had first-hand knowledge, but Binns calls the Chamber of Secrets an unproven legend. If the only thing people knew was that a monster had been on the rampage in the school, attacked several students and finally killed someone, Hagrid and Aragog fit the picture. In Riddle's memory, Headmaster Dippet says nothing of the Chamber either. Alshain From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 03:10:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:10:44 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113635 > Tonks wrote: > > There is a necklace in Borgin and Burkes too. A cursed opel necklace > that has killed 19 Muggles. Also on JKR's website (it is not there > today, but has been in the past) on the Rumors pages there is an ad > for Borgin and Burkes. I can't remember the wording and it is not > there today. But they buy old items from the best wizarding > families. Maybe Malfoy has something from his or his wife's family > that he will need to get rid of. I was going to link him to Tom > Riddle's mother, but as I am typing I realize that it will not work.. Carol: I agree that Borgin and Burkes will be important. Remember Mr. Borgin's obvious contempt for "*Mr. Malfoy,*" which shows up in his muttered remark after the Malfoys leave? I doubt that JKR would have had Harry overhear that aside if Mr. B. didn't have a role to play in future books. We'll probably see more of Knockturn Alley in general. It had to have been introduced for a reason in Book 2. I also agree that the ad on JKR's site is a clue to its importance (but then, Gerda Curd's "Charm Your Own Cheese" is also there, so maybe not!). The ad on JKR's site reads: "We offer a confidential valuation service for unusual and ancient wizarding artefacts, such as may have been inherited in the best wizarding families." (Not sure how that applies to potions or poisons or whatever Malfoy was selling; too bad Sirius couldn't take advantage of it to get rid of some of the artifacts (to use the American spelling) in Grimmauld Place. Or maybe Lupin could get some money that way. BTW, if the ad doesn't appear when you first open the Rumours section, go to a different page of the site and then return to JKR's desk and try again. It shouldn't take more than two or three attempts. You can access the Quibbler Fudge story that way, too, if it doesn't show up on the first try. Carol, with apologies for the how-to portion of the post From peckham at cyberramp.net Thu Sep 23 03:24:35 2004 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:24:35 -0000 Subject: Does this ship have a name yet? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kizor0" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" > wrote: > {snip} > >(Harry/Bella shipper here!) > {snip} > (snip) > What > would be a good name or acronym for it? A pity GOOD LORD and MAKE IT > STOP have neither a 'H' or a 'B' in them... (snip) I would suggest "H.A.D.E.S." (Harry And Death Eater Ship) as a possible name. Allen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 03:34:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:34:15 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > macfotuk at y... wrote: > > In GoF LV, when he *does* finally return to physicality, makes a > > comment along the lines of how come you never looked for me > > Lucius? Does *that* LV not know what LM did (or tried to do) in > > CoS? Why does he single out Avery for punishment, not Lucius? LV > > goes on to mention his thwarting as Quirrel!Mort by Harry, but > > skips then to Pettigrew's return and does not mention CoS or Diary! > > Tom. So, is he aware of what went on in CoS? Seemingly not, at > > least in the graveyard scene. > > > SSSusan: > NO, Voldy isn't aware, I don't think. In fact, I keep trying to use > this "Voldy didn't ask about/Lucius didn't offer up info about the > diary" scene as evidence that Lucius was attempting to use the diary > to advance his own agenda, *not* to bring Voldy back. I'm not sure > anyone's listening, but that's what I've been trying to say for > months. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol: I agree that LV doesn't know about the attempt, but that doesn't mean that Lucius wasn't trying to bring him back. (Otherwise, how can we explain Dobby's concern for Harry and Harry only since Harry isn't a Muggleborn? Obviously, there was some scheming going on in the Malfoy household--Dobby calls the whole family "bad, Dark wizards.") If Lucius tried to bring Voldemort back via diary!Tom and failed spectacularly, why would he tell Voldemort? And in any case, he hadn't had a chance to communicate with him and didn't know he was restored to his physical form until he was summoned to the graveyard. I'm not saying that you're wrong, SSS, only that I don't think we can rule out the restoration of Voldemort as a possible Malfoy motive based on LV's not knowing about it in GoF. My question, which another poster has also raised, is what would have happened if Diary!Tom had been restored? Would he have found his older self in Albania and allowed his body to be possessed--the great and terrible Lord Voldemort in the form of a sixteen-year-old boy? Or would we have had two Voldemorts, restored!Tom and restored!LV confronting each other to see which had the mastery? (I can just see slippery Lucius playing them against each other.) Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 23 06:51:39 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:51:39 -0000 Subject: Crabbe and Goyle (Was: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113638 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Kate (I think): > > > > 1) what year are Crabbe and Goyle? its assumed they are the same > > year as Harry and Draco, Yet during the sorting ceremony in book one > > thier names are suspiciously absent! > > > > > > > Christelle replied: > > They're there, hidden by Draco: > > > > (after his sorting) "Malfoy went to join his friends Crabbe and > > Goyle, looking pleased with himself." > > Carol adds: > JKR didn't supply complete information for the Sorting Ceremony. Geoff: May I direct you to two past posts where this matter was mentioned.... Messages 83113 and 83314. They were on slightly different topics but the matter of names art the Sorting ceremony emerged in each. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From klevasseur at earthlink.net Wed Sep 22 16:55:25 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:55:25 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113639 Geoff writes < snip> > > Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had > it (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been > used? Did he know how to access it? Karen L., Lucius would not have known TMR personally, (he's too young, probably young 40's), but his father or grandfather could have been one of TMR/LV friends that Tom mentions to Harry. "I AM LORD VOLDEMORT, You see? he whispered, 'It was a name I was already using at Hogwarts, to my most intimate friends only, of course.'" (COS UK pg.464) Luius's grandfather most likely was one of his intimate friends and when TMR left Hogwarts he may have left the diary with the Malfoy family for safe keeping. Lucius has to know about Quirrel via Draco and therefore is aware that LV is trying to return. IMO Lucius has held onto the diary until a time that it would be useful to LV. I think He gave it to Ginny possibly out of spite or anger at Arthur Weasley after meeting and fighting with him in the bookstore. . But.... When the wretched book reappears > in 1992, why didn't Lucius try to get to the Chamber himself or why > not give it to Draco and get him to create mayhem and mischief rather > than give it to Ginny who might not even get as far as trying to use > it? I wonder whether Lucius knew precisely what it was or whether he > dumped it onto Ginny in the hope that she might be a vehicle for it > to lead to the undermining of Dumbledore's influence and the possible > end of Hogwarts. Karen L .again, Lucius must have known that the person whom would bring back TMR would lose their life in order to bring him -LV back. I can't imagine that Lucius would sacrifice his own son even for that purpose. I'm thinking he gave it to Ginny knowing that LV can be very persuasive, and out of spite to Arthur Weasley. "If I say it myself, Harry, I've always been able to charm the people I needed" (COS, UK ed., page 458) It doesn't seem to matter who gets the diary, TMR can charm the pants off of anyone. > > Finally, the memory "preserved in a diary for fifty years" (COS "The > Heir of Slytherin" p.227 UK edition). > > Again, questions, questions . Has Tom Riddle been able to take on a > form in those fifty years? Frequently - or not at all until Ginny > came along to provide the way for him to regain shape? Was Memory!Tom > able to leave the confines of the Chamber? Is he only able to > function as a message writer when someone actually writes in the > book? What triggers him into "Projection" mode? > > Tom Riddle, he of the Chamber of Secrets, is one of Jo Rowling's more > interesting creations, reminding me slightly of the holodecks in Star > Trek. He was apparently around, probably dormant, while Voldemort was > still creating terror and havoc. So, what is or was his function? Karen L, one last time, I think the function of TMR is to bring back LV. If TMR had returned to a solid form, LV could have used his younger body, with the memories and powers of his present self. He wasn't able to leave the diary until someone poured their soul into it. "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 that 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, UK ed, page 458-459) I am positive that I have missed something. But I have tried my best. Tom Riddle is a puzzle!! > > From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 12:21:15 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:21:15 -0000 Subject: Further more... (furthermore?) [Re: Book 6 forshadowing in CoS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113640 Rob: > > I can't think of situation where subsequent facts have contradicted > something DD has said definitively, so I don't think we have to worry > about who the prophecy is referring to. In short, we can take DD's > word for it. > > But just in case you can't, try looking at it this way. For JKR to > introduce another agent as the actual prophecy target would be, in my > mind, one of the worst examples of Deus Ex Machina, and quite > frankly, I think she's too good a writer. neha: Yes, surely, but DD is after all a human; one who could afford to think that a boy's Godfather could have conspired to kill him and to let him rot in a prison for a good 13 years and one who could afford to keep 2 bitter rivals in constant company of each other so that one could insinuate the other to death... the point here is that DD, though perfect is still unable to change the way things shape up. Not many would be grieved in the wizarding world if DD could tell everything as it was going to be....and for a story as phenomenal as HP, the end should certainly be the best 'turn' in it yet. About JKR, I'd be out of my mind to say she isn't a good writer. Neha S. From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Thu Sep 23 07:42:53 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:42:53 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: <001501c4a0ce$e5581a40$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113641 > > Sherry wrote: > > This was what I was trying to figure out how to say. I genuinely like > Hermione most of the time, but there are moments, when I get frustrated and > irritated with her, because she does overstep her bounds. She didn't need > to clean up after Harry's potion and was rather presumptuous in doing so. > As a disabled person, I was raised to be extremely independent. I can't > even begin to tell how it feels to have people try to do every little thing > for you, when you are quite capable of doing it yourself. Different > situation, I know, but when this particular incident occurs in the book, I > felt anger for Harry. I currently live with dear friends, a whole family of > people, who know me well and don't presume to do things for me that I can do > myself. For instance, they don't drink coffee, so I clean my own coffee > makers and other coffee items. I'd be offended if they started doing it for > me. > > I believe that all of the friends in Harry's life play a very important > part, but once in a while, Hermione needs to back off a little and let Harry > make his own mistakes or not. As much as I love her, she's the one with > whom I'd have to have a very serious talk about letting me take care of > myself. Yet, I believe she is an invaluable friend to Harry, and he > couldn't have gotten so far without her, as he couldn't have without Ron or > Ginny or any of the rest of them. One of the most important things I get > over and over out of these books, and what I tell people who haven't read > them is that even magic doesn't solve problems. It's the people in your > life, the friends and loved ones, the lessons of loyalty and friendship that > get Harry through everything, even though he has to face Voldemort alone > time after time. Hello to all. First of all let me add to my previous post that I don't consider Hermione flowless or perfect. She is human after all. I also get angry with her, especially when she is in Hermione "THE BOSS" mode. In example in OOTP when she was trying to prevent Harry from entering in Umbridge's office, I remember myself saying that If I were HP I would kick her or kiss her or do anything to stop her talking. Although she is far from perfect, she is still the most loyal and caring from Harry's friends. She never gives up Harry no matter what. She is a true friend!!! I dare to say that Harry is more in sync with her than anyone else. Another matter now. Harry is an introverted person. From my own experience, as I am an introverted person also, we allow only a few selected people to trully know us. And then again they only know the 60%-90% of what we are thinking, wanting or doing. Hermione is able to decipher HP's behaviour with 90% probability. Harry himself accepts the following facts: a) a part of his mind is talking with Hr's voice, b) he can't lie to her face to face, c) when he acts he considers her advices as correct even if he doesn't follow them every time, d) the last thing he wants is to let her down and e) their minds are in the same frequency most of the times. Based on all the above I restate that Hermione is virtually living inside Harry. The key word is virtually. I've never said completely. Thank you for putting up with me. Cheers, Paul From professorfionafawkes at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 00:38:36 2004 From: professorfionafawkes at yahoo.com (professorfionafawkes) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:38:36 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113642 romuluslupin1: > I was watching COS again yesterday and a thought struck me. Why did > the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 > sets of Lockhart's books. Even with Harry giving Ginny his free > copies (or is this movie contamination?) they must have dug a large > hole in the family finances. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a > couple of sets and have the kids swap them on a need to use basis? > After all they have DADA lessons at different times (well, of course > Fred and George don't) and we saw from Harry's notes on FB that > books can be shared. professorfionafawkes: My theory is that since Molly takes such a fancy to Lockhart, that maybe she doesn't have so much hesitation to purchase Lockhart's books for the kids. She herself swears by the sets that she has (thinking back to her looking up what Lockhart has to say about de- gnoming the garden when this has obviously been done often enough at the Burrow not to warrant needing to look it up every time.) Just my two knuts on the matter. From feklar at verizon.net Thu Sep 23 04:42:54 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:42:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How does Snape know? References: <00c101c4a030$ac490f00$5c2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: <00b901c4a127$caaae390$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113643 > Potioncat wrote: > > "In OoP Snape is starting Occlumency classes and comments that Harry > > has some skill in resisting the Imperius Curse, comparing it to > > resisting Legilimency. > > How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius?" feklar I always took it for granted that either DD knew and perhaps planned the lesson with CM or it spawned such massive and excited gossip among the students that it was ensured that it got back to DD. There's no way something that "wicked" wouldn't be talked and bragged about. feklar From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 08:57:47 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:57:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: What makes Harry Potter so powerful? Message-ID: <20040923085747.89164.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113644 What makes the Harry Potter story so powerful? John Granger has written an excellent answer in his book, "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter". I want to share with you my journey of discovery of the tremendous spiritual power in the books. I started HP with book 2. What immediately struck me was the Cinderella-like treatment Harry was getting from the Dursleys. I've always been very susceptible to fairy tales and the fact that HP is situated in modern times made it all very vivid. The archetype (if that's the right word) here is the suspicion that many people have, that deep inside we're special somehow. Inside us there's that hidden Prince or Princess who's waiting for a magical event to bring them to life. There's Cinderella, the one despised by the forces of this world, but born to become queen. There's Briar Rose, asleep for a century, but waiting for the prince who is brave enough to cut through the briars and rescue her from her dormancy. There's the princess in "The Glass Coffin" in the same situation. I've always had a certain faith that there is indeed a powerful force within us that can turn us from mortal, imperfect beings into immortal perfect (royal) children of the creator. The first few pages of HP appealed to this strong feeling. After that it didn't take me long to realise that Harry Potter was a deeply spiritual and overwhelmingly sublime tale. The fight with the basilisk bought a lump the size of one of Hagrid's pumpkins to my throat. This is Siegfried and the dragon. This is innocence meeting up with the power of hell and still managing to win. I realised straight away the the word "God" was hidden on the sword. I was overwhelmed with the beauty of Harry's simple words of loyalty to Dumbledore, and his cry for help and the quick response to it made me realise the tremendous spiritual power in Harry Potter. The liberation of Dobby I saw as an act of unparallelled compassion, forgiveness and intelligence, and I fell in love with Harry for ever. I realised that he personified our highest spiritual potential. I can't go on without mentioning the exquisite interplay between Dumbledore and Harry when he is worried about Ginny being expelled for doing what Riddle forced her to do. "What if they expelled her? Harry thought in panic. Riddle's diary didn't work any more ... How could they prove it had been he who'd made her do it all? Instinctively Harry looked at Dumbledore, who smiled faintly, the firelight glancing off his half-moon spectacles. 'What interests me most', said Dumbledore gently, 'is how Lord Voldemort managed to charm Ginny, when my sources tell me he is currently hiding in the forests of Albania.' Relief - warm, sweeping, glorious relief - swept over Harry." Only a person of the utmost sensitivity to and compassion for others could have felt like that. That I think is the passage that defines Harry's character more than anything. And of course I must mention the famous words, which by now I guess are known by millions of people: "It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." These are very powerful passages indeed. I quickly read books 1,3 and 4 and by then I knew what made Harry Potter so powerful. It is the real and practical formula for the awakening and resurrection of the King-Priest in the heart of every seeker. Each of us have within us that Master of Compassion that Harry personifies, and this septology is the complete manual for his development and fulfilment. In each book the most powerful parts are those which tell us the next step we must undertake to free the inner God. In book 1 Harry concentrates with all his might on not letting Quirrell get the stone. The power erupts when Harry feels the stone in his pocket. The spiritual self is liberated from desires in the physical world. In book 3 Harry is able to conjure up a patronus to ward off 100 dementors. One of the most powerful moments is when he realises that he cannot rely on anyone else to do the work of liberation. He has to do it himself. The passage describing the stag radiating the blinding light and running across the lake is almost too powerful for me to read aloud. To me the stag personifies the longing in the heart for the return of the inner God to his original Kingdom. Harry's saving of Buckbeak and Sirius is unbelievably powerful. Buckbeak to me symbolises the power which connects heaven and earth. Sirius is the bright morning star, the power in Harry's life which will become his sun. In book 4 the most powerful moments to me are when Harry and Cedric decide to touch the trophy together, and of course when Harry and Voldemort's wands meet as equals. The golden cage with the sound of the phoenix song is an image that leaves an indelible impression on the consciousness. Harry's determination to use his will-power to defeat Voldemort is of unearthly beauty. Book 5 is the most powerful book so far. The scenes which stand out are the Jupiter initiation, when Harry is asked to become leader of Dumbledore's army, and the whole end of the book with the fight at the ministry, the loyalty of Harry's friends, the passover of Sirius, and the discussion between Harry and Dumbledore about Sirius and the prophecy. These scenes contain archetypes and symbols of overwhelming power. Some of the things that are taught there are not for public discussion as they are mystery teachings. However when Harry is able to drive Voldemort out because of his love for Sirius we are witnesses to a supreme moment of spiritual liberation that is so ineffable and glorious that words are totally inadequate. I believe this is equivalent to the first of the three temptations Jesus faces in the desert. I believe the spiritual climaxes in the next two books will occur: - when Harry drives Voldemort out of his heart or emotional ego. I believe the next book will concentrate on Harry's emotional state. He will learn to control his anger and Voldemort will try to take control over Harry again. Harry will go through a kind of death but be saved at the last minute because of some inner quality (and probably help from an ally). That will be equivalent to the second temptation of Jesus in the desert. - When Harry opens the room of love and enters it. I suspect that will be connected to the previous point. - When Harry follows Sirius through the Gate of Saturn (the archway with the veil). - When Ron, Hermione, Snape and Lupin sacrifice themselves for Harry. - When Voldemort tries for the third time to gain control over Harry (Jesus' third temptation). This time Voldemort confronts Harry with all his, Voldemort's, glory and promises Harry heaven and earth if he will serve Voldemort. Harry will reject this and that is the moment of ultimate triumph. Once again Harry will die (perhaps by going through the Gate of Saturn) but again and for the last time he will resurge as the total victor over darkness and death. - When Harry and Sirius are reunited. - When Harry, Ron and Hermione are reunited (as the half-blood prince?) - If and when Harry decides to return to earth to become Keeper of the Keys at Hogwarts. So, to sum up, what makes Harry Potter so powerful? The answer: the age old story of the liberation of the inner God in every seeker, told in modern language. Hans ===== 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 patientx3 at aol.com Thu Sep 23 10:18:03 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:18:03 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113645 macfotuk wrote: >>Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry several times if LV was really back.<< HunterGreen: Perhaps, as another recent thread suggested, he wasn't 'real' DE before this and, thus, didn't have the Dark Mark. Either that, as you suggested, Voldemort wanted him to stay at Hogwarts. Perhaps to keep an eye on the reaction to Harry disappearing was and report that back later. He might have planned for Crouch to continue his masquerade as Moody. After all, Crouch managed to fool everyone for nine months, why give up the spy then? Imagine if Dumbledore had put together that Voldemort was back without Harry (based on Snape's Dark Mark re-appearing/any info he might get from Snape if Snape is indeed spying, and the strange disappearences, including Harry and Cedric by that point), he would have re-formed the order, and Voldemort's spy would have been on the ground floor. macfotuk: >>* on a theme related to how is it that the triwizard cup was a both ways multiple journey portkey (thread a month or so back), WHY would C!M, having achieved his task of sending HP to LV, not 'get the heck out of there'.<< HunterGreen: To retain his cover as fake!Moody, I'd guess. Dumbledore only realizes its him after he does something blatently suspicious. macfotuk: >>On that last theme, everyone asks how is it that Fudge got a deatheater there so fast - but could they not use either apparition or, if not closeby enough to central Hogwart's, a MoM approved portkey (DDs brings Harry direct to his office at the end of OotP). Certainly, the DE's show up at Little Whingeing out of thin air in Ch1 OotP and so can either apparate or were sent by an unregistered ministry portkey.<< HunterGreen: I think it was me who asked that question the most (or all) times. Can dementors appaperate? You're right that they had to get to Surrey somehow, I'd doubt they'd be missed if they glided or flew (or however they move) all the way there. I can't see Dementors using a portkey (I don't know why, just seems strange to me), so appaperation does seem the most likely answer. Did Fudge send an emergency owl to Azkaban then? Or use Floo powder? Do fires even work around Dementors? (or is that movie contamination?). Although this is a question that can't really be answered, I wonder if there are any humans that work at Azkaban. In that case the human would be the one watching the floo fireplace, and would have been the one to deploy a dementor (if so, however, someone could easily find out it was Umbridge who send the dementors after Harry, but that's assuming an investigation was actually done). We know Dementors are the ones who feed the prisoners, but do they make the food too? Or are there Azkaban house elves? From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 10:24:04 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:24:04 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113646 > Carolyn wrote: > if Diary!Tom had had this conversation with Lucius, surely > > he would have discovered the key facts about Harry that way, and > > would not have had to extract most of the story from Ginny? > > > I agree that Lucius must have had some inkling about the powers of the diary, or there would have been no point in the plot, and part of what he must have been told by Diary!Tom is that giving it to a student would enable a monster to be unleashed once again to kill mudbloods. DD makes it clear that he assumes this was Malfoy's >intent, and Malfoy's reaction confirms it. > > > Mac replied: > Very nice post Carolyn. We must all recall that Ginny spends months with the diary and almost certainly, as Harry did, was taken in, quite literally. Malfoy, on the other hand knew its darkly magical nature and so would handle it with kid (or dragon hide) gloves and, if he wrote in it, would do so as his ONLY means of communication, not allow himself to be taken into its pages as both Harry and Ginny did. > > In such a 'writing only' conversation (as we each have with one > another here in the medium of HPfGU) one can still impart and learn much, exchange ideas, make suggestions, influence etc. > > So, Malfoy tells Diary!Tom about HP and that he has the power to > thwart his future plans/self. Thus Harry should be THE target in the hope that Diary!Tom can succeed where 'physical' LV didn't (at GH). > Lucius knows, hopes or suspects that LV might be back and that > either way Harry is a threat, so let's use DIARY!Tom to see if he > does any better. Nothing lost and many things to be gained, > including all the things people have listed. Hannah now: I still don't think that Malfoy was trying to get LV reinstated, and that he probably had no idea this could be a consequence. I don't believe that Malfoy would ever have taken the risk of writing in the diary - he knew it was potentially dangerous and wouldn't have taken a risk. So here's my version of events. I believe that the diary was given to him along with instructions, written or verbal. It may have come from LV himself, from an elder Malfoy, or from another DE. The instructions state that the diary holds the power to possess someone who writes in it, and through them open the chamber of secrets. Malfoy being a wiley type, keeps hold of the diary until a time when it is useful to him. During PS/SS, for whatever reason, Malfoy decides the time is ripe to use it. Maybe it's because he wants Harry Potter killed/ sent back to muggledom when the school closes (and this isn't necessarily because he's planning the return of LV. He may feel this boy, already an enemy of his son, will be a threat to Malfoy's power). It could also be because he feels it's time to oust DD and consilidate his own power at Hogwarts. Or because of the need to discredit Arthur Weasley and prevent the muggle protection act. Malfoy then hands out the diary, either deliberately to Ginny because of her father (depending on his motive) or just because she is the first young girl about to start at Hogwarts that he comes across. Tom finds out all about Harry from Ginny (and she's got a huge crush on him, so she's going to be only too pleased to tell Tom his life story, even without prompting). He then makes Harry his new target. Hannah From revealme4u at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 11:08:05 2004 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:08:05 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113647 Eloise wrote: > As you say, I think the rebounding AK *did* kill Voldemort's body, > but that the transformations he had undergone stopped *him* from > dying, leaving him still with an earthly but non-corporeal existence. > But I don't think that we know that his body was destroyed as such. [snip] > We have to account for the effect of the failed curse on the house at > Godric's Hollow. My guess is that it was destroyed by the power > released when Voldemort's essence was ripped from his body (similar > to the power which is released in Pullmans HDM universe when human > and daemon are separated). vivek wrote: Well I agree to the point that the AK "*did* destroy Voldemort's body, but that the transformations he had undergone stopped *him* from dying, leaving him still with an earthly but non-corporeal existence." What I will like to know is,whether this has any connection with DD's "smile",in the end of GoF. Because using HP's blood may undo all the transformations that VM went through,thus making him human enough to be killed. Your thoughts. From figgys26cats at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 11:46:49 2004 From: figgys26cats at yahoo.com (Kathleen Hunt) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040922114649.55478.qmail@web51706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113648 Hannah: > >>>The real question here is what Lucius Malfoy was hoping > to achieve with the diary. I can think of three possibilities: > 1. Restore LV to power through diary Tom > 2. Kill off as many mudbloods as possible, and get the school shut > down. > 3. Discredit Arthur Weasley, hopefully killing some mudbloods along > the way.<<< > SSSusan now: > I think he is neither a loyal DE > nor using **Voldy** to gain power. I think Lucius is smart enough & > cautious enough to know that if Voldy's *around*, his own climb to > power will only be as far as Voldy will let him rise. During CoS-- > when Voldy is *nowhere around*, Lucius is using *Tom's* diary to try > to gain power, not accompanying or using an active & alive Voldy. > (Hoping that distinction makes sense.) > I believe that Lucious knew exactly what was going to happen with that diary. I also believe that if he could take down Dumbledore it would have been extra credit for him since Dumbledore is only one that Voldermort is scared of, as is said in almost everybook. With Dumbledore gone, Voldermort would have been able to gain full power. It has also been stated that Voldermort had taken many measures to ensure his immortality and I believe this was one of them. Jo has stated on her website that nobody has ever asked her what kind of measures did Voldermort take, and I believe this will play a major part in the next books if Harry is to kill him in the end. Another question to ask your self is, how did Lucious come across the diary. Voldermort had to have given it to him at one point and instructed him to use it if he ever died. I believe that Lucious is nothing but a coward! From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 10:44:02 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:44:02 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113649 Mac wrote: > Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C!M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > several times if LV was really back. Hannah: To disapparate to LV's side he'd have had to get out of Hogwarts, which would be suspicious. At that time he is disguised as Moody and has Moody's body. So he wouldn't have a dark mark to burn (hence why he doesn't know if LV is back or not). It makes more sense for him to stay at Hogwarts - why blow his cover now? > Mac continued: > * on a theme related to how is it that the triwizard cup was a both ways multiple journey portkey (thread a month or so back), WHY would C!M, having achieved his task of sending HP to LV, not 'get the heck out of there'. > Hannah: I've always wondered about that. Perhaps Portkeys do always work both ways? Trying to think of canon evidence for/against this. Unless Harry performed some 'hysterical magic' and that enabled the cup to become a portkey in the reverse direction. He is under a lot of stress and it's been shown before that when a wizard is in danger they can perform magic unintentionally to save themselves. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 11:06:11 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:06:11 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113650 > Mac wrote: > Lastly, as a kind of extra controvesial thing - someone suggested > Lily threw the spell at Harry - I hardly think so!!!!!!!! (even if > not impossible to conceive). It did get me thinking though about > whether Harry was born with green eyes or only has them since GH. Is there a part of Lily in her son additional to that which any mother muggle or witch) normally conveys to her children? Hannah: I originally made the suggestion (unless someone has in the past) that Lily AK'ed Harry to save him from a worse fate. I suggested it to create debate and try to see the thing from a different angle, I'm not saying that I really believe that is what happened, though I do think it is a possibility worth considering. I've never personally thought the green eyes were significant, though I can see the logic behind it. One thing that I don't understand though, is that if green eyes are so important, why does Dan Radcliffe of the forbidden media have blue eyes? We know JKR had plenty of influence over the film, and thinks Radcliffe is an ideal Harry. If his having green eyes was going to be vital to the plot later, wouldn't she have made them chose a green-eyed actor/ got them to put green contact lenses in his eyes/ digitally enhance him to have green eyes? Hannah From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Sep 23 11:28:59 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:28:59 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Carolyn wrote: > > > if Diary!Tom had had this conversation with Lucius, surely > > > he would have discovered the key facts about Harry that way, and would not have had to extract most of the story from Ginny? > > > > > > > Mac replied: > > Very nice post Carolyn. We must all recall that Ginny spends > months with the diary and almost certainly, as Harry did, was taken > in, quite literally. Malfoy, on the other hand knew its darkly > magical nature and so would handle it with kid (or dragon hide) > gloves and, if he wrote in it, would do so as his ONLY means of > communication, not allow himself to be taken into its pages as both > Harry and Ginny did. (snip) > > Hannah: I still don't think that Malfoy was trying to get LV > reinstated, and that he probably had no idea this could be a > consequence. I don't believe that Malfoy would ever have taken the > risk of writing in the diary - he knew it was potentially dangerous > and wouldn't have taken a risk. So here's my version of events. > > I believe that the diary was given to him along with instructions, > written or verbal. It may have come from LV himself, from an elder > Malfoy, or from another DE. The instructions state that the diary > holds the power to possess someone who writes in it, and through > them open the chamber of secrets. > Carolyn: I don't think Malfoy wanted LV back either; it would ruin all his plans to have an uncontrollable evil overlord calling the shots again. And it certainly would have been very risky for Malfoy to have had a dialogue with the diary, as Mandy originally suggested, but if he didn't, who passed on the information about the diary's powers, and discussed the plot with him? Dobby seemed to have overhead enough discussions at Malfoy manor that summer to get the gist of what was being planned, and be concerned enough to go and warn Harry at Privet Drive. JKR mentions a cut scene with Draco and Theodore Nott at Malfoy manor, which suggests that their fathers were in regular communication. The other DEs that we have heard of, and who were not in Azkaban at this point include Avery, Crabbe Sr, Goyle Sr and MacNair..(and Pettigrew, of course, but he was still hiding in rat form and certainly not keen on showing himself to these conspirators). The whole thing reminds me of the partly-overheard first prophecy at the Hogs Head, and the consequences of not having full information. Somehow, Lucius & co had acquired some of Voldemort's old school things; maybe they had retrieved them from wherever he was based at the time of his vapourisation at GH. [Riddle House??] And they had garbled, incomplete information on what the diary could do - that it would lead the user to the Chamber, and unleash a monster that would kill mudbloods. Is there evidence here of traitor in the DE ranks? Avery's nerve was the first to break in the graveyard scene in GOF, and he was the first to be Crucio'd by V. He got zapped again in OOP (Ch 26) for giving V the wrong information about the prophecy orbs. Is he knowingly or not, suggesting hair-brained schemes that won't work to the DE's in the hope that it might trip them up and hopelessly delay them? Curiouser and curiouser.. Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 23 11:39:36 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:39:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113652 > Alla: > I am talking more about Neri's VERY persuasive argument IMO, that > Snape behaved very carelessly that night and delayed notifying the > order that Harry and Co went into MOM. > > Yes, I remember the rebuttal arguments on the timeline, but again, I remained persuaded by Neri. Potioncat: Oh, that was a fun one! Let's do it again! That thread involved not only motivation of characters but detailed research on official sunrise/sunset. Did anyone ever send a final time line to Lexicon Steve? Here are two of the posts: Pippin pro Snape: 107919 Neri anti Snape: 108037 IIRC Neri's post sums up the time, while Pippin's post discusses motivation. But there are lots of posts on this tread. Potioncat (who was in Pippin's camp) From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Sep 23 12:02:14 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:02:14 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! > M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > several times if LV was really back. > Even if BC Jr. had the Dark Mark, surely the real Alastor Moody did not - so wouldn't Crouch's Dark Mark disappear once he was Polyjuiced into Moody? - CMC From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 23 12:43:27 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:43:27 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > I do think it's possible that it wasn't an AK, but I'm not wholly > convinced. I also know this is not a very FUN answer, but I'm going > to offer it anyhow. I guess I've just figured that it's the powerful > reaction of an AK hitting an ancient-magic countercharm like Lily's > (and possibly some power of Harry's own) that caused the blow-up. > > Of course, that would beg the question of how Harry was physically > okay, other than the scar, when all around him was devastation. > Unless there was some kind of "outward blast" away from Harry? > Kneasy: But according to canon there isn't a countercharm to an AK. If something doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, and instead of paddling on the pond shows every sign of going belly-up, why persist in calling it a duck? This so-called 'AK' behaves nothing like any other AK described, so why not explore the dreadful possibility that it's not an AK? Would that be such an earth-shattering concept? Come on fans, stretch your imagination a bit. > > Kneasy: > > It leaves bits of the casters mind in the target. > > SSSusan: > >>We know DD believes the ability to speak Parseltongue was "given" to > Harry by that attack. Well, as others have suggested, what if Voldy > actually (accidentally, of course) put some of himself into Harry at > the same time, not just a stray ability or power here or there? > > *If* [big "if"] Harry could unseal the Chamber because a bit of the > Heir of Slytherin is inside him, maybe there are other things he can > do because Voldy/Tom became a part of him? Maybe he can actually > CONTROL Voldy in a way he doesn't yet even realize?<< > Kneasy: You're gradually edging towards a theory a couple of us were banging on about a few months back. It's an extension of the 'Possession' line. Part of Voldy is lodged in his mind and the scar is the outward manifestation of this. Harry is a magically induced schizophrenic. He hears voices, he acts on what they tell him. Fortunately, so far it's still "in essence divided"; he hasn't succumbed to the invader - yet. DD did say that Parseltongue was *one* of the powers (unspecified) given to Harry by Voldy. So it's reasonable to expect more; we may already have had a hint - possible Legilimancy during his exams. Moody comments that "We all know there's something funny about that Potter kid." This from an Auror renowned for sniffing out Dark Magic. Why is it that Harry and Voldy can share/implant thoughts, visions etc. *at a distance* but Voldy doesn't seem to be able to do the same with others? IMO it's because Voldy has a beach-head in Harry's mind; part of him is already there and he links to it. Not something that one would expect from a failed AK. But if Voldy was casting his mind (instead of a spell) in order to access Harry's prophecied powers, then that would be a different cauldron of toads. As for Harry using these powers to defeat Voldy, well - I'm not so confident. As things stand it's much more likely to go the other way. Let's face it, in OoP Harry was acting like a self-centred little snot most of the time, much more like one would imagine Tom would behave than what one would hope from Harry. Voldy!Bit seemed to be in the ascendant. Will Harry throw off this mind leech? Will Harry become a Voldy clone? Catch next years thrilling episode! From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 13:24:54 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:24:54 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113655 romuluslupin1: *snip* Why did the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 sets of Lockhart's books. Amy here: I guess after the trip to Egypt, my thoughts on the Weasley's are that they are not-so-poor, ...they don't have all the gold that traditional "pure-blood" families are "supposed" to have, but they still have enough to live on... kinda like America's middle class...what I mean is, 1. they did buy all the sets of Lockhart books. 2. They bought treats for the boys that became prefects. 3. When Mr. Weasley won the contest, they didn't save for other more practical stuff, they took a trip. Now I look at this like, they either don't manage their money well, or they are just frugal, and don't put much on the need for all new stuff. I consider myself middle class...in this old muggle world...I COULD spend my money on designer clothes and such, but...I'd rather look for bargains...go to rummage sales, Goodwill, clearance sales, and then be able to take a cruise....thats my thoughts anyway...They have enough money, just choose how to spend it more wisely. (or not so wisely, however you look at it?) Amy C. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 23 13:26:00 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:26:00 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113656 SSSusan wrote: > > I guess I've just figured that it's the powerful > > reaction of an AK hitting an ancient-magic countercharm like > > Lily's (and possibly some power of Harry's own) that caused the > > blow-up. > > > > Of course, that would beg the question of how Harry was > > physically okay, other than the scar, when all around him was > > devastation. Unless there was some kind of "outward blast" away > > from Harry? Kneasy: > But according to canon there isn't a countercharm to an AK. > If something doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, > and instead of paddling on the pond shows every sign of going > belly-up, why persist in calling it a duck? > > This so-called 'AK' behaves nothing like any other AK described, > so why not explore the dreadful possibility that it's not an AK? > Would that be such an earth-shattering concept? > Come on fans, stretch your imagination a bit. SSSusan: Okay, okay, so I used the wrong term. But whatever it was--not a "countercharm"--it was Lily's "protection" which saved Harry, per DD. Now it may not have been a *charm*, but it *was* whatever she did. Did she do SOMETHING in advance, or was it merely the action of her sacrificing herself? Whatever "it" was, DD called it "ancient magic" and said that it resides in Harry's very skin. So that essence--whatever it is, and whether it was a specific action/charm/magical protection Lily placed there or the result of her sacrifice for him--might have been the thing "reacting" with Voldy's AK. OR...as you say...it might be something other than AK. Kneasy originally: > > > It leaves bits of the casters mind in the target. SSSusan: > > We know DD believes the ability to speak Parseltongue was "given" > > to Harry by that attack. Well, as others have suggested, what if > > Voldy actually (accidentally, of course) put some of himself into > > Harry at the same time, not just a stray ability or power here or > > there? > > > > *If* [big "if"] Harry could unseal the Chamber because a bit of > > the Heir of Slytherin is inside him, maybe there are other things > > he can do because Voldy/Tom became a part of him? Maybe he can > > actually CONTROL Voldy in a way he doesn't yet even realize? Kneasy: > You're gradually edging towards a theory a couple of us were banging > on about a few months back. It's an extension of the 'Possession' > line. Part of Voldy is lodged in his mind and the scar is the > outward manifestation of this. Harry is a magically induced > schizophrenic. He hears voices, he acts on what they tell him. > Fortunately, so far it's still "in essence divided"; he hasn't > succumbed to the invader - yet. > > DD did say that Parseltongue was *one* of the powers (unspecified) > given to Harry by Voldy. So it's reasonable to expect more.... > > Why is it that Harry and Voldy can share/implant thoughts, visions > etc. *at a distance* but Voldy doesn't seem to be able to do the > same with others? IMO it's because Voldy has a beach-head in > Harry's mind; part of him is already there and he links to it. Not > something that one would expect from a failed AK. > > As for Harry using these powers to defeat Voldy, well - I'm not so > confident. As things stand it's much more likely to go the other > way. Let's face it, in OoP Harry was acting like a self-centred > little snot most of the time, much more like one would imagine Tom > would behave than what one would hope from Harry. > Voldy!Bit seemed to be in the ascendant. > Will Harry throw off this mind leech? > Will Harry become a Voldy clone? > Catch next years thrilling episode! SSSusan: Oh, the way you pick on my Harry! ;-) He *was* self-centered, I suppose, but damn it, he's earned the right, hasn't he? I mean, he was RIGHT when he was ticked about being left out of the loop; he was understandable when he felt he wasn't being trusted but had proved himself trustworthy by taking on Voldy again & again. And he *was* foolish to not work with Snape. Sure he was angryangstyselfcentered! Harry, but I suspect I'd have been worse. Anyway...of *course* I think if Harry has these powers to defeat Voldy he'll use them! He may well be tempted along the way, or worse, perhaps be controlled by ascendant!Voldy for a time. But this is HARRY POTTER! Of course he'll manage it in the end! Siriusly Snapey Susan (knowing Kneasy is surely rolling his eyes at this very moment) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 23 13:52:57 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:52:57 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113657 SSSusan, previously >> NO, Voldy isn't aware, I don't think. In fact, I keep trying to use this "Voldy didn't ask about/Lucius didn't offer up info about the diary" scene as evidence that Lucius was attempting to use the diary to advance his own agenda, *not* to bring Voldy back. I'm not sure anyone's listening, but that's what I've been trying to say for months.<< Carol: > I agree that LV doesn't know about the attempt, but that doesn't > mean that Lucius wasn't trying to bring him back. (Otherwise, how > can we explain Dobby's concern for Harry and Harry only since Harry > isn't a Muggleborn? SSSusan: Good question. I'm not sure! If we'd had the dueling club/parseltongue scene in SS/PS rather than CoS, I think I could make an argument for thinking Harry would be blamed, but.... One point, though, is that while he is not Muggleborn, Harry is also NOT a pureblood, and so might be targeted. Or perhaps the goal WAS to kill some "mudbloods," get DD ousted, and THEN attack Harry, and that's what Dobby knew? Carol: > If Lucius tried to bring Voldemort back via diary!Tom and failed > spectacularly, why would he tell Voldemort? And in any case, he > hadn't had a chance to communicate with him and didn't know he was > restored to his physical form until he was summoned to the > graveyard. SSSusan: The fact that Lucius HADN'T talked to Voldy 'til the graveyard is a big part of my argument. It would have been Lucius's first opportunity to protest about how much he'd done on Voldy's behalf...but he doesn't. And I'm also not sure that the failure was "spectacular." The plan actually came amazingly close to success: DD was out of the way; McGonagall was ready to close the school; people were blaming Harry; Ginny was almost dead and Diary! Tom was almost "real." I'd call it a near-miss, not a spectacular failure. (Of course, *any* failure by a DE is likely considered "spectacular" to Voldy--look at him blaming Bella for the broken prophecy orb.) Carol: > I'm not saying that you're wrong, SSS, only that I don't think we > can rule out the restoration of Voldemort as a possible Malfoy > motive based on LV's not knowing about it in GoF. SSSusan: And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of restoring Voldy. *But* "LV's not knowing about it in GoF" really *isn't* my argument. It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that Lucius doesn't use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. "But, Master! Let me tell you how hard I worked 2 years ago to bring you back!" Nope. He doesn't breath a word. It *could* be because he knows the attempt was a failure. *I* think it's simply more likely that it's because his goal wasn't to bring Voldy back. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 23 13:59:40 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:59:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113658 > > Alla: > > > I am talking more about Neri's VERY persuasive argument IMO, that Snape behaved very carelessly that night and delayed notifying the order that Harry and Co went into MOM. > > > > Yes, I remember the rebuttal arguments on the timeline, but again, I remained persuaded by Neri. > > Potioncat: > Oh, that was a fun one! Let's do it again! Pippin: Again? Oh dear . There's certainly plenty of ammunition for those who want to believe that Snape is up to no good and that Dumbledore deliberately makes himself unavailable just when Harry needs him most. But I do have something to add to what I said last time. I believe Neri argued that no competent military commander would deliberately make himself unavailable in a crisis. True enough, though my armchair reading of history makes it seem almost inevitable that there *will* be communications breakdowns between outposts and HQ in the midst of battle. Voldemort certainly would be doing his best to arrange it. McGonagall took a sudden turn for the worse and had to be transferred to St. Mungo's...I wonder why? She could have been a conduit for communications between Snape and Dumbledore. But it's also part of the mystery that we don't know where Dumbledore goes when he's not at Hogwarts. Harry considers writing to him at the beginning of GoF, and thinks that Hedwig would be able to find him where ever he went. But we know now that wizards can make themselves unreachable. Dumbledore seems to be uniquely powerful and good...according to Rowling he "is the epitome of goodness." * What if, in order to maintain those qualities, he has to do something that puts him temporarily out of touch with the wizarding world? Perhaps he was in the world beyond the veil? Or with the power behind the door? Pippin *http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-cbc-solomo n.htm (You may have to cut and paste the link to make it work) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 23 14:09:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:09:43 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113659 Paul: Harry himself accepts the following > facts: > a) a part of his mind is talking with Hr's voice, > b) he can't lie to her face to face, > c) when he acts he considers her advices as correct even if he > doesn't follow them every time, > d) the last thing he wants is to let her down and > e) their minds are in the same frequency most of the times. > Pippin: Where do you derive b and c? I can think off the top of my head, of several times when Harry lies to or deceives Hermione. He tells her he doesn't miss Ron. He tells her he's been working on the egg clue He tells her he's been practicing occlumency He lets her go on thinking that the Elves are freeing themselves with the hats. Nor does Harry always think the advice she would give him is correct. In fact he very often doesn't ask her advice because he knows it would be useless -- at the beginning of GoF, for example. His solution, writing to Sirius, is an excellent one, and not something Hermione would have suggested at that point. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 23 15:08:27 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:08:27 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113660 Carolyn: > And it certainly would have been very risky for Malfoy to have > had a dialogue with the diary, as Mandy originally suggested, but > if he didn't, who passed on the information about the diary's > powers, and discussed the plot with him? > > Dobby seemed to have overhead enough discussions at Malfoy manor > that summer to get the gist of what was being planned, and be > concerned enough to go and warn Harry at Privet Drive. JKR mentions > a cut scene with Draco and Theodore Nott at Malfoy manor, which > suggests that their fathers were in regular communication. SSSusan: Good catch, Carolyn. And JKR said this on her site: "Raised by a very elderly widower and Death Eater father, Theodore is...." Very elderly? Perhaps he's old enough to have been a contemporary of Tom's at Hogwarts? Ooooh, if Nott's one of the super-loyal DEs, that would make it more fun if Theodore turns out to be the hoped-for "Good Slytherin." Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 15:13:19 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (mgrantwich) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:13:19 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113661 I have been giving some thought to this issue (when I should have been working but never mind that...) I don't think that Pettigrew approached the DE's on his own initiative. By nature he's a reactor to things and forces; he doesn't make the first move but rather sits back and observes, watching to see what response would be best for him to make to maximize the benefits to himself. Thus as a teen he took on the role of prime cheerleader for the group, even though in his zest he sometimes crossed the line into totally obvious sycophancy. I'm sure he was aware that some viewed him the same way McGonagall did: as a tag- along. But at the time it was a price worth paying for getting what he wanted - being able to hang with the Marauders, the coolest guys in school. The same sort of personal calculations applied to his initial involvement with Voldemort. (I want to be clear here: his second involvement - after he was "outed" in the Shrieking Shack and went to Albania to find Voldemort - was more a matter of having no choice than to be out in the open.) I don't think that anyone threatened Pettigrew: he would have responded to that by saying whatever he needed to say to get out of the immediate situation and then have gone into hiding until the all clear signal blew - probably in southern Tasmania. No, I think someone approached Peter and let him know the benefits of switching gangs. Who did this or how they did it are two things we don't know but probably will in the future. We can speculate: 1. It would have had to be someone that Peter already knew or was familiar with because I don't think he would have opened up to a stranger: giving away info about himself isn't a Peter trademark; 2. It would have had to be someone that Peter envied for some reason, something that made Peter think "I want a piece of that for myself", in other words someone who could out-cool the Marauders; 3. It would have had to be someone who represented a completely new stage in life; let's face it, by the time they all graduated, the Marauders were going onto higher pursuits that running around the school grounds at midnight and pranking people. James was getting married, Sirius was off doing his rebel-on-a-bike thing, Lupin was being Lupin and trying to get a job. What was there for Peter to do, when he'd spent his life so far letting the others do all the work while he tagged along? So Peter would have looked for someplace where he could have found the maximum benefits for the minimum exertion. My personal choice for the guy who approached Peter the first time: Ludo Bagman. International Quidditch star, all-around jock and grown- up cool dude who knew people in the MoM and could get Peter a job with no duties. And someone who Peter probably thought would be a snap to manipulate because Bagman has always benefited from being considered too dumb to pick his own nose. (Not unlike Peter himself.) But the conman was conned - Bagman wasn't interested in high school gossip, he wanted the real deal, the solid info about the Order. And Peter got in deeper and deeper until it really was a matter of facing Voldemort and giving up the info the Dark Lord wanted about the Potters. But he didn't give it up because he was afraid - by the time he became Secret-Keeper, Peter had travelled a fair way down the road to wanting nothing but power, and he could see no place more powerful than being the Leader's right-hand (foreshadowing?) man. By the end of POA, Peter is a much darker and more ammoral wizard than he was 13 years ago, when he was already turning into a serious criminal. People will ask how he could have betrayed James when he idolized him. Answer: he didn't idolize James, he worshipped James' image, his hipness, his coolness, his persona. He didn't give a toss for James the person, like Lupin and Sirius did. So it wasn't a huge deal for him to betray James and Lily. Had he been totally honest in the Shrieking Shack, he would have told Harry: "Harry, it was nothing personal." And the really scary thing is - he would have meant it sincerely. Magda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 15:45:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:45:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore recharging his powers. Was:Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: snip. > > Dumbledore seems to be uniquely powerful and > good...according to Rowling he "is the epitome of goodness." * > What if, in order to maintain those qualities, he has to do > something that puts him temporarily out of touch with the > wizarding world? Perhaps he was in the world beyond the veil? > Or with the power behind the door? Alla: You mean for him to remain powerful he has to do some recharging? :) No, seriously though I like this idea very much and I do agree that Dumbledore is good, just made some very bad mistakes. Probably he is in contact with some higher entity of the Potterverse? Do you think he can bring Sirius back in any shaper or form? :) From ExSlytherin at aol.com Thu Sep 23 15:56:42 2004 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Mandy) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:56:42 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113663 > SSSusan wrote: > And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of >restoring Voldy. *But* "LV's not knowing about it in GoF" really >*isn't* my argument. It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that >Lucius doesn't use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. "But, >Master! Let me tell you how hard I worked 2 years ago to bring you >back!" Nope. He doesn't breath a word. It *could* be because he >knows the attempt was a failure. *I* think it's simply more likely >that it's because his goal wasn't to bring Voldy back. Mandy here: Or perhaps Lucius chose not to play his full hand in the GOF graveyard? LV comes back pissed, Lucius knows he's in trouble but also is arrogantly confident in his current status as political heavyweight in the WW. Lucius knows LV would be stupid to outright kill him. But then again Lucius also knows LV is a monomaniacal, evil overlord. Who can be certain what Voldemort is going to do when he's angry? So Lucius keeps the Diary incident quiet, choosing to keep it in reserve until he really needs it. Personally I think Lucius's goal with the diary was to bring back a young version of LV that Lucius believed he could control and use. This would not be something Malfoy would not want LV finding out. And so I think Lucius would prudently keep the whole Diary incident as quite as possible and only bring it up when Malfoy could spin it into the best possible outcome to suit Lucius Malfoy. Cheers Mandy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 16:17:14 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:17:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113664 > Pippin: > > Again? Oh dear . There's certainly plenty of ammunition for > those who want to believe that Snape is up to no good and that > Dumbledore deliberately makes himself unavailable just when > Harry needs him most. Alla: I was not even saying that Snape is up to no good, although who knows. :) I was only arguing that he , IMO, should not be REWARDED in any way for MOM disaster, because he did not do what he was supposed to do from the very beginning of the events and therefore does not deserve the credit of "saving Harry's life", that's all. I can give him some credit for his other actions, but really, Snape's saving Harry's life in MOM? As I said, I think Harry's friends saved each other and then Harry saved himself at the end. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 23 16:43:15 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:43:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113665 > > Alla: > > I was not even saying that Snape is up to no good, although who > knows. :) > > I was only arguing that he , IMO, should not be REWARDED in any way for MOM disaster, because he did not do what he was supposed to do from the very beginning of the events and therefore does not deserve the credit of "saving Harry's life", that's all. > > I can give him some credit for his other actions, but really, Snape's saving Harry's life in MOM?< > Harry was able to save himself from possession, but our guys weren't winning when the Order arrived. Harry was just about to hand over the prophecy to keep Neville from being tortured. If he had, it wouldn't have taken Voldemort long to learn that there was nothing in it to keep him from having another go at killing Harry. All Voldie would have had to do is borrow Bella's wand, and he could have AK'd Harry. By sending the Order to Harry's aid, Snape prevented that. It's open to debate whether occlumency would have shut Voldemort out of Harry's mind even if he had mastered it. As Snape said at the beginning of the lessons,"the usual rules do not seem to apply with you, Potter." If the ancient spells and charms on the walls and grounds of Hogwarts that were supposed to keep Voldemort from influencing those who dwell within didn't work, there's no guarantee occlumency would have. Pippin noting suspiciously that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry how to do the corporeal patronus, and that Harry's indistinct patronus wasn't much help, even against only one dementor in OOP From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 23 16:59:01 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:59:01 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113666 - > SSSusan: > Good catch, Carolyn. And JKR said this on her site: "Raised by a > very elderly widower and Death Eater father, Theodore is...." Very > elderly? Perhaps he's old enough to have been a contemporary of > Tom's at Hogwarts? > > Ooooh, if Nott's one of the super-loyal DEs, that would make it more > fun if Theodore turns out to be the hoped-for "Good Slytherin." > > Potioncat: I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I know in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet one could be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't think 70 or so is elderly in the WW. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 17:05:44 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:05:44 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113667 > > Potioncat: > I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva > McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I know > in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet one could > be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't think 70 or so > is elderly in the WW. Alla: Me neither actually. After JKR mentioned that wizards life span is much longer than us, muggles, I never consider McGonagall to be an elderly woman. Middle-aged, maybe, but definitely not elderly. I always consider her 70 to be like our 40s maybe. Come to think about it, Sirius and Snape are so VERY YOUNG under our standards. Maybe that is why they still did not get rid of their childish behaviour? :) From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 17:38:09 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:09 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Carolyn wrote: > > > if Diary!Tom had had this conversation with Lucius, surely > > > he would have discovered the key facts about Harry that way, and > > > would not have had to extract most of the story from Ginny? > > > > > I agree that Lucius must have had some inkling about the powers > of the diary, or there would have been no point in the plot, and > part of what he must have been told by Diary!Tom is that giving it > to a student would enable a monster to be unleashed once again to > kill mudbloods. DD makes it clear that he assumes this was Malfoy's > >intent, and Malfoy's reaction confirms it. > > > > > Mac replied: > > Very nice post Carolyn. We must all recall that Ginny spends > months with the diary and almost certainly, as Harry did, was taken > in, quite literally. Malfoy, on the other hand knew its darkly > magical nature and so would handle it with kid (or dragon hide) > gloves and, if he wrote in it, would do so as his ONLY means of > communication, not allow himself to be taken into its pages as both > Harry and Ginny did. > > > > In such a 'writing only' conversation (as we each have with one > > another here in the medium of HPfGU) one can still impart and > learn much, exchange ideas, make suggestions, influence etc. > > > > So, Malfoy tells Diary!Tom about HP and that he has the power to > > thwart his future plans/self. Thus Harry should be THE target in > the hope that Diary!Tom can succeed where 'physical' LV didn't (at > GH). > > Lucius knows, hopes or suspects that LV might be back and that > > either way Harry is a threat, so let's use DIARY!Tom to see if he > > does any better. Nothing lost and many things to be gained, > > including all the things people have listed. > > > Hannah now: I still don't think that Malfoy was trying to get LV > reinstated, and that he probably had no idea this could be a > consequence. I don't believe that Malfoy would ever have taken the > risk of writing in the diary - he knew it was potentially dangerous > and wouldn't have taken a risk. So here's my version of events. > > I believe that the diary was given to him along with instructions, > written or verbal. It may have come from LV himself, from an elder > Malfoy, or from another DE. The instructions state that the diary > holds the power to possess someone who writes in it, and through > them open the chamber of secrets. > > Malfoy being a wiley type, keeps hold of the diary until a time when > it is useful to him. During PS/SS, for whatever reason, Malfoy > decides the time is ripe to use it. Maybe it's because he wants > Harry Potter killed/ sent back to muggledom when the school closes > (and this isn't necessarily because he's planning the return of LV. > He may feel this boy, already an enemy of his son, will be a threat > to Malfoy's power). It could also be because he feels it's time to > oust DD and consilidate his own power at Hogwarts. Or because of > the need to discredit Arthur Weasley and prevent the muggle > protection act. > > Malfoy then hands out the diary, either deliberately to Ginny > because of her father (depending on his motive) or just because she > is the first young girl about to start at Hogwarts that he comes > across. Tom finds out all about Harry from Ginny (and she's got a > huge crush on him, so she's going to be only too pleased to tell Tom > his life story, even without prompting). He then makes Harry his > new target. > > Hannah Antosha: Having asked the question that started this conversation, I've been following it with GREAT interest--thank you all for the fascinating hashing-out! I like the idea that Lucius and/or some of the other DEs must have written in the diary-- he's got too much information not to have, if we judge by his reaction in the scene with DD at the end of the book. Something has occurred to me that may have been mentioned already in terms of the TIMING of the planting of the diary: at the beginning of CoS, Arthur Weasley and friends have been conducting raids, and Lucius seems to be divesting himself of some of his more incriminating paraphernalia with what seems to be a sense of real urgency. What more perfect way to rid yourself of an incriminating book than to plant it on the child of one of your most annoying enemies? From Snarryfan at aol.com Wed Sep 22 17:09:35 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:09:35 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113669 > Pat: [snip two good analyse] > When Harry gets a glimpse of what Snape went through as a student, > he feels sorry for him, and has no intention of gloating or using > that information to humiliate Snape. Snape, of course, is still in > that mental state that only leaves him seeking revenge for his > hurts. There's something linked with this which interested me. 1?)Harry saw horrible memories/Snape believe than Harry find that funny and will tell/Snape goes angry. 2?)Snape saw horrible memories/Harry believe than Snape find that funny and will tell/ Harry goes angry. But we know that Harry never thought to speak, and what he saw (from the child crying to the pensieve) joined the secrets kept from Ron and Hermione. So apparently, he's better than Snape. BUT, even if in a way, he's better, Snape never talk either. Cedric, Cho, the Dursley, he never said one thing to Harry, in Occlumency or elsewhere. It's not for fear that Harry talk, because it didn't stop him to provoke him in class after. I found it interesting that Snape has a limit, in his strange morals system. Safe if I missed something, he never used what he saw in Harry's head (with the bad memories, not the Voldy's dream). It's one of this situation where Harry and Snape has the same reaction, from the decision to kept the silent to the anger with the other (or vice-versa). Christelle. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 14:12:09 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:12:09 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113670 > romuluslupin1: > *snip* Why did the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much > money on 5 sets of Lockhart's books. > > Amy here: > I guess after the trip to Egypt, my thoughts on the Weasley's are > that they are not-so-poor, ...they don't have all the gold that > traditional "pure-blood" families are "supposed" to have, but they > still have enough to live on... kinda like America's middle > class...what I mean is, > 1. they did buy all the sets of Lockhart books. > 2. They bought treats for the boys that became prefects. > 3. When Mr. Weasley won the contest, they didn't save for other more > practical stuff, they took a trip. > Now I look at this like, they either don't manage their money well, > or they are just frugal, and don't put much on the need for all new > stuff. Frugalarugala: I agree with Amy C., I just wanted to suggest that this might have something to do with Molly's background. Remember the thread about Molly being from a slightly lower social class than Arthur? I think this might be further evidence. What I mean is, she doesn't seem to hesitate to get the kids what they NEED for school (the books...) but non-necessities (like new dress-robes and hand-me-down wands) are places to scrimp. Then there are the unexpected expenses like Ron's broken wand... Arthur's the one I wonder about, moneywise. Maybe it's just because I've always taken Molly as the frugal scrimper, but I don't see him as the same way. I mean, the knitting, the garden, I see Molly as cautious with money, but Arthur... Well, maybe it's just that I don't see him as very cautious in general. I mean, enchanting the Ford, fighting with Malfoy, Percy (it a government-job--ignore Fudge)... I just tend to see him as far more lack about rules, money, life in general... From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 23 17:53:57 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:53:57 -0400 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? Message-ID: <001601c4a196$4d5d4120$11c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113671 Amy C. "They [the Weasley family] have enough money, just choose how to spend it more wisely. (or not so wisely, however you look at it?)" DuffyPoo: I think they're rather hard up, myself, from reading in CoS, "Harry enjoyed the break-neck journey down to the Weasleys' vault, but felt dreadful, far worse than he had in Knockturn Alley, when it was opened. There was a very small pile of Silver Sickles inside, and just one gold Galleon. Mrs. Weasley felt right into the corners before sweeping the whole lot into her bag." Taking into consideration that one butterbeer is two Sickles (at the Hog's Head) and Hermione paid fifteen Sickles and two Knuts (seventeen Sickles = 1 Galleon) for a black and gold quill at Skrivenshaft's Quill Shop in Hogsmeade, the Weasley family doesn't sound too well off to me. Also, in PoA we have "Harry couldn't think of anyone who deserved to win a large pile of gold more than the Weasleys, who were very nice and *extremely poor.* Seven hundred Galleons paid for a holiday in Egypt for eight of the nine Weasleys (Bill was already there), and Ron got a new wand. Ron said "Seven hundred Galleons! Most of it's gone on this holiday." romuluslupin1: >>*snip* Why did the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 sets of Lockhart's books<< DuffyPoo: Does CoS say anywhere that the Weasleys actually did buy five sets? George said, "Dunno how Mum and Dad are going to afford all our school stuff this year. Five sets of Lockhart books! And Ginny needs robes and a wand and everything ..." Mrs. Weasley had already said that they could pick up a lot of Ginny's things second-hand. Ginny got the books that were given free to Harry and he bought his own, so they actually bought four sets. They could, quite easily have bought one set for F&G to share since they would be in the same class, and presumably doing homework at the same time (yeah, right!)Fred and George were far enough along by then that they wouldn't need 'A Beginner's Guide to Transfiguration' yet Molly bought Ginny a second hand copy when she could easily have used the twins' (they would have been using 'Intermediate Transfiguration' by then). The Weasleys must think it important for each child to have their own set of books, to start their own personal wizarding library, so to speak. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au Thu Sep 23 15:57:15 2004 From: u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au (colbernays) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:57:15 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113672 > SSSusan: > Good question. I'm not sure! If we'd had the dueling > club/parseltongue scene in SS/PS rather than CoS, I think I could > make an argument for thinking Harry would be blamed, but.... One > point, though, is that while he is not Muggleborn, Harry is also NOT > a pureblood, and so might be targeted. Or perhaps the goal WAS to > kill some "mudbloods," get DD ousted, and THEN attack Harry, and > that's what Dobby knew? > Perhaps Malfoy tricked Dobby, consider how Crouch!Moody manipulated other people to help Harry all the way through GoF and specifically Dobby with the gillyweed. Maybe Malfoy thinks 'this Potter kid is a bad risk, he stopped Voldemort when he was a baby, and again just now. He could be a real thorn in my side to oust DD (or whatever his plan was). I know I'll trick that stupid houseelve of mine into stopping Harry going to Hogwarts.' And so Malfoy stages a conversation in front of Dobby and Dobby goes to Privet Dr and platform 9 3/4 to stop Harry. > SSSusan: > The fact that Lucius HADN'T talked to Voldy 'til the graveyard is a > big part of my argument. It would have been Lucius's first > opportunity to protest about how much he'd done on Voldy's > behalf...but he doesn't. And I'm also not sure that the failure > was "spectacular." The plan actually came amazingly close to > success: DD was out of the way; McGonagall was ready to close the > school; people were blaming Harry; Ginny was almost dead and Diary! > Tom was almost "real." I'd call it a near-miss, not a spectacular > failure. (Of course, *any* failure by a DE is likely > considered "spectacular" to Voldy--look at him blaming Bella for the > broken prophecy orb.) > Don't forget Voldy has had many spectacular failures of his own: 1: Tries to kill a baby, ends up as Vapor!Mort 2: Tries to get a stone out of a mirror, gets beat by kid again, now 11. 3: Tries to get a basilisk to kill now 12yo kid, goes 'oh I forgot about phoenix tears healing power' (I know it's not technically Voldemort who does this but it's the same arrogant persona.) 4: Spends a year organising to get Harry alone, and restore self to full power, and succeeds. Then summons former followers to show how great he is, and demonstrate that the brat kid is no match for him now, that events of GH were a fluke, and what happens? a) He can't even Imperio Harry thanks to his one 'loyal' servant b) He then tries to AK Harry, the same curse that backfired 13 years ago! That's a smart move! Voldy's lucky the Priori Incantatum thing happend or he may have ended up a wasp of vapor again, great way to impress his disillusioned followers! c) Instead of a subtle return to power, his greatest threat, Dumbledore now knows he's back. 5: Manages to do one thing of right of getting Bella etc. out of Azkaban, but spends 12 months hiding from WW, trying to get a prophecy so he can *maybe* find out how to get rid of the continually underestimated Harry, and that went bellyup big time. All but one of his followers captured (that were involved), not really Voldy's fault, but he then turns up himself to try and save the day and does so just in time to get recognised by the Minister of Magic and many others who were so happily denying his existence. So all up we have 2 jobs done right for the Dark Lord and 5 major SNAFU's. If I were a death eater right now I'd be considering turning in my membership. Colin From empooress at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 04:04:00 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: <1095866336.124156.81257.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040923040400.58377.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113673 Geoff: >>Now to the diary which produces another whole crop of questions. To begin with, why did Tom Riddle decide to create the diary? His logic in COS seems odd: `"I knew it wouldn't be safe to open the Chamber again while I was still at school. But I wasn't going to waste those long years I'd spent searching for it. I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work.' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition) Why create the diary at all? Does he think he is going to suffer amnesia when he walks out of the Hogwarts gates? He is not going to waste those years; he has the information safely locked up in his head.<< Empooress:True, he would have the information locked in his head, but don't you think it would be easier to have a possesed student doing the deeds, rather than an adult who doesn't belong there. Geoff: >>Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been used? Did he know how to access it? Or want to? Perhaps after Voldemort's unscheduled exit in 1980, Lucius felt that the less known about the diary the better. But.... When the wretched book reappears in 1992, why didn't Lucius try to get to the Chamber himself or why not give it to Draco and get him to create mayhem and mischief rather than give it to Ginny who might not even get as far as trying to use it? I wonder whether Lucius knew precisely what it was or whether he dumped it onto Ginny in the hope that she might be a vehicle for it to lead to the undermining of Dumbledore's influence and the possible end of Hogwarts.<< Empooress: I think yes the Malfoy had the diary for some time, he had perhaps even been givem it by Voldemort. In PS/SS Malfoy learn of Voldemort return to England, Draco is a student and would most certainly told his father about the goings on at school with Prof. Quirrill. Since he is aware that Voldemort is in England and knows that the diary can create a flesh and blood Tom Riddle, he knows now is the time to use it. Somewhere in COS DD stated that Voldemort would have been even stronger if Tom Riddle had survired. IT seems to me that the older non-corperal Voldemort would have been able to use/merge with Tom Riddle. I'm also certain that Malfoy knew what the diary was for and what it would eventually do to a person who became posessed by it, namely kill them. In order for Tom Riddle to become "real", Ginny would have to die. I think Malfoy was in Diagon Alley that day, to attempt to dump the diary on a Hogwarts student, that he ran into Ginny was just luck on his part. Geoff: >> He was apparently around, probably dormant, while Voldemort was still creating terror and havoc. So, what is or was his function?<< Empooress:I'd have to say ame as Voldemort's, havoc and terror. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 23 18:08:04 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:08:04 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113674 Potioncat: > > I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva > > McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I > > know in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet > > one could be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't > > think 70 or so is elderly in the WW. Alla: > Me neither actually. After JKR mentioned that wizards life span is > much longer than us, muggles, I never consider McGonagall to be an > elderly woman. Middle-aged, maybe, but definitely not elderly. I > always consider her 70 to be like our 40s maybe. SSSusan: Then again, there's that place in OotP where Minerva gets hit by four Stunners, simultaneously, and the kids are talking about it afterwards. Hermione says, "But poor Professor McGonagall...four Stunners in the chest, and she's not exactly young, is she?" Of course, that could be because Hermione is talking, and she comes from the Muggle world. Anyway, back to my original point. Carolyn mentioned that if Lucius *didn't* write in the diary, how would he have known what it did and was capable of? She also mentioned that we know from JKRowling.com that the Notts have visited Malfoy Manor. So perhaps Nott was responsible for handing over the diary & explaining it. Whether Nott was a contemporary of Tom's or not, he'd still, by virtue of being "elderly," have had more opportunity to have known Voldy and/or Tom in his earlier years, something which Lucius could NOT have done. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 22 17:59:13 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Diary, LV and the circle of DEs (Re: A tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040922175913.44655.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113675 > Hannah wrote: The diary is actually a pretty good idea. He was Slytherin's > last remaining heir. He had probably decided he wasn't likely to have > children - and even if he did, they may be suspected if they were to open > the chamber. Instead, he creates a way that he can use another child, at > some point in the future, to open the chamber, without that child having > to have any contact with adult LV. > Geoff continued: > Where has the diary been in the intervening 50 years? Has Lucius had it > (how old was he in 1942?)? If so, why has it apparently not been used? Did > he know how to access it? Or want to? Perhaps after Voldemort's unscheduled > exit in 1980, Lucius felt that the less known about the diary the better. Hello! I'm new to this list and am so glad to have found a place to discuss Harry Potter with others who share my obsession (a wonderful obsession, BTW, hope I don't get over it any time soon!) Thought I'd jump in with a question/observation about Lucius Malfoy from GoF: Did anyone else notice or wonder why, during the scene where Lord Voldemort is telling his circle of followers and Harry the story of his previous attempts at coming back to life, that he doesn't mention Lucius and the diary? I think the diary was a means to bring Voldemort back to life or power in some form. If I recall correctly, LV mentions the first attempt (via Prof. Quirrell, though not mentioned by name) and the latest and successful (via Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail), but he doesn't mention Lucius's loyal though less direct offer of aid by sneaking the diary into Ginny's possession. Do you think JKR wrote it this way by design, by (forgiveable) mistake, or neither (i.e. it wasn't necessary for Voldemort to mention Lucius and the diary at all)? Kim (P.S. If this question has come up before, or I'm in the wrong thread, please let me know. Thanks!) From revealme4u at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 11:30:45 2004 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:30:45 -0000 Subject: LV & HP in GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113676 vivek wrote: Hi, I am a new member and haven't been able to go over all the archives, but I will like to know how does DD and rest of the WW know about the downfall of LV in the first case,as there were no witnesses to the event except HP,who was just a baby. The scene must have been of 2 dead bodies,a destroyed house and a baby with a scar,how does the WW realise that this means the *end* of LV.? And how does DD realise that LV hasn't died,and will return,because there is no coment about HP killing the 'resurrected' LV,in the prophecy. Your thoughts please. From nessaaldarion at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 15:50:57 2004 From: nessaaldarion at yahoo.com (laura) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:50:57 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113677 > Paul: > > Harry himself accepts the following > > facts: > > a) a part of his mind is talking with Hr's voice, > > b) he can't lie to her face to face, > > c) when he acts he considers her advice as correct even if he > > doesn't follow them every time, > > d) the last thing he wants is to let her down and > > e) their minds are in the same frequency most of the times. > > > > Pippin: > Where do you derive b and c? I can think off the top of my head, > of several times when Harry lies to or deceives Hermione. > > He tells her he doesn't miss Ron. Nessa: Because he is pretty unwilling to admit to himself, at that point, that he misses Ron. I'm sure that everyone has had an argument with a good friend, and been so angry or hurt that you can't see how you can ever make up with them. Pippin: > He tells her he's been working on the egg clue > He tells her he's been practicing occlumency Nessa: Because he doesn't want her to be disappointed in him. IMHO, Harry respects Hermione's opinion of him beyond anyone else's, and doesn't want to lose her reciprocal respect. nessa xxx From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Sep 23 18:29:12 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:29:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005d01c4a19b$39d21a90$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 113678 Pippin: > He tells her he's been working on the egg clue > He tells her he's been practicing occlumency Nessa: Because he doesn't want her to be disappointed in him. IMHO, Harry respects Hermione's opinion of him beyond anyone else's, and doesn't want to lose her reciprocal respect. Now me, sherry I actually thought it was because he didn't want her to nag at him to get it done! Hermione is quite a nag, and when Harry doesn't want to listen to it, he just doesn't tell her, or he lies or avoids the truth. I don't know about wanting her good opinion. I think it's more a case of trying to prevent the argument or bossy side of her coming out. I imagine we all tend to do that from time to time, if we know someone will hassle us about something. Sherry email and MSN messenger: sherriola at earthlink.net From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 18:47:08 2004 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040923184708.41469.qmail@web42102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113679 mgrantwich wrote: I have been giving some thought to this issue (when I should have been working but never mind that...) I don't think that Pettigrew approached the DE's on his own initiative. By nature he's a reactor to things and forces; he doesn't make the first move but rather sits back and observes, watching to see what response would be best for him to make to maximize the benefits to himself. [cogent analysis snipped] I don't think that anyone threatened Pettigrew: he would have responded to that by saying whatever he needed to say to get out of the immediate situation and then have gone into hiding until the all clear signal blew - probably in southern Tasmania. No, I think someone approached Peter and let him know the benefits of switching gangs. [snip again] And Peter got in deeper and deeper until it really was a matter of facing Voldemort and giving up the info the Dark Lord wanted about the Potters. But he didn't give it up because he was afraid - by the time he became Secret-Keeper, Peter had travelled a fair way down the road to wanting nothing but power, and he could see no place more powerful than being the Leader's right-hand (foreshadowing?) man. By the end of POA, Peter is a much darker and more ammoral wizard than he was 13 years ago, when he was already turning into a serious criminal. People will ask how he could have betrayed James when he idolized him. Answer: he didn't idolize James, he worshipped James' image, his hipness, his coolness, his persona. He didn't give a toss for James the person, like Lupin and Sirius did. So it wasn't a huge deal for him to betray James and Lily. Had he been totally honest in the Shrieking Shack, he would have told Harry: "Harry, it was nothing personal." And the really scary thing is - he would have meant it sincerely. akh replies: I think you make some very good arguments for Peter's voluntary move to the Dark Side here. I would like to add that there is another very basic interest: survival. In OOTP, Moody talks about what appeared to be a systematic plan of killing off the Order members. I would bet that earlier Order members tried to go into hiding, with little or no success. By the time of the prophecy, his close associates have thrice defied LV; he's getting closer in line for extermination. He can wait to have his courage challenged (not a good idea), or he can seek out ways to save his skin. He's become convinced that LV and the DE's are the winning side (read: cool and hip), and he's now in a position to be valuable, a sensation he hasn't felt with his old crowd. (This point was made more clearly in the original post). I think his early pleas to Harry in the Shrieking Shack were not false; they just didn't cover all his motives for changing sides. akh, whose light bulbs all burnt out at once (karma, anyone?) __________________________________________________ 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 grace701 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 18:48:06 2004 From: grace701 at yahoo.com (grace701) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:48:06 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Paul: > > Harry himself accepts the following > > facts: > > a) a part of his mind is talking with Hr's voice, > > b) he can't lie to her face to face, > > c) when he acts he considers her advices as correct even if he > > doesn't follow them every time, > > d) the last thing he wants is to let her down and > > e) their minds are in the same frequency most of the times. > > > > Pippin: > Where do you derive b and c? I can think off the top of my head, > of several times when Harry lies to or deceives Hermione. > > He tells her he doesn't miss Ron. > He tells her he's been working on the egg clue > He tells her he's been practicing occlumency > He lets her go on thinking that the Elves are freeing themselves > with the hats. > > Nor does Harry always think the advice she would give him is > correct. In fact he very often doesn't ask her advice because he > knows it would be useless -- at the beginning of GoF, for > example. His solution, writing to Sirius, is an excellent one, and > not something Hermione would have suggested at that point. I think what Paul was perhaps trying to say with B. was that a lot of times Harry feels guilty about lying to her and it has been said in the books that he is not able to look at her when he is lying. This happens in Order of the Phoenix than in the other books. Grace > > Pippin From sad1199 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 19:06:47 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:06:47 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: > I was watching COS again yesterday and a thought struck me. Why did > the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so much money on 5 > sets of Lockhart's books. Even with Harry giving Ginny his free > copies (or is this movie contamination?) they must have dug a large > hole in the family finances. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a > couple of sets and have the kids swap them on a need to use basis? sad1199 here: Being a mother of 4 children I can understand the need for all the kids to have their own set of books. Here in California we have a system called "a book for every child" where even though text books are very expensive for our badly funded school districts each child gets their own books. When you go to private school and the school sends home a list of necessary books a parent buys each child his or her own set (even if they duplicate). Not only is it important for each child to have his or her own set of books academically it is important socially as well. The Weasley children already know they are poor, I am thinking that Molly understands how embarassing it would be to have Ginny or Ron say to a friend "I need to get "our" book from Fred so I can study..." As far as the wands (1) and robes (2) go: (1) When you graduate and get your adult(?) wand or maybe (stronger) wand then I could see your old wand being recycled for someone else to use (we do that here with computers-a lot of old computers get donated and refurbished for our schools). I see a few kids in our story alone using someone elses old wand. Also, when Ron broke his wand, I think it was a responsibility issue that prevented Molly from buying him a new one right away. Or, wait, did he even tell his parents? He knew he was in big trouble for the Ford fiasco. (2) And for the robes, I don't think Molly put a lot of stock into the whole 'you have to have a dress robe for the Tri-Wizard Tournament dance' idea. I mean, it was my impression that the only reason the Yule Ball was held was because of the tournament, the kids didn't usually require a dress robe for 4th year, just this special year or else Ron could have worn one of his older brothers' hand-me-downs from a once a year event. Have a happy love filled day! sad1199 From srobles at caribe.net Thu Sep 23 19:43:07 2004 From: srobles at caribe.net (anasazi_pr) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:43:07 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Where do you derive b and c? I can think off the top of my head, > of several times when Harry lies to or deceives Hermione. > > He tells her he doesn't miss Ron. > He tells her he's been working on the egg clue > He tells her he's been practicing occlumency > He lets her go on thinking that the Elves are freeing themselves > with the hats. > Hi, Pippin. I agree with you that Harry has lied to Hermione, but I think the working phrase in Paul's statement was "to her face". Yes, Harry has lied to Hermione, but he has never lied to her face in the sense that, as the books have described, he has never been able to look at her when he's lying to her. This is in contrast to Ron, to whom Harry has lied without apparent guilt. Anasazi From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 23 20:09:36 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:09:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113683 > > Pippin: > > Again? Oh dear . There's certainly plenty of ammunition for > > those who want to believe that Snape is up to no good and that > > Dumbledore deliberately makes himself unavailable just when > > Harry needs him most. > > > Alla: > > I was not even saying that Snape is up to no good, although who > knows. :) > I was only arguing that he , IMO, should not be REWARDED in any way for MOM disaster, because he did not do what he was supposed to do from the very beginning of the events and therefore does not deserve the credit of "saving Harry's life", that's all. > > I can give him some credit for his other actions, but really, Snape's saving Harry's life in MOM? Hannah now: I don't think Snape deserves a great deal of credit for Harry getting saved at the MoM, since he only did what he ought to as a member of the Order (as a Snape apologist, it *hurts* saying that!). But suppose things had turned out differently, and Harry hadn't managed to get to the MoM. From Snape's pov, the most likely place for Harry to be is the forest, probably in great danger. Let's admit, but for a couple of lucky accidents, Harry would probably have been getting crucio'd by Umbridge in clearing/ being beaten with a pine tree by Grawp/ being subjected to whatever punishment the centaurs mete out to intruders in 'their' forest. If this had been the case, Snape would have been the hero, saving Harry (and Hermione) single handed. The Forbidden Forest is a dangerous place at the best of times, never mind at night, with LV on the ascendancy and the centaurs in a huff. For Snape to go in there on his own to look for Harry is hardly a soft option. Just because it turns out Harry isn't there after all, I still think he deserves credit for going in there. Hannah From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 20:00:57 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040923200057.87111.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113684 > SSSusan: > Carolyn mentioned that if Lucius > *didn't* write in the diary, how would he have known what it did > and was capable of? She also mentioned that we know from > JKRowling.com that the Notts have visited Malfoy Manor. So perhaps > Nott was responsible for handing over the diary & explaining it. We should perhaps keep in mind that Lucius Malfoy is much older, more experienced, craftier and much less likely to be taken over by a diary remnant. Ginny was inclined to see the diary as a friend because she felt so isolated and didn't appreciate the significance of a magical object that apparently thought on its own. Lucius would have approached any artefact of Tom Riddle's with his guard up from the very beginning. So I do think that Lucius messed around with diary enough to know what it was. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From krussell98 at comcast.net Thu Sep 23 18:28:51 2004 From: krussell98 at comcast.net (Kathi Russell) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:28:51 -0400 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 References: Message-ID: <061a01c4a19b$2d447340$3f8f3f44@Dude> No: HPFGUIDX 113685 > > Tonks wrote: > > > > But they buy old items from the best wizarding families. > Then Carol said: > > The ad on JKR's site reads: "We offer a confidential valuation service > for unusual and ancient wizarding artefacts, such as may have been > inherited in the best wizarding families." (Not sure how that applies > to potions or poisons or whatever Malfoy was selling; too bad Sirius > couldn't take advantage of it to get rid of some of the artifacts (to > use the American spelling) in Grimmauld Place. Or maybe Lupin could > get some money that way. Which made LadyKat start to think....... Maybe Harry will come into possession of an item which he doesn't know what it is or how to use it. The item could come from Sirius' estate, or from somewhere else, it really doesn't matter where he gets it at this speculative point in time. What I think is VERY important is that B &B offers confidential services. If Harry doesn't want to tell the grown-ups in his life that he has something unusual (which is totally incharacter for him), than this would be a likely spot for him to go to get some information. Thoughts, anyone? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 22:21:52 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:21:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore recharging his powers. Was:Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > snip. > > > > > Dumbledore seems to be uniquely powerful and > > good...according to Rowling he "is the epitome of goodness." * > > What if, in order to maintain those qualities, he has to do > > something that puts him temporarily out of touch with the > > wizarding world? Perhaps he was in the world beyond the veil? > > Or with the power behind the door? > > > Alla: > > You mean for him to remain powerful he has to do some recharging? :) > No, seriously though I like this idea very much and I do agree that Dumbledore is good, just made some very bad mistakes. Probably he is in contact with some higher entity of the Potterverse? Tonks here: Nice idea. DD's patronis is a Phoenix and he has a Phoenix as a loyal companion. Maybe DD is 150 because he does "recharge" ... somehow like the Phoenix. I think DD never dies total, but does something like the Phoenix does. And he does know more than LV because he is in touch with that something else behind the veil which is the source of the "old magic". Like a good shaman DD knows how to go "beyond the veil" a term used in shamanism as well. I also think that when he seems to be gone he is still in touch with what is going on. There is a reason that when DD apperates he doesn't make a sound. I don't think that any other wizard can do that, only him. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 23 22:26:03 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:26:03 -0000 Subject: What is Tom Riddle? Was (a tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: <20040923040400.58377.qmail@web52104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113687 I commented in a recent post that investigating the Chamber of Secrets seem to produce more questions than it answers but one question which is beginning to occupy my thinking in the context of the Chamber of Secrets is not "Who is Tom Riddle?" but "WHAT is Tom Riddle?" By his own admission, he is a "memory": "Are you a ghost?" Harry said uncertainly. "A memory," said Riddle quietly. "Preserved in a diary for fifty years." (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.227 UK edition) But does this make him unique? He is not a ghost, because he now possesses the ability to handle real objects, as shown when he picks up Harry's wand. Mac wrote: "We must all recall that Ginny spends months with the diary and almost certainly, as Harry did, was taken in, quite literally. Malfoy, on the other hand knew its darkly magical nature and so would handle it with kid (or dragon hide) gloves and, if he wrote in it, would do so as his ONLY means of communication, not allow himself to be taken into its pages as both Harry and Ginny did." (post 113632) I don't subscribe to the view that Harry allowed himself to be taken into the diary ? he chose to go. `What did Riddle mean? How could he be taken inside somebody else's memory? He glanced nervously at the door to the dormitory, which was growing dark. When he looked back at the diary, he saw fresh words forming. "Let me show you." Harry paused for a fraction of a second and then wrote two letters. "OK."' (COS "The Very Secret Diary" p.180 UK edition) Valky wrote: "The point of my theory is that Tom Riddle had a chance to do something by using Ginny in the winter of COS. I lean towards that he created himself a personal entrance to Hogwarts but that's pure speculation. Speculation that surely doesn't need to hold any real water on its own, as long as the fact remains that Tom Riddle was making Ginny do evil things in the Winter of COS. Which he was because she threw the book away after Christmas break even though there weren't any attacks then !" (post 113630) Canon implies very clearly that Tom may have been persuading Ginny to do things on his behalf but he was not directly and physically involved at that time.... ``"Haven't you guessed yet, Harry Potter?" said Riddle softly. "Ginny Weasley opened the Chamber of Secrets. She strangled the school roosters and daubed threatening messages on the walls. She set the serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods and the Squib's cat."' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.229 UK edition) `"So I made Ginny write her own farewell message on the wall and come down 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. Enough to leave its pages at last."' (ibid. p.231) Tom was not able to leave the diary until he was draining the life from Ginny.... So it is unlikely that he was creating blocked passageways in the castle in the previous winter. What would have happened if Ginny had died and Riddle had become fully corporeal again? It has already been suggested that we would have a Voldemort Mk.I and a Voldermort Mk.II. How would they interact? Tom is not a time-turned Voldemort; he is an entity which has pursued a separate existence for 50 years ? or for what part of that time he has been "awake". I wonder if the existence pursued by a "memory" might be akin to that of a portrait; it has been suggested in the past that a portrait knows the memories of its subject up to the point of painting and can have a sentient existence of its own. Tom Riddle certainly has that ability plus the skill of absorbing and analysing information about his future self. So the idea of two Voldemorts is thought-provoking indeed! There is also the strange fate of Tom Riddle; taken out of existence because the medium in which he had remained for 50 years was destroyed. Was he unique? Was he, like Tom Bombadil in LOTR, a one- off? Which brings me back to my opening question: "What is Tom Riddle?" From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 22:35:53 2004 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak Message-ID: <20040923223553.18166.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113688 Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak SUMMARY: The Gryffindor fifth years first lesson with the centaur takes place a few days after Dumbledore trumped Umbridge by hiring Firenze. Despite their sympathy for the very distraught Trelawney, some of the fifth years, namely Parvati and Lavender, very much look forward to lessons with the gorgeous centaur. In general though, the rest of the students seem to find him intimidating. Banished by his herd from the Forbidden Forest for agreeing to work for Dumbledore (considered a betrayal by the centaurs), Firenze teaches his version of Divination in a classroom that mimics his natural habitat, a forest clearing that is anything but like Trelawneys stuffy and fussy North Tower. As the students gaze in awe at the sight of the night sky upon the classroom ceiling, Firenze dismisses their past lessons with Trelawney as the self-flattering nonsense humans call fortune-telling, much to Parvatis dismay. Instead of wasting time on trivial hurts, tiny human accidents that are of no more significance than the scurryings of ants to the wide universe, Firenze talks of watching the skies for the great tides of evil or change that are sometimes marked there and of divining through the burning of certain herbs and leaves, by the observation of fume and flame. A far cry from the other teachers who have set their sights on the O.W.L.s, Firenze seems more concerned with impressing upon the students that nothing, not even centaurs knowledge, is foolproof. As Harry and Ron leave at the end of the lesson, Firenze asks Harry to give Hagrid this warning since he should not go too near the Forest himself: Hagrids attempt is not working and that he would do better to abandon it. Though taken aback by the centaurs effort to bring him to his senses, Hagrid stubbornly insists that his attempt is coming on fine and that Firenze doesnt know what hes talking about. In the midst of worries about Hagrid and the ever-mounting pressure of preparing for the O.W.L.s, the D.A. lessons are the only bright spots in Harrys life. But even that is coming to an end. During one D.A. meeting, Harry receives a warning from Dobby that Umbridge has found out about the D.A. and is on her way. Taking care to first order Dobby to lie if asked about warning him and to not hurt himself, Harry is the last to leave the Room of Requirement and is caught by Malfoy. Gleefully escorting Harry, Umbridge enters the headmasters office without so much as a knock. Already convened inside are Dumbledore, McGonagall, Fudge, Percy, Shacklebolt, and Dawlish. With callous pleasure and indecent excitement, Umbridge informs Fudge, who regards Harry with vicious satisfaction, that Malfoy caught Harry on his way back to the Gryffindor Tower. Taking the hint from Dumbledore, Harry wrong-foots Fudge when he, under Fudges interrogation, denies that he has any idea as to why hes been brought to the headmasters office or that hes broken any school rules or Ministry decrees. In response to being stonewalled by Harry, Umbridge brings in her informant: Marietta. Marietta is the daughter of Madame Edgecombe, one of Umbridges cronies at the Ministry of Magic whos been helping Umbridge police the Hogwarts fires. Though reassured that she has done the right thing and that the Minister of Magic is very pleased with her (and will be telling her mother, who is in Fudges employment at the MoM, just what a good girl she is), Marietta is too distraught, scared and frightened by the face-disfiguring hex that Hermione has put on the list that all D.A. members signed to actually snitch on her fellow students. When the silly girl continues to wail instead of giving testimony, Umbridge proceeds to tell the court -- erm, I mean the room -- that earlier that evening Marietta had managed to tell Umbridge that theres to be some kind of a meeting in the RoR before the hex went into operation, rendering Marietta too distressed to say any more. Umbridge goes on to reveal that she has testimony from Willy Widdershins (probably in exchange for escaping being prosecuted for setting up the anti-muggle pranks that were the regurgitating toilets) about Harrys efforts to recruit members for an illegal society that first Hogsmeade weekend in the Hogs Head. Though the prosecutors -- erm, I mean Fudge, Umbridge and Percy -- are momentarily stunned when Dumbledore points out that a DADA group was at that time *not* illegal, Umbridge recovers to counter with the assertion that all meetings since certainly are. Realizing in the nick of time that Umbridge is relying on Marietta to provide evidence that such illegal meetings took place, Shacklebolt imperceptibly modifies Mariettas memory before she can be called upon by Umbridge to testify. Frustrated by Mariettas denial of the illegal meetings, Umbridge forgets herself, resorts to shaking Marietta violently, and has to be restrained by Dumbledore and Shacklebolt. Fudge redirects the focus of the proceedings to the meeting that took place that night. Umbridge tells of going to the RoR with her minions only to find that she was too late to catch them red- handed. She does however have the list that all of the D.A. members signedwith Dumbledores Army written in Hermiones hand at the top. After getting over his momentary surprise, Dumbledore smilingly assumes the blame for hosting the illegal meeting that night. Because the Ministrys worst fear *is* Dumbledore armed with his own army (Ginny was quite correct on the occasion when she first suggested the name), Dumbledore is able to shift Fudge and Umbridges focus from Harry to himself very easily by telling Fudge what he wants to hear and by dangling a bigger bait: himself. Fudge is not to have the satisfaction and payoff of gaining custody of Dumbledore though, for the headmaster handily subdues the efforts to take him in. As Dumbledore tells Harry that he must study Occlumency as hard as he can, Harry feels a pain shoot through his scar and that snake-like longing to strike Dumbledore. In a flash of fire, Fawkes disappears with Dumbledore in tow just before Fudge et al recover their senses. QUESTIONS to ponder (and my commentary): [1] Consider the truth in the following from Hermione: You mark my words, [Umbridge]s going to want revenge on Dumbledore for appointing a new teacher without consulting her. Especially another part-human. You saw the look on her face when she saw Firenze. Consider also that in response to this from Umbridge: I think, Minister, we might make better progress if I fetch our *informant*, Fudge said to Dumbledore with a malicious glance, Theres nothing like a good *witness*, is there, Dumbledore? (All emphasis mine.) Fudges substitution of informant with witness seems to be a telling one as the other mention of a witness in OotP marked the occasion on which Fudge and his ilk were trumped by Dumbledore through Dumbledores use of a witness. It seems to me that as much as Fudge is holding firm to his grudge against Dumbledore, hes also taking a leaf out of Dumbledores book. Umbridge exacted her (and Fudges) revenge beyond their expectations when her efforts to expel Harry culminated in the removal of Dumbledore from Hogwarts in this chapter. Expanding Harrys world as laid out in the previous books, in OotP life at Hogwarts is often buffeted by the power struggles in the WW. What hints have we seen in the chapters prior, of the variety and extent of Fudge and Umbridges efforts to discredit Dumbledore and to cultivate cronies that finally paid off so richly in ch. 27? [2] Trelawney and Firenzes approaches to Divination are as different as night and day, as yin and yang. Discuss these differences and what the fact that they can *both* be considered to be practicing divination tells us about the nature of this art. When and if we learn more about Arithmancy, how might that fit into the picture? (I realize that we know very little of JKRs concept of arithmancy as it functions in the WW but I would like to point out that we do know that the Professor is named Vector, which IIRC is a mathematical/physics term that can define a force by its magnitude and direction. Lets consider this concept metaphorically. I conceive arithmancy as a process in which all the forces in play are quantified as vectors, which then are added up to figure out which way and how strong the wind is blowing, so to speak. An oversimplified example: if the sum of the forces of the vectors directed toward Good [i.e. members of the OotP] are less than the sum of the forces of the vectors directed toward Evil [i.e. DEs] then its a pretty good bet that the Dark Lord is going to prevail. If Ive got this even close to being right, then success of arithmancy depends greatly on the accuracy of the assessment of a forces magnitude and direction. In terms of people, this would be the persons ability to affect events and the persons motivation. Hmmis Hermione good at assessing these qualities?) [3] In chapter 15 of SS/PS (when Harry first met Firenze), we learned that the centaurs consider it shameful to carry humans like common mules and perhaps even more importantly, that they are sworn not to set themselves against the heavens and what is to come as indicated by the movements of the planets. Does this tell us anything of the fundamental workings of centaur society and the role they see themselves playing on the (wizarding) world stage? In contrast to the sensitivity on the part of the centaurs about being seen as servants or playthings of humans is the centaurs impersonal and impartial wisdom, part of which seems to be an ability to see the big picture. Why then might the herd of centaurs find Firenzes actions so appalling that they would banish him for, in essence, setting himself against Voldemort? [4] What does Dumbledore mean when he says that he is not going into hiding and that Fudge will soon wish hed never dislodged the headmaster from Hogwarts? [5] Has a question arisen from this chapter for you? Pose itplease! :) BTW, remember Parvati using her wand to curl her lashes? Did you know that the little applicators for applying mascara to eyelashes are also called wands? :p Petra a n :) 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 susanadacunha at gmx.net Thu Sep 23 22:36:23 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:36:23 +0100 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) References: Message-ID: <00ad01c4a1bd$ea424900$4a280dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113689 > SSSusan wrote: > And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of >restoring Voldy. *But* "LV's not knowing about it in GoF" really >*isn't* my argument. It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that >Lucius doesn't use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. "But, >Master! Let me tell you how hard I worked 2 years ago to bring you >back!" Nope. He doesn't breath a word. It *could* be because he >knows the attempt was a failure. *I* think it's simply more likely >that it's because his goal wasn't to bring Voldy back. Mandy wrote: >>Or perhaps Lucius chose not to play his full hand in the GOF graveyard? LV comes back pissed, Lucius knows he's in trouble but also is arrogantly confident in his current status as political heavyweight in the WW. Lucius knows LV would be stupid to outright kill him. But then again Lucius also knows LV is a monomaniacal, evil overlord. Who can be certain what Voldemort is going to do when he's angry? So Lucius keeps the Diary incident quiet, choosing to keep it in reserve until he really needs it. Personally I think Lucius's goal with the diary was to bring back a young version of LV that Lucius believed he could control and use. This would not be something Malfoy would not want LV finding out. And so I think Lucius would prudently keep the whole Diary incident as quite as possible and only bring it up when Malfoy could spin it into the best possible outcome to suit Lucius Malfoy.<< ----------------------- Yes, finely! I've been following this thread closely and this is IMO the best explanation. Let me add: Voldemort is giving a speech on how *unwise* of them it was not to look for him. He's proving a point. The first to interrupt was singled out for punishment as an example (Avery). The last thing any of the DE would do, if their smart or experienced in dealing with Voldemort, would be to contradict him and force him to say "ok, maybe not you...". I'm guessing Voldy wouldn't take it sportly. After all, I really don't think Malfoy was facing the risk of being punished. Voldy's comments on him weren't all that bad, specially compared to the rest of the speech. He called him a friend and he commented he hasn't given up on old beliefs. I thought the part about keeping a clean face to society was actually a complement (you devil, you!). Malfoy's reply felt very adequate to me. He' saying "I *did* want you back! I *did*!" and Voldemort says "And yet...". He immediately shuts up and lets him have his way (right or not). Very wise, IMO. I would also like to add that I don't think any of them is at risk of being killed. Voldemort is not likely to spare those who came back to him - the ones who haven't done severe enough betrayals to be too scared to show up. He will kill the ones who *didn't* show up, and that's a very good message. Of course this is a non-answer on the subject. I'm saying even if Malfoy wanted to bring Voldemort back through Diary!Tom, he would still give that answer to Voldy. I'd think he had his own agenda, but I can't figure it out. Mandy's explanation works for me, but... I can't stop thinking it had something to do with "all those raids". Also, "a plot to make terrible things happen" doesn't sound to me as "let's kill some muggle-borns". But I do think Malfoy was leading the DE's at the Quidditch cup. Was he trying to change public opinion about muggle-borns 'Salazar's way'? I'm keen on the explanation that he wanted to take over Hogwarts... but "all those raids"... Of all the explanations I only rule out the ones concerning Harry. I'm not concern with Dobby's urge to warn Harry in particular - I have a theory about that, I'll post it some other time. Susana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 23:06:40 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:06:40 -0000 Subject: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco (Was: Scabber's Attack on Goyle) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113690 Angie wrote: > > I never thought about why Moody attacked > Draco; I thought he was trying to get on Harry's good side. But > wasn't it FakeMoody who said if there was one thing he couldn't stand > it was a Death Eater who got away? Thus, his attack on Draco could > have been intended as signal to Lucius because Lucius pretended to go > back to the "good side." But then again, Lucius didn't know that > Barty Jr. was masquerading as FakeMoody, so any message to Lucius > would have appeared to have come from Moody??? Carol responds: I think the message, if any, was intended for Draco and his cronies: you can't get away with anything with my magical eye watching you. But I as a reader, also got a message--something's wrong here. This Moody person is pretty scary, bullies students *physically* (the bouncing ferret bit may have been funny to Harry and his friends but it was probably painful to Draco, as well as publicly humiliating), and he seems indifferent when McGonagall tells him that the teachers at Hogwarts don't use transfiguration to punish students. (In fact, no other teacher uses magic on students for any reason until Umbridge shows up in the next book.) My sense was that this old auror friend of Dumbledore's was a bully and someone to watch out for. (No, I'm not standing up for Draco, who of course should not have hexed someone whose back was turned; I'm just saying that the punishment went beyond the crime.) I also felt and still feel that he was going behind Dumbledore's back to use illegal curses on the students (there's no confirmation that DD gave him permission to do do, only his own word), and I felt that Crucioing the spider--and seeming to enjoy doing so--without regard to Neville's feelings was also cruel. IOW, the message was not to Lucius, who wouldn't have known (or cared) what happened to his son in school, where he probably expects harsh punishments, but to us as readers: "Watch out for this man." Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 23:47:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:47:20 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature In-Reply-To: <001d01c49e3c$de3cf620$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113691 DuffyPoo wrote: > > Especially since, IMO, TR's mother is much more in the wrong, yet TR doesn't seem to include her in his wrath. He appears to hold her in higher regard in this situation. Considering that she deceived Riddle, Sr for at the least, some weeks and at the most, possibly a couple years, then once they were married, and she was pregnant, she informed her Dear Hubby that 'oh, by the way, I'm a witch and I've been lying to you for all this time.' LV, in GoF, says "My father lived there. My mother, a witch who lived here in this village, fell in love with him. But he abandoned her when she told him what she was.... he didn't like magic, my father ..." To TR the proof that Riddle, Sr didn't like magic is simply that he abandoned his wife when he found out she was a witch, but he doesn't take into account that the witch had been deceitful to the husband. What I see is not so much a man who disliked magic (which he may well have), but one who didn't appreciate being lied to for whatever length of time is in question. Carol responds: Withholding information is not the same as lying. If it were, Lupin would be a liar for not revealing to his students that he was a werewolf. He feared the same sort of reaction. (OTOH, he would be very irresponsible to marry a woman and then reveal that he was a werewolf, because his condition would endanger his wife. I don't think Mrs. Riddle was in that same position.) And I disagree in any case that her deception was more immoral than abandoning a pregnant wife and her innocent child. (Who knows what Tom Riddle might have become if his father had accepted his own responsibility and better still, had loved his son.) And after his wife died, shouldn't he have taken care of their child in any case, whether or not that child had magical powers, rather than dumping him in a Muggle orphanage? Please note that I'm not blaming either Tom's mother or father for his evil nature. The choice to become a murderer as a teenager was his own. I'm only saying that his mother is not to blame for the treatment that she suffered at her husband's hands or for what her husband did to her son after she died. If he loved her enough to marry her, he should have kept on loving her after he found out she was a witch. Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds. Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 23 23:51:56 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:51:56 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113692 SSSusan: > > The fact that Lucius HADN'T talked to Voldy 'til the graveyard > > is a big part of my argument. It would have been Lucius's first > > opportunity to protest about how much he'd done on Voldy's > > behalf...but he doesn't. And I'm also not sure that the failure > > was "spectacular." The plan actually came amazingly close to > > success: DD was out of the way; McGonagall was ready to close > > the school; people were blaming Harry; Ginny was almost dead and > > Diary!Tom was almost "real." I'd call it a near-miss, not a > > spectacular failure. (Of course, *any* failure by a DE is > > likely considered "spectacular" to Voldy--look at him blaming > > Bella for the broken prophecy orb.) Colin: > Don't forget Voldy has had many spectacular failures of his own: > 1: Tries to kill a baby, ends up as Vapor!Mort > 2: Tries to get a stone out of a mirror, gets beat by kid again, > now 11. > 3: Tries to get a basilisk to kill now 12yo kid, goes 'oh I forgot > about phoenix tears healing power' (I know it's not technically > Voldemort who does this but it's the same arrogant persona.) > 4: Spends a year organising to get Harry alone, and restore self to > full power, and succeeds. > Then summons former followers to show how great he is, and > demonstrate that the brat kid is no match for him now, that events > of GH were a fluke, and what happens? > a) He can't even Imperio Harry thanks to his one 'loyal' servant > b) He then tries to AK Harry, the same curse that backfired 13 > years ago! That's a smart move! Voldy's lucky the Priori > Incantatum thing happend or he may have ended up a wasp of vapor > again, great way to impress his disillusioned followers! > c) Instead of a subtle return to power, his greatest threat, > Dumbledore now knows he's back. > 5: Manages to do one thing of right of getting Bella etc. out of > Azkaban, but spends 12 months hiding from WW, trying to get a > prophecy so he can *maybe* find out how to get rid of the > continually underestimated Harry, and that went bellyup big time. > All but one of his followers captured (that were involved), not > really Voldy's fault, but he then turns up himself to try and save > the day and does so just in time to get recognised by the Minister > of Magic and many others who were so happily denying his existence. > > So all up we have 2 jobs done right for the Dark Lord and 5 major > SNAFU's. If I were a death eater right now I'd be considering > turning in my membership. SSSusan: Fair enough assessment, I'd say,a Colin. All of these incidents, combined, have a lot to do with why it's hard for readers to see Voldy as this super-scary, most-powerful-of-all-time, can't-bear-to- speak-his-name, badassss kind of evil overlord. So far he's seemed almost laughable. And I don't mean that as a put-down of wizards who do tremble--there MUST have been reason to tremble--but other than their *talk* of how horrible it used to be, we just haven't seen it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 00:24:07 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:24:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113693 > Hannah now: I don't think Snape deserves a great deal of credit for > Harry getting saved at the MoM, since he only did what he ought to > as a member of the Order (as a Snape apologist, it *hurts* saying > that!). Alla: LOL, Hanna! I do respect that. :o) and I do try to give Snape a credit, where I see no other choice. :) Hanna: The Forbidden Forest is a > dangerous place at the best of times, never mind at night, with LV > on the ascendancy and the centaurs in a huff. For Snape to go in > there on his own to look for Harry is hardly a soft option. Just > because it turns out Harry isn't there after all, I still think he > deserves credit for going in there. > Alla: But you see, we don't know, as people pointed out in the past, whether Snape went there. Dumbledore says that Snape "INTENDED to search the forest" He never says that Snape actually WENT there. Of course, it is quite reasonable to assume that he did go, but for all we know, Snape may have been sitting in Hogwarts till he finally decided to worry a little bit about Harry and Co and notify the Order. The quote reads as "INTENDED" for a reason, I think or maybe it is just another Mark Evans and Snape as a good teacher and order member he was supposed to be, went to the forest despite his fears. Who knows... :) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 00:34:46 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:34:46 -0000 Subject: What is Tom Riddle? Was (a tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Valky wrote: > Tom Riddle was > making Ginny do evil things in the Winter of COS. > Geoff: > Canon implies very clearly that Tom may have been persuading Ginny to do things on his behalf but he was not directly and physically > involved at that time.... > Valky: I am afraid you are quite wrong about that Geoff. In COS Dumbledore clearly contradicts you by saying that he wonders *how* Tom Riddle *possessed* Ginny. Not *if*. In OotP, ch 23 Christams on the Closed Ward: 'Well that was a bit stupid of you' said Ginny angrily. 'see as you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know_who, and I can tell how it feels.' and then a few lines along: 'Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?' Ginny asked 'Are there big blank periods when you don't know what you've been up to?' then a bit further: 'When he did it to me, I couldn't remember what I'd been doing for hours at a time. I'd find myself somewhere and not know how I got there.' finally in COS Chapter 17 The Heir of Slytherin Tom Riddle says: Dear Tom, He recited, I think I'm losing my memory. There are feathers all over my robes and I don't know how they got there.... Clearly, contrary to your insistence. Ginny was NOT conciously *persuaded* to do Toms bidding. He possessed her mind and physical body and *used* it, and as likely as anything other, in the exact way I have suggested. Valky Holding it up well. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 00:44:17 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:44:17 -0000 Subject: The Diary, LV and the circle of DEs (Re: A tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: <20040922175913.44655.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: > Did anyone else notice or wonder why, during the scene where Lord Voldemort is telling his circle of followers and Harry the story of his previous attempts at coming back to life, that he doesn't mention Lucius and the diary? I think the diary was a means to bring Voldemort back to life or power in some form. If I recall correctly, LV mentions the first attempt (via Prof. Quirrell, though not mentioned by name) and the latest and successful (via Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail), but he doesn't mention Lucius's loyal though less direct offer of aid by sneaking the diary into Ginny's possession. Do you think JKR wrote it this way by design, by (forgiveable) mistake, or neither (i.e. it wasn't necessary for Voldemort to mention Lucius and the diary at all)? > > Kim > > (P.S. If this question has come up before, or I'm in the wrong thread, please let me know. Thanks!) Valky: You are in the right thread Kim and Welcome to HPFGU! It is fantastic that you brought this question to the thread because it does point to an answer we have been seeking about the motives of Lucius in planting the Diary. Clearly, from what you have said, there is more reason for us to assume that what SSSusan holds true is correct, Lucius planted the Diary for his own gain under his own agenda. LV was not consulted nor was he *in* on the unleashing. Now personally I think it raises the question of wether LV even knows that the diary, a magical weapon that *belongs to him*, is destroyed. And will he be angry that Lucius took it upon himself to use something that belongs to his master, without consent. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 01:17:37 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:17:37 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand in the Malfoy Residence)Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: <00ad01c4a1bd$ea424900$4a280dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113696 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > > SSSusan wrote: > > And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of > >restoring Voldy. > Mandy wrote: > Personally I think Lucius's goal with the diary was to bring back a > young version of LV that Lucius believed he could control and use. > This would not be something Malfoy would not want LV finding out. > And so I think Lucius would prudently keep the whole Diary incident > as quite as possible and only bring it up when Malfoy could spin it > into the best possible outcome to suit Lucius Malfoy.<< > ----------------------- > > > Susana: > Yes, finely! I've been following this thread closely and this is IMO the best explanation. Let me add: > Mandy's explanation works for me, but... I can't stop thinking it had something to do with "all those raids". > > > Of all the explanations I only rule out the ones concerning Harry. I'm not concern with Dobby's urge to warn Harry in particular - I have a theory about that, I'll post it some other time. > Valky: Ladies! Congratulations This is brilliant. About all those raids...... Perhaps it has something to do with LV's wand. The wand is rare and powerful, what I recall to mind is the Knockturn alley scene where Borgin(is it?) mutters ungraciously and implies that Malfoys basement holds something that he would far rather possess than the few trinkets that Lucius had just sold him. Off the top of my head I just, while reading these passages thought of how Lucius could have used young Voldemort against old Voldemort, and that is _whoever has the wand has the advantage_. If Lucius took in Young Tom Riddle and gave *him* the wand, then he would therein be handing the balance of power to himself. As long as he was able to reign the younger version to him he could be more powerful than anyone even Lord Voldy MkI. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 01:18:26 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:18:26 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113697 > > Alla: > > > > I like that. A LOT. I am also very troubled by "Malfoy's lapdog" > > comment. Now let see if JKR does. :) > > Pippin: > > I think I follow the idea, but Sirius never says that Malfoy was a > part of that gang of Slytherins, does he? Sirius could certainly > have found out that Snape had gone to work for, say, a Malfoy > potion-making interest, without having direct social contact. That > would put Snape in position to supply Lucius with those poisons > Lucius was disposing of in CoS. > Carol: As I keep on saying (but nobody seems to hear me), a lap dog is a small pet. While I think it's perfectly possible (though wholly speculative) that Malfoy could have set young Snape up with a potions shop after Severus left Hogwarts (a perfect cover if Snape was making immortality potions or poisons or whatever for Voldemort), the lap dog comment probably refers to the earlier period--a little boy of about eleven who hangs around a much older boy of sixteen or seventeen who treats him as a prodigy and a pet. Although we have no canon to prove that Malfoy was the leader of the Slytherin gang, his age and his position with the DEs at the end of OoP (just before his arrest) indicates that he's their natural leader. Note that at least three people named as members of that Slytherin gang are present (the three Lestranges), taking orders from Malfoy (although Bella seems to see herself as second in command). Two of the gang members, Wilkes and Rosier, are dead, so it's hard to say where they fit in, but the idea that most of the gang members, including Bellatrix's future husband, were about Bellatirix's age, or between her age and Malfoy's, makes sense to me, with Snape, Lucius Malfoy's little "lap dog," as the baby of the gang. I agree with Nora that the gang members had probably all left Hogwarts when the Pensieve incident and the so-called Prank occurred. Snape may have joined the DEs in part just to be back with the people he perceived as his friends. Notice that Sirius tells Harry that almost all those people became Death Eaters, but he doesn't know that Snape did, too. That suggests that the others were already DEs while Snape and Sirius were still in school. Carol From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 01:32:47 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:32:47 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113698 > Carol: > As I keep on saying (but nobody seems to hear me), a lap dog is a > small pet. > , the lap dog > comment probably refers to the earlier period--a little boy of about eleven who hangs around a much older boy of sixteen or seventeen who treats him as a prodigy and a pet. > Valky: Carol you must not have any close British descent because that is the purely American definition. In British english the word Lapdog also applies to a person and with quite different meaning. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: Definition lapdog (PERSON) noun [C] DISAPPROVING someone who is willing to do anything that a more important person tells them to do: and while I am at it I think its about time I let you all in on the British meaning of snivel. Since so many american versions have been quoted to contradict me when I argue that the derogatory term of snivel in the language I, *and JKR* was raised into, *British English*, is used to deride someone on their weakness and not necessarily sensitivity. Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: snivel verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make other people feel sympathy for you: He's sitting in his bedroom snivelling because he was told off for not doing his homework. snivelling, US USUALLY sniveling adjective OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL used to describe someone whom you do not like because they are weak and unpleasant: That snivelling creep/coward! There you all have it. The British terms paint an entirely different portrait of James, Sirius and Snape and I have secreted the privilege of having a cockney grandmother and english, english teacher for a mother to myself for long enough. Valky (and yes secreted means hid in english english as well as produced.) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 02:45:18 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:45:18 -0000 Subject: The Diary, LV and the circle of DEs (Re: A tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: <20040922175913.44655.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113699 Kim Reynolds wrote: > Hello! I'm new to this list and am so glad to have found a place to discuss Harry Potter with others who share my obsession (a wonderful obsession, BTW, hope I don't get over it any time soon!) > > Thought I'd jump in with a question/observation about Lucius Malfoy from GoF: > > Did anyone else notice or wonder why, during the scene where Lord Voldemort is telling his circle of followers and Harry the story of his previous attempts at coming back to life, that he doesn't mention Lucius and the diary? I think the diary was a means to bring Voldemort back to life or power in some form. If I recall correctly, LV mentions the first attempt (via Prof. Quirrell, though not mentioned by name) and the latest and successful (via Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail), but he doesn't mention Lucius's loyal though less direct offer of aid by sneaking the diary into Ginny's possession. Do you think JKR wrote it this way by design, by (forgiveable) mistake, or neither (i.e. it wasn't necessary for Voldemort to mention Lucius and the diary at all)? > > Kim > > (P.S. If this question has come up before, or I'm in the wrong thread, please let me know. Thanks!) SSSusan: It's not that you're in the "wrong" thread, Kim, it's just that there are, rather unfortunately, two threads running simultaneously on this topic. I wrote on this earlier, in post #113657, and you can follow it upthread if you like. The subject heading is "Malfoy's intent w/ TMR's diary." In it, I argue that the reason Voldy doesn't mention Lucius' attempt is that he doesn't KNOW about it--precisely because Lucius' goal wasn't to bring Voldy back at all. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 02:46:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:46:55 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113700 > Valky: snip. >> There you all have it. The British terms paint an entirely different > portrait of James, Sirius and Snape and I have secreted the > privilege of having a cockney grandmother and english, english > teacher for a mother to myself for long enough. Alla: Oy, I feel like I am going to go in my Snape-defending mode a little bit (kind of) You know, Valky, when I studied English in school and in college, they taught us British English only and I guess that is why, without even looking in the dictionary, I translated the term "lapdog" rather closely to your meaning. But, but, but. How does this meaning portrays new picture of James, Sirius and Snape? I am pretty sure that you know my belief that Pensieve scene is only a surface under which we will lately uncover some Snape/Potter or Snape/Black feuds, quite possibly based on like/dislike of Dark Arts. Term "Snivelius" is undoubtedly a derogatory one, but do we KNOW what kind of weakness it berates? Weakness is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I hate Pettigrew type weakness, but what if Snape was too "weak" to do something Malfoy told him to do? You know, "too weak" to do the bad thing? Yes, sure, he did the horrible thing afterwards, he became the DE, but in GOF Sirius STILL does not know that. Please tell me if I am being confusing. What I am getting at is that we don't know YET, whether Sirius had ANY RIGHT to berate Snape for the "perceived weakness". I am firmly persuaded that all hints at the feud are there, I LOVE Nora's idea that Marauders could be executing Revenge at Snape for what his older protectors (Bella, Lucius, etc.) did to them, but I absolutely don't understand how the "Snivellius" alone can be a "mitigating circumstance" so to speak. Could you clarify, please? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 03:37:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:37:12 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113701 > Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > > I'm one of the ones who's been arguing in favor of ESE!Fudge, but > I've also never believed he was a DE. You make an excellent point > that, if he had been, it would make little sense for Voldy not to > have asked him to take some pretty major, direct actions to advance > his rise back to power. Fudge has done some things which I think go > beyond the bumbling, waffling, power-hungry politician--things which > I think really can be interpreted as (or hypothesized to be) evil-- > but just as Dolores Umbridge may well be evil but not be a DE, so > with Fudge. As Sirius said, the world isn't divided into good > people and Death Eaters [paraphrased]. Fudge is, imo, at a similar > place on the good-evil spectrum as the DEs, without actually being > one of them. Carol responds: The good-evil spectrum. I like that. The only person so far that I would place at the far end for goodness is Lily. At the far end for evil, we have Voldemort and Bellatrix (and the non-DE Umbridge). Some of the other DEs would probably go there as well, probably Dolohov Barty J. (fortunately "demented") and Lucius Malfoy (though I don't think Lucius is *quite* as evil as Voldemort since he seems capable of some sort of love for his wife and son. But many people, let's say Sirius Black and Severus Snape are somewhere in the middle, neither good nor evil but having some good and some evil traits. And Fudge, too, seems to belong in the middle. I very much doubt that he's cast any Unforgiveable curses or committed any actual crimes (unless you count accepting bribes). I think "corrupt" and "weak" are closer to describing his character than "evil." My point is simply that we're abusing the word "evil," which should stand for conduct and character so morally reprehensible, so wicked and cruel that no redemption is possible. Tom Riddle reached that mark when he murdered his father and grandparents if not before. But surely we shouldn't use the same term for Fudge as for Voldemort. If "evil" applies to any behavior we don't approve of, from Percy's quarrell with his family to Draco hexing Harry when Harry's back is turned, then the word "evil" has lost its force. "Bad" I can live with, especially for Draco (definitely a bad kid but still a kid and not to be compared with Voldemort or Bellatrix, at least not yet). But let's save "evil" for those who truly deserve the label and find some other word for those in the middle of the spectrum who have yet to cast an Unforgiveable Curse or do anything else that the WW itself would define as wicked. And that includes holding "racist" (or classist) views. There are degrees of wickedness here that IMO should be kept in perspective. Anyone have a suggestion for a word or words other than "evil" that we can use for these people? Carol, who earlier raised a question on the meaning of "wonderful" in a particular context and who laments the fall of many good words into mushy imprecision in this century and the previous one From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 03:53:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:53:34 -0000 Subject: Degrees of Evil Was. Re: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: snip. >But let's > save "evil" for those who truly deserve the label and find some other > word for those in the middle of the spectrum who have yet to cast an > Unforgiveable Curse or do anything else that the WW itself would > define as wicked. And that includes holding "racist" (or classist) > views. There are degrees of wickedness here that IMO should be kept in > perspective. > > Anyone have a suggestion for a word or words other than "evil" that we > can use for these people? Alla: And here I was, almost ready to nod my head in agreement with your post. I still want to nod, but let me just disagree with this particular point of yours. I would put those who hold "racist" views and DOING something about it right there with Voldemort and Bella. Yes, yes, people should not be punished for the ideas, but see, I learned that almost always such views lead to an actions and I would call it evil and nothing less than evil. I already said once that I was very happy that JKR mentioned "Natzis", "jews" in her answer about "mudbloods" and "half- bloods" on the website. At least now I know that JKR intended to show exactly the type of RL philosophy which I thought about when I am reading about Slytherin and DE ideology. Of course, it does not mean that people cannot interpret Slytherin ideology differently, but at least I think that JKR intent is clear on the matter. Alla, who promises to think about the word for Sirius and Snape for Carol. :) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 03:55:31 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:55:31 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113703 Valky wrote: > > > snip. > > >> There you all have it. The British terms paint an entirely > different portrait of James, Sirius and Snape > > Alla wrote: > > I translated the term "lapdog" rather closely to your meaning. > Valky: Precisely my point, Alla. We, ourselves two, have been both involved in discussion regarding the pensieve recently. And neither you nor I feel particularly strongly that James is a atypical mean bullyboy picking on the defenseless and sensitive poet who has never done wrong in his life, Snape. I am pointing out that those who do, which are many, have missed the implied meaning in "English" english of these two particular words, "Lapdog" and "Snivellus". Alla: > But, but, but. How does this meaning portray new picture of James, Sirius and Snape? Valky: Because YOU *do* understand that Brits call an ar**-kisser a Lapdog YOU are willing to cut James and Sirius slack on their opinion of Snape, not much but you are willing. Where, for others that are stubborn in the defense that James and Sirius give "no other reason" for picking on Snape but that "he exists" which could "mean anything", the real obstacle to them "seeing" any other reason is because the reasons are in another language from their own. > > Alla: > I am pretty sure that you know my belief that Pensieve scene is only a surface under which we will lately uncover some Snape/Potter or Snape/Black feuds, quite possibly based on like/dislike of Dark Arts. > > Term "Snivelius" is undoubtedly a derogatory one, but do we KNOW > what kind of weakness it berates? > Valky: That is my point with Lapdog and Dark Arts dabbling. The weakness *is* a given. Alla: > Weakness is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I hate Pettigrew type weakness, but what if Snape was too "weak" to do something Malfoy told him to do? You know, "too weak" to do the bad thing? > Valky: Then surely James would like him and Sirius wouldn't be calling him Lucius' "lapdog"? Alla: > Yes, sure, he did the horrible thing afterwards, he became the DE, > but in GOF Sirius STILL does not know that. > > Please tell me if I am being confusing. What I am getting at is that we don't know YET, whether Sirius had ANY RIGHT to berate Snape for the "perceived weakness". > Valky: And therein has *always* been my point with James/Sirius v Snape. They may not have had a RIGHT, in fact they didn't as far as I am concerned. But they did have a *principle*, as children, before Snape became a DE, when LV was terrorising the neighbourhood. It is given in their berating of Snape. Alla: > I am firmly persuaded that all hints at the feud are there, I LOVE > Nora's idea that Marauders could be executing Revenge at Snape for > what his older protectors (Bella, Lucius, etc.) did to them, but I > absolutely don't understand how the "Snivellius" alone can be > a "mitigating circumstance" so to speak. > > Could you clarify, please? Valky: Ok to clarify completely, I guess that my post was fully intended to address only those that aren't convinced. Snivellus is not a mitigating circumstance. It is an implied character judgement. Snivelling is not a description of someone who cried, in "English" english it is a *Character Judgement* Of someone who is weak. And, although, you learned it in English class Alla, I learned it in real life used by those in command of the language in which it was written. It implies a person is weak of *virtue*. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 03:56:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:56:11 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113704 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Here is a thought. When Moody says that there is no countercurse to > the AK, he means after it has achieved its goal of death. There is > nothing a healer or anyone can do to counter the AK. Dead is dead. > But as you all have pointed out if something gets in the way of the > AK and blocks it from fullfilling its purpose that is different. So > I think that the ancient magic charm that occured when Lily died for > Harry was like a block to the AK. For this reason the AK could not > achieve its end. Am I making this clear? > > Tonks_op Carol: Absolutely. I agree that Lily's "ancient magic," which may have involved more than her willing self-sacrifice, is not a countercurse, which would be performed after the fact, but a form of magic that shielded Harry and deflected the curse onto LV. Harry didn't die because he was protected *in advance.* LV didn't die because of all those transformations and immortality potions or whatever he did to himself, also in advance. If he'd been anyone else, say Lucius Malfoy, the deflected AK would have killed him. Deflected or not, it was still an AK. Instead, apparently, it blew him out of his robes and ruined the house. (Note that Harry wasn't killed by the falling house any more than his parents could have been killed in a car crash. Oops. Wrong thread.) An Imperio, OTOH, would probably require a countercurse to reverse it--unless it was a short-term, mild Imperio that ended when the spell caster released the victim from his will like the ones Crouch!Moody placed on his students. A better example might be "stupefy," for which the countercurse is "Ennervate" (GoF Am. ed. 683). BTW, the term "countercurse" is somewhat misleading since "Ennervate" and similar spells are not curses in themselves but a means of countering the curse. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 04:10:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:10:11 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > "Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may > reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a > chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad." From the Lexicon. > > I wonder if Trevor has any part in this. I know that the basilisk > was there already. But it is rather suspicious.. the basilisk is > dead now, maybe someone is trying to hatch a new one? But they could > use any toad I guess. Just wondering if there is any connection. > Like I said before, after awhile there are clues everywhere, even > when they are not real clues. Everything seems like a clue. Ahhhhh. > going crazy!! > > Tonks_op Carol responds: BTW, has anyone thought about why a toad (not a frog, as people keep saying) might be considered a good pet for a witch or wizard, at least by an eccentric member of the older generation like Uncle Algie? Aside from their role in hatching basilisks, toads are time-honored potion ingredients: Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. (First Witch, "Macbeth") No wonder Neville fears for Trevor in Snape's class! (Not that I think Snape would really boil him i' the charmed pot.) Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 04:23:08 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:23:08 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113706 SSSusan, earlier: >>I'm one of the ones who's been arguing in favor of ESE!Fudge, but I've also never believed he was a DE. You make an excellent point that, if he had been, it would make little sense for Voldy not to have asked him to take some pretty major, direct actions to advance his rise back to power. Fudge has done some things which I think go beyond the bumbling, waffling, power-hungry politician--things which I think really can be interpreted as (or hypothesized to be) evil-- but just as Dolores Umbridge may well be evil but not be a DE, so with Fudge. As Sirius said, the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters [paraphrased]. Fudge is, imo, at a similar place on the good-evil spectrum as the DEs, without actually being one of them. << Carol responds: > The good-evil spectrum. I like that. The only person so far that I > would place at the far end for goodness is Lily. At the far end for > evil, we have Voldemort and Bellatrix (and the non-DE Umbridge). > Some of the other DEs would probably go there as well, probably > Dolohov Barty J. (fortunately "demented") and Lucius Malfoy > (though I don't think Lucius is *quite* as evil as Voldemort since > he seems capable of some sort of love for his wife and son. But > many people, let's say Sirius Black and Severus Snape are > somewhere in the middle, neither good nor evil but having some > good and some evil traits. And Fudge, too, seems to belong in the > middle. I very much doubt that he's cast any Unforgiveable curses > or committed any actual crimes (unless you count accepting > bribes). I think "corrupt" and "weak" are closer to describing his > character than "evil." > > My point is simply that we're abusing the word "evil," which should > stand for conduct and character so morally reprehensible, so wicked > and cruel that no redemption is possible. Tom Riddle reached that > mark when he murdered his father and grandparents if not before. > But surely we shouldn't use the same term for Fudge as for > Voldemort. If "evil" applies to any behavior we don't approve of, > from Percy's quarrell with his family to Draco hexing Harry when > Harry's back is turned, then the word "evil" has lost its > force. "Bad" I can live with, especially for Draco (definitely a > bad kid but still a kid and not to be compared with Voldemort or > Bellatrix, at least not yet). But let's save "evil" for those who > truly deserve the label and find some other word for those in the > middle of the spectrum who have yet to cast an Unforgiveable Curse > or do anything else that the WW itself would define as wicked. And > that includes holding "racist" (or classist) views. There are > degrees of wickedness here that IMO should be kept in perspective. > > Anyone have a suggestion for a word or words other than "evil" > that we can use for these people? SSSusan: Ah, but some of us [hey, HunterGreen] are arguing that Fudge really IS more evil than he has been openly painted in the books. We see him as corrupt, power-hungry, incapable of making a stand based upon moral principles, etc., but some of us think he does MUCH worse behind the scenes. Examples of possibilities here are: working w/ Pettigrew to frame Sirius; having Barty Crouch, Jr., kissed on purpose so he couldn't testify; directing the Dementors to go after Harry; etc. NONE of these can be proven at this point, but there are fairly reasonable or defensible ways of seeing them. So *if* we're right, then "evil" WOULD be an appropriate term for Fudge. (That's why I was arguing that he would go at about the same spot on the good-evil spectrum as the DEs w/o actually being one of them.) Now, your overall point in saying, "Let's watch how we use this word" I think is valid. I'm just saying that, even with that reminder, I'm still thinking Fudge may turn out to be evil. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 04:45:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:45:17 -0000 Subject: Lily, LV and Harry at GH. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113707 > Hannah wrote: > > she does the only thing she > > can think of to save her son from torture and a slow death/ being > > brought up as an LV 'mini-me' - she AK's him. At the same time, LV hits her with the same spell. > > But AK is a spell that depends a lot on the intention of the one > > casting it. When Lily's AK hits Harry, it doesn't kill him, because Lily's intention was to *save* Harry... > > Lora responded: > Is there anything in canon for the intention idea? I know when Harry was trying to Crucio someone...Bellatrix, I think, she just mocked him > and told him...*consults book* "You need to MEAN them, Potter! You > need to really want to cause pain--to enjoy it..." So perhaps if you > don't "really want" to cause DEATH with an AK, something else would > happen? > > I like this theory a lot, it's definitely not one of those totally > out-there ones...I think it has a chance. Of course, knowing JKR and > her geniusness... I do think that day/night at Godric's Hollow will > come into play later, simply because it's such a grey area, a blank. > JR rarely leaves blanks unfilled. > Carol: Aside from the fact that I have a very different view of things (protective charm, etc.) I think it's important to point out that Avada Kedavra is not just an illegal Curse, it's Unforgiveable. It's almost certainly one of the powers Dumbledore has but is too noble to use (McGonagall's words from SS/PS, chapter one). I don't think JKR would have Lily, who is in some sense the heroine of the whole series (and almost a candidate for sainthood in her view if I read the Rumours section of her site correctly) use the same curse that Voldemort uses. It would be like Frodo using the One Ring. The good guys don't use the weapons of evil. I don't think an Unforgiveable Curse can be used for a good cause, or that it can be cast by a good person with a noble intention. Besides, we're told pretty clearly that the "ancient magic" of her self-sacrifice (and whatever else it might have entailed) saved Harry. And Lily, to be sacrificed, must have been without a wand. More important, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice if Harry died. The whole point was for him to live. ("No, no, not Harry! Kill me instead!" quoted from memory, but I'm pretty sure it's in PoA.) Carol From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 24 04:45:55 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:45:55 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol: > Absolutely. I agree that Lily's "ancient magic," which may have > involved more than her willing self-sacrifice, is not a countercurse, > which would be performed after the fact, but a form of magic that > shielded Harry and deflected the curse onto LV. Harry didn't die > because he was protected *in advance.* Not quite that simple. Crouch!Moodys actual words:- "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no counter- curse. There's no blocking it." So it can't be blocked either, which is in effect the action of a 'shielding' spell. This ties to another thread that wonders if it was an AK after all. Only Crouch!Moody ever says that it is and how could he be that certain? And at the same time that he makes this assumption he keeps telling us that there is *no* protection against an AK. JKR says we should be asking why Voldy didn't die. Most posters have accepted that he was hit by a rebounding AK - a killing spell. Since he had not yet achieved immortality he should have died. He didn't. And the simplest answer as to "why?" is that it wasn't an AK but something else that *could* be shielded against. Even so, some part of the spell got through and implanted some of Voldy's powers in Harry. Now why would an AK that bounced do that? Or did it bounce? Something got through to Harry, invaded his mind and is still there. There just might be significance in Lily's words "Take me, kill me instead..." The "take me" leads some of us to wonder just what Voldy was up to. He knows from the first line of the prophecy that Harry has power. Might he not be interested in knowing just what this power consists of, and if possible try to use it himself? To do that he'd need to enter Harry's mind. A possession. It seems he was partially successful before being repelled, but fragments were left behind. Fanciful, you may think. Possibly. But no more fanciful than supposing that an unstoppable killing spell can, at the same time, be deflected *and* invade a mind to implant powers. That takes really convoluted thinking IMO. Kneasy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 04:51:44 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:51:44 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > > (2) And for the robes, I don't think Molly put a lot of stock into > the whole 'you have to have a dress robe for the Tri-Wizard > Tournament dance' idea. I mean, it was my impression that the only > reason the Yule Ball was held was because of the tournament, the > kids didn't usually require a dress robe for 4th year, just this > special year or else Ron could have worn one of his older brothers' > hand-me-downs from a once a year event. > > Have a happy love filled day! sad1199 imamommy: Well, if Percy needed his robes (he also attended the ball), and Gred and Forge already were using Bill and Charlie's old ones, then Ron would need a new set. I'm a little surprised that Molly didn't try to buy fabric and sew him some, magically of course, considering she can knit and is otherwise a pretty domestic little "Molly Magic". It's what I would have done. As to needing the Lockhart books, let's also remember that Molly is infatuated with him! Perhaps that's part of what persuaded her to buy so many books? imamommy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 24 05:00:45 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:00:45 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > BTW, has anyone thought about why a toad (not a frog, as people keep > saying) might be considered a good pet for a witch or wizard, at least > by an eccentric member of the older generation like Uncle Algie? Aside > from their role in hatching basilisks, toads are time-honored potion > ingredients: > In mythology toads are poisonous. But - they are supposed to have a jewel in their heads - a toadstone - that is a specific against poisonous bites and stings. Just apply to the affected part for instant relief. 'Course, Trevor would have to come to a sticky end, make the ultimate sacrifice, to get the stone, so that's probably why he's been in hiding for the past few books. He's afraid somebody might start to get ideas, what with Nagini still lurking around. Kneasy From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Fri Sep 24 06:09:53 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:09:53 -0000 Subject: About Hermione (was Re: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113711 > > Pippin wrote: > Where do you derive b and c? I can think off the top of my head, > of several times when Harry lies to or deceives Hermione. > > He tells her he doesn't miss Ron. > He tells her he's been working on the egg clue > He tells her he's been practicing occlumency > He lets her go on thinking that the Elves are freeing themselves > with the hats. > > Nor does Harry always think the advice she would give him is > correct. In fact he very often doesn't ask her advice because he > knows it would be useless -- at the beginning of GoF, for > example. His solution, writing to Sirius, is an excellent one, and > not something Hermione would have suggested at that point. > > Pippin Hello ladies and gentlemen. A few answers in order to crarify any misunderstandings. Harry himself in OOTP admits that he cannot lie to Hermione when he looks at her eyes. He is 100% sure that he will betray himself because she will see the guilt into his eyes. That's why every time he lies to her, he avoids facing her. I remind you the key words that I use were "face to face". As for her advices a) She doesn't need his permission in order to express herself in order to help him as we all well know, b) even to the cases when he thinks that Hermione is wrong, at the end he admits - to himself most of the times - that she was right all along and c) we are talking of course about cases where Hermione is aware of them. Lastly I want to apologise to all of you because I have the impression that I express myself sometimes vaguely. It is not intentional. I am not an English native speaker and I still can't express myself in perfect English language. Thank you again for putting up with me. Cheers, Paul From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 06:57:33 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:57:33 -0000 Subject: What is Tom Riddle? Was (a tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky: > Clearly, contrary to your insistence. Ginny was NOT conciously > *persuaded* to do Toms bidding. > He possessed her mind and physical body and *used* it, and as likely > as anything other, in the exact way I have suggested. Geoff: Ginny was consciously making an input into the diary to begin with but, rather like an addict, she became "hooked" on Tom Riddle. However, possession, in the form it is suggested, is not a physical thing. It is a mental or psychological invasion. My point is, that Riddle may have controlled Ginny, but he did not take on physical form until later.... "..she put too much into the diary, into me. Enough to let me leave its pages /at last/". His actions were carried out through a third person but only as far as that person could be controlled. There was a hiccup - "It took a long time for stupid little Ginny to stop trusting her diary," said Riddle. "But she finally became suspicious and tried to dispose of it..." (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.229 UK edition) Which could easily have brought Tom's machinations to a grinding halt. And that still doesn't answer my basic question..... Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From cschipper at nationsloan.com Thu Sep 23 23:02:17 2004 From: cschipper at nationsloan.com (chs512001) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:02:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113713 New to the group and couldn't find in archive any theories on why Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt (as opposed to anything else). I'm thinking that a lighting bolt or maybe some form of lightning may be V's ultimate doom. Any other opinions? Chuck From kethryn at wulfkub.com Fri Sep 24 04:28:17 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:28:17 -0000 Subject: LV & HP in GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113714 vivek wrote: > > Hi, > I am a new member and haven't been able to go over all the archives, > but I will like to know how does DD and rest of the WW know about the > downfall of LV in the first case,as there were no witnesses to the > event except HP,who was just a baby. The scene must have been of 2 > dead bodies,a destroyed house and a baby with a scar,how does the WW > realise that this means the *end* of LV.? > And how does DD realise that LV hasn't died,and will return,because > there is no coment about HP killing the 'resurrected' LV,in the > prophecy. Hi Vivek, New member here also (as in just joined today and are thanking my lucky stars for finding this place). To answer your question...some of this is speculation on my part... In Goblet of Fire, when they are in the woods after the Quidditch match and someone has sent up the dark mark, Mr. Weasley explains to Ron what the dark mark actually means, "...You-Know-Who and his followers sent the Dark Mark in the air whenever they killed...Just picture coming home and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house and knowing what you 're about to find inside." (Rowling, GoF page 142). So, extrapolating from that, whoever got to the Potter's house first...which I'm not certain who it was...saw the Dark Mark and knew that Voldemort had been there. The use of the Avada Kedavra curse would also have been a dead (sorry about the pun, not intended) giveaway as well, seeing as how none but Voldemort and company had the nerve to use it. As far as it being the end of Voldemort, they probably got it when people who were under LV's spells snapped out of them (the ones that were actually enchanted, that is). LV's followers would have known instantly as well because of the marks on their arms and I'm pretty sure DD just knew it as well, if nothing else, than because Snape would have told him. Guess work and extrapolation. If anyone else has an answer to this, I, for one, would be very interested. Kethryn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 08:19:46 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:19:46 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand in the Malfoy Residence)Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Off the top of my head I just, while reading these passages thought > of how Lucius could have used young Voldemort against old Voldemort, > and that is _whoever has the wand has the advantage_. > If Lucius took in Young Tom Riddle and gave *him* the wand, then he > would therein be handing the balance of power to himself. > As long as he was able to reign the younger version to him he could > be more powerful than anyone even Lord Voldy MkI. Carolyn: JKR told a fan at the recent Edinburgh chat that Pettigrew took Voldemort's wand and hid it, which was why it was available at the re- birthing scene in GOF. Borgin could not have sold it to Malfoy. From eloiseherisson at aol.com Fri Sep 24 08:33:06 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:33:06 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113716 Carol: > >Harry didn't die > > because he was protected *in advance.* Kneasy: > Not quite that simple. > Crouch!Moodys actual words:- > > "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no counter- > curse. There's no blocking it." > > So it can't be blocked either, which is in effect the action of a > 'shielding' spell. Eloise: Crouch!Moody (ostensibly) believes it is an AK because he says that Harry is the only one to survive it. Voldemort apparently believes that his curse was "deflected" by Lily's sacrifice, although TR doesn't seem to know that. Dumbledore says that, "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever." OTOH, this doesn't really tie up with Voldemort saying in the graveyard that he should have remembered the old magic which gave Harry protection, implying that he *did* know there was a way of blocking whatever spell it was, but just like the Phoenix tears he forgot it at the crucial moment in true Evil Overlord manner. He didn't remember it when he told Quirrell to seize Harry, either. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Kneasy: > This ties to another thread that wonders if it was an AK after all. > Only Crouch!Moody ever says that it is and how could he be that > certain? And at the same time that he makes this assumption he > keeps telling us that there is *no* protection against an AK. Eloise: Which might meant not that he's wrong in saying it was an AK, but wrong in saying there's no blocking it. I guess if you need someone else to sacrifice themselves for you then essentially, there *is* no blocking it. I mean, there you are on a dark night, a DE jumps out and shouts "Avada Kedavra!" at you and you'd be darned lucky to have a willing victim to hand. We do have the evidence of the green light which Harry associates with the event in his Dementor-induced flashbacks. JKR has clearly indicated that AKs are green (see Voldemomort's AK in the graveyard).I would regard it as cheating if we suddenly found it was a *different* green spell that was the failed curse. Kneasy: > JKR says we should be asking why Voldy didn't die. Most posters > have accepted that he was hit by a rebounding AK - a killing spell. > Since he had not yet achieved immortality he should have died. Eloise: But if the AK works on *humans* and if Voldemort's transformations had made him not entirely human, much as Hagrid speculates (and how clever it would be to put something really reliable into the mouth of Hagrid) that might account for it. Kneasy: > He didn't. And the simplest answer as to "why?" is that it wasn't > an AK but something else that *could* be shielded against. Even > so, some part of the spell got through and implanted some > of Voldy's powers in Harry. Now why would an AK that bounced > do that? Or did it bounce? Eloise: Hmmm. Regarding the transfer of powers, Dumbledore says, "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure ...." He doesn't actually say it was the failed curse that did it. Could it have been something that happened as he was torn from his body? Bits of his essence floating around and some of them landing on Harry as it were? I don't know. It's a puzzle. ~Eloise From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 09:25:54 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:25:54 -0000 Subject: What is Tom Riddle? Was (a tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > > Valky: > > Clearly, contrary to your insistence. Ginny was NOT conciously > > *persuaded* to do Toms bidding. > > He possessed her mind and physical body and *used* it, and as > likely as anything other, in the exact way I have suggested. > > Geoff: > My point is, that Riddle may have controlled Ginny, but he did not > take on physical form until later.... "..she put too much into the > diary, into me. Enough to let me leave its pages /at last/". His > actions were carried out through a third person but only as far as > that person could be controlled. > > There was a hiccup - "It took a long time for stupid little Ginny to > stop trusting her diary," said Riddle. "But she finally became > suspicious and tried to dispose of it..." > (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.229 UK edition) > > Which could easily have brought Tom's machinations to a grinding halt. > > And that still doesn't answer my basic question..... > Valky Now: Beg your Pardon, Geoff but wasn't your basic question this: > > > Valky: > > > At the very least he created a secret entrance > > > to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to > > > Hogsmeade. > > > > > > > Geoff: > > Can you enlarge on your source material for suggesting that? I have answered all your objections fairly and politely. I guess that I must concede you won't be willing to extend the same courtesy back. So in any case, my theory remains to this day far from disproven, and I shall take my leave with that from this discussion. Valky From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 24 09:39:41 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:39:41 -0400 Subject: Source of LV's evil nature Message-ID: <002a01c4a21a$6b6a8950$43c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113719 Carol responds: "Withholding information is not the same as lying." DuffyPoo: Really? It is where I live. It is called a lie of omission. Try withholding information from the police sometime and see what they think. Riddle, Sr. was deceived, and their relationship was built upon that deception for whatever length of time. Mrs. R. knew that her boyfriend/fiance/husband "didn't like magic" yet she pretended to not be a witch until after she trapped him in a marriage. She knew she had to lie in order to get him to love her as she loved him. Think about the young lady who tells her boyfriend she's pregnant so he will marry her, hoping to get pregnant during the honeymoon to cover up her deception. Carol said: "And I disagree in any case that her deception was more immoral than abandoning a pregnant wife and her innocent child. (Who knows what Tom Riddle might have become if his father had accepted his own responsibility and better still, had loved his son.) And after his wife died, shouldn't he have taken care of their child in any case, whether or not that child had magical powers, rather than dumping him in a Muggle orphanage?" DuffyPoo again: Quoting what I've already posted elsewhere - that we have know way of knowing if Riddle, Sr even knew his wife was pregnant when he left, or, for that matter, if she knew herself. >>I don't see that his father abandoned TR at all, except in TR's mind. Divorce/separation isn't ususally about the kids but about the adults in the situation. Did Riddle, Sr. even know his wife was pregnant or had she just told him she was a witch? Did she even know that she was pregnant, at the time of the magical revelation? That's the real question, especially since we have no idea where she lived from the time Riddle, Sr left her, until TMR was born and he was placed in an orphanage LV says "and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage." TMR only assumes he was abandoned because he has no father in the picture. Riddle, Sr may never have known a baby was on the way/born, until TR, at 18 or so, walked into the house in Little Hangleton. Do you think TMR was going to listen to Dad, at that point, say 'I didn't abandon you, I didn't even know she was pregnant. I left because she lied to me!' << Carol said: "If he loved her enough to marry her, he should have kept on loving her after he found out she was a witch. Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds." DuffyPoo: Utopia. There is truly no indication that Riddle, Sr, stopped loving his wife, he just could not live with the deception. Love or not, if I found out my DH was lying to me in the way say, Mark Hacking had been lying to his wife, he'd be on the street in a heartbeat. I wouldn't stop loving him, but I certainly would stop living with him. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 24 11:09:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:09:47 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eloise_herisson" wrote: > Dumbledore says that, > "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot > understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as > your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible > sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who > loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever." > Kneasy: The protection is interesting. I've been brooding on that and I've come up with a slightly different slant on what's been going on. >From what we've been told Lily's death emplaced the protection and if the protection was specifically anti-Voldy, which is what we believe, then there must be something identifiably Voldy to trigger the protection, Quirrell!Mort's laying on of hands in PS/SS for example. So how does the protection 'know' that a spell comes from Voldy? An AK is an AK, and in PS/SS there is the 'binding ropes' spell and possibly an Imperio! that Quirrell!Mort uses against Harry. And Harry is not protected against them. It is only when something identifiably Voldy (a possessed Quirrell) actually touches Harry that the protection works. Maybe the scene in the graveyard where Voldy proves that he can actually *touch* Harry is more significant than we suspect. Perhaps it's not spells that matter, it's anything of Voldy's *persona*, body or spirit, that Harry is protected against. If so, then if what attacked Harry at GH contained essence of Voldy, his mind say, then that would automatically activate the protection when it touched him. And if it went straight into Harrys' mind the Voldy fraction would be evicted, leaving behind the powers associated with it. In which case Harry has always been vulnerable to spells, it's just that Voldy never threw any at him. Hmm. Seems nicely logical. Can anyone see any obvious holes in the reasoning? > Eloise: > OTOH, this doesn't really tie up with Voldemort saying in the > graveyard that he should have remembered the old magic which gave > Harry protection, implying that he *did* know there was a way of > blocking whatever spell it was, but just like the Phoenix tears he > forgot it at the crucial moment in true Evil Overlord manner. He > didn't remember it when he told Quirrell to seize Harry, either. > Hindsight is a wonderful thing. > > Kneasy: True. I've had a whinge before, lamenting at the incompetence of Voldy. Impressive he's not. Played four, lost four in his matches against Harry. Poor show. Must do better. He'll never get to rule the world at this rate. > > Eloise: > Which might meant not that he's wrong in saying it was an AK, but > wrong in saying there's no blocking it. I guess if you need someone > else to sacrifice themselves for you then essentially, there *is* no > blocking it. I mean, there you are on a dark night, a DE jumps out > and shouts "Avada Kedavra!" at you and you'd be darned lucky to have > a willing victim to hand. > Kneasy: This whole 'sacrifice' thing needs to be cleared up. Are you listening Jo? There are loose ends flapping around all over the place - DD hints that he was responsible for the whole idea (logical - how much ancient magic would Lily know?); different fans have different ideas of what constitutes sacrifice in this instance - does eventually being killed after a tooth and nail struggle constitute a sacrifice within the conditions of the spell (in which case it's likely Voldy has come across it before) or is it a willing "'tis a far, far better thing I do.." sort of passive acceptance of death - a sort of offering? I tend to lean towards the latter myself, otherwise James counts as a sacrifice too, but he doesn't get a mention as such in canon. > Eloise: > We do have the evidence of the green light which Harry associates > with the event in his Dementor-induced flashbacks. JKR has > clearly indicated that AKs are green (see Voldemomort's AK in the > graveyard).I would regard it as cheating if we suddenly found it was > a *different* green spell that was the failed curse. > > Kneasy: We do indeed. But only *one* green flash, after which Harry hears high-pitched laughter. Logically this is the AK that kills Lily - she dies first, Voldy might find it entertaining - and he sure as hell wouldn't be laughing if he'd just been dis-corporated. Nor would any of his playmates that may have turned up to watch the fun. So where is the second green flash, the one aimed at Harry? Non-existent, it seems. This is one of the key bits of canon that first caused me to wonder. > > Eloise: > But if the AK works on *humans* and if Voldemort's transformations > had made him not entirely human, much as Hagrid speculates (and how > clever it would be to put something really reliable into the mouth of > Hagrid) that might account for it. > Kneasy: Well - it works on spiders. How un-human do you want to get? > Eloise: > Hmmm. > > Regarding the transfer of powers, Dumbledore says, > > "Unless I'm much > mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he > gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure ...." > > He doesn't actually say it was the failed curse that did it. Could it > have been something that happened as he was torn from his body? Bits > of his essence floating around and some of them landing on Harry as > it were? I don't know. It's a puzzle. > Kneasy: That's an understatement. I don't really feel comfortable with the idea of bits of dis-embodied Voldy being the WW equivalent of passive smoking. A bit of a cop-out IMO - sloppy, somehow. Could have happened that way, but I'd be disappointed if it did. From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 11:10:04 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:10:04 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nau Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113721 Duffypoo wrote: >>I don't see that his father abandoned TR at all, except in TR's mind. Divorce/separation isn't ususally about the kids but about the adults in the situation. Did Riddle, Sr. even know his wife was pregnant or had she just told him she was a witch? Did she even know that she was pregnant, at the time of the magical revelation? That's the real question, especially since we have noidea where she lived from the time Riddle, Sr left her, until TMR was born and he was placed in an orphanage LV says "and she died giving birth to me, leaving me to be raised in a Muggle orphanage." TMR only assumes he was abandoned because he has no father in the picture. Riddle, Sr may never have known a baby was on the way/born, until TR, at 18 or so, walked into the house in Little Hangleton. Do you think TMR was going to listen to Dad, at that point, say 'I didn't abandon you, I didn't even know she was pregnant. I left because she lied to me!' << Leah; After COS, I wondered if we would learn more about both Harry's and LV's parents and it was my thought that Harry would learn and have to make an adjustment to some unpalatable fact about Lily, and we would also learn that Tom Riddle senior was not the bad guy of his son's imagination, but had, for example, thrown his mother out not because she was a witch per se, but because of the type of magic she was associated with- she was the heiress of Slytherin. Harry's coping with and acceptance of this new information would make him a stronger and better person, whereas the fact that, as Tom Riddle, LV missed out on finding out the truth about his parents, contributed to making him what he is. Of course, I was off track with Lily, and I can see now that idea wouldn't have fitted in, but we did have Snape's worst memory, which of course has meant some serious thinking for Harry. However, I have also discounted my 'LV's bad mother' theory since reading GOF: 'Nobody wasted their breath pretending to be 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'. It looks as if, with the Riddles, what you see (and LV imagines) is what you get. At first, I was a bit disappointed in that- it seemed to make LV's behaviour more explicable and possibly genetic, removing that all important choice. But, arguably, LV's mother was treated badly, just as Harry's father treated some others badly, and it is the way Harry and LV choose to deal with that information, and the part it plays in their lives that matters- the fact that your mum got a raw deal needn't mean becoming an evil overlord. Leah From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 11:54:33 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:54:33 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113722 Valky wrote: > and while I am at it I think its about time I let you all in on the British meaning of snivel. Since so many american versions have been quoted to contradict me when I argue that the derogatory term of snivel in the language I, *and JKR* was raised into, *British > English*, is used to deride someone on their weakness and not > necessarily sensitivity. > Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: > snivel > verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- > to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make other people feel sympathy for you: > He's sitting in his bedroom snivelling because he was told off for > not doing his homework. > > snivelling, US USUALLY sniveling > adjective OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL > used to describe someone whom you do not like because they are weak and unpleasant: > That snivelling creep/coward! > > > There you all have it. The British terms paint an entirely different > portrait of James, Sirius and Snape and I have secreted the > privilege of having a cockney grandmother and english, english > teacher for a mother to myself for long enough. Potioncat: I've snipped a little and come back to this post because it's the easiest to answer. As to lapdog, it seems the Brits have a more harsh meaning of it than Americans. Too bad no one pointed it out sooner. I've seen it used in a similar way, but not to this extent. However, if lapdog here means brown-noser, then it is telling us that Snape's role includes pretending to work for Malfoy. (Are any of us surprised?) Black is taunting him for it, but Snape doesn't bite. So if you are correct Valky, and I think you have a good case, then "lapdog" has nothing to do with 15 year old Snape. (And I just realised I snipped the part about lapdog in Valky's post.) As to snivel. It has the same deffinition in American English, so I'm not sure of your point. Webster's New World Basic Dictionary snivel: 1)to cry and sniffle/2) to cry or complain in a whining way. (Stop sniviling and get to work.) The act of crying does not prove a moral weakness. I normally think of sniveling as something a young child would do. And I understand its meaning as an adjective. Now how did Severus become Snivelus? Did 11 year old oddball Severus get hit with a hex and cry/complain to McGonagall about it? The Marauders were given detention and as a result jeered at Severus for sniveling to the teachers. (We're told he followed them around trying to get them in trouble.) Did young Severus complain/cry to McGonagall about something only to be told, "Stop sniveling, Snape and get back to your books!" and the Marauders expanded on it? Or did they come upon him, crying for some reason and decide to tease him about it? Sirius Black calling Snape "Snivelus" no more proves a moral weakness in Snape, than Snape's calling Black a coward disproves Black's courage. Potioncat who will always remember the look on my British cousin's face when she asked if we had sponge and was given a cleaning tool instead of cake. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 12:01:29 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:01:29 -0000 Subject: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113723 Carol wrote : "the bouncing ferret bit may have been funny to Harry and his friends but it was probably painful to Draco, as well as publicly humiliating" Del replies : I was *horrified* by the bouncing ferret treatment. If this had been a real ferret, everyone would have cried out in protest, but because it was Draco, it was fine and even funny. I know that there was some kind of magic protecting it from getting all its bones broken, but from Draco's face when he turned back to his self, the process had been painful. But who cares, right, it's *Draco* and he was about to curse Harry from behind anyway, so he deserved it, right ? Del, who wonders what this lesson was supposed to teach Draco and the others, apart from the fact that the one who's got the power gets to make the rules... Very Voldemort-ish indeed, but strangely acceptable when it comes from a supposedly good guy... From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 12:03:38 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:03:38 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113724 > Carol responds: > BTW, has anyone thought about why a toad (not a frog, as people keep saying) might be considered a good pet for a witch or wizard, at least by an eccentric member of the older generation like Uncle Algie? Aside from their role in hatching basilisks, toads are time- honored potion ingredients: > > Round about the cauldron go; > In the poison'd entrails throw. > Toad, that under cold stone > Days and nights has thirty-one > Swelter'd venom sleeping got, > Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. > (First Witch, "Macbeth") Potioncat: I couldn't snip "Macbeth"! Also, one of these three witches has a toad for a familiar. But I've forgotten its name. Graymalkin of couse was the cat. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 12:10:25 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:10:25 -0000 Subject: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113725 > Del, who wonders what this lesson was supposed to teach Draco and the others, apart from the fact that the one who's got the power gets to make the rules... Very Voldemort-ish indeed, but strangely acceptable when it comes from a supposedly good guy... Potioncat: It looked like the good guy was punishing Draco for attacking Harry. It should have alerted the readers (not to mention Hogwarts staff) that something wasn't right with Moody. We'd been told he never resorted to killing even when it was allowed, so why would he resort to such a severe punishment here? Even Snape at his worst never comes close. In reality, the bad guy was hurting Draco for something Draco's father had done. And of course, he wasn't trying to teach Draco anything. He was just getting a personal, warped revenge. From pcsgames at toltbbs.com Fri Sep 24 12:38:31 2004 From: pcsgames at toltbbs.com (Phil Vlasak) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:38:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040924083628.01f5fc30@mail.toltbbs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113726 >Carol responds: > > BTW, has anyone thought about why a toad (not a frog, as people >keep saying) might be considered a good pet for a witch or wizard, >at least by an eccentric member of the older generation like Uncle >Algie? Aside from their role in hatching basilisks, toads are time- >honored potion ingredients: > > > > Round about the cauldron go; > > In the poison'd entrails throw. > > Toad, that under cold stone > > Days and nights has thirty-one > > Swelter'd venom sleeping got, > > Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. > > (First Witch, "Macbeth") > >Potioncat: >I couldn't snip "Macbeth"! Also, one of these three witches has a >toad for a familiar. But I've forgotten its name. Graymalkin of >couse was the cat. Phil Responds: Paddock was the toad in Macbeth. the Second Witche's own familiar is a large, ugly toad. The toad is a creature of transformation (tadpole to frog). So maybe Trevor will finally show some magic abilities in the next book. Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 24 12:50:31 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:50:31 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Or did they come upon him, crying for some reason and decide to tease him about it? < > Or maybe *they* , the Marauders, teased him to the point of tears, and then teased him about that ever after? I understood it as "crybaby" -- someone easily reduced to tears or whining. Snape, it seems to me, was raised, as many of us elders were, to think that things we now recognize as abuse weren't supposed to hurt you, and if they did, you were a weakling. That would make the name hurt even more, since Snape as a Slytherin must despise weakness. It would certainly be consistent with the way he treats Harry and Neville now. It still seems to me more important that we weren't shown how the scene ended than that we weren't shown what came before. What if, thanks to Snape's reputation as a sniveller and his habit of trying to get the Marauders in trouble, he was the one blamed for the incident? And Lily, alas, kept her word and didn't stick up for him? That would be why he's so willing to give his Slytherins a pass even when there are witnesses, and why Hermione's suggestion in the shrieking shack that there might have been a mistake provoked such wrath. Snape wasn't going to let them get away with shifting the blame again. Pippin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 12:56:04 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:56:04 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Valky wrote: > snivelling, US USUALLY sniveling > adjective OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL > used to describe someone whom you do not like because they are > weak and unpleasant: > That snivelling creep/coward! > > > > > > Potioncat: > > As to lapdog, it seems the Brits have a more harsh meaning of it > than Americans. Too bad no one pointed it out sooner. I've seen it used in a similar way, but not to this extent. However, if lapdog here means brown-noser, then it is telling us that Snape's role includes pretending to work for Malfoy. (Are any of us surprised?) Black is taunting him for it, but Snape doesn't bite. So if you are correct Valky, and I think you have a good case, then "lapdog" has nothing to do with 15 year old Snape. (And I just realised I snipped the part about lapdog in Valky's post.) > Valky: I don't know that you have got that quite right Potioncat. Doesn't Sirius ask if Snape is *still* Malfoys lapdog, implying that he has been percieved to be brown nosing Malfoy for a *long* time. Potioncat: > As to snivel. It has the same definition in American English, so > I'm not sure of your point. > Webster's New World Basic Dictionary > snivel: 1)to cry and sniffle/2) to cry or complain in a whining way. (Stop sniviling and get to work.) > Valky: My point is that Snivelling has a different meaning to snivel-ing when it is spoken by an english bloke (like Sirius or James). If you are called snivel-ing because you are crying that is a valid meaning, but *more often* you are called snivelling if you are *known* to display weak character. I suppose you would have to experience the culture first hand to make this subtle discernment. It might help if I offer that the equivalent term in American english of this word, used this way, might be something more like contemptible. But I don't suppose you'll buy that. Since it only comes from me. Potioncat: > The act of crying does not prove a moral weakness. I normally think of sniveling as something a young child would do. And I understand its meaning as an adjective. > Valky: Just to answer this, You might notice that the English meaning of snivelling does not require that the sniveller be crying. Just to be "weak and unpleasant" which are soft ways of saying that the person is percieved to lack virtue. This is a cultural distinction that you may not understand given that the comparison is a bit like reading the American constitution to the culture that America intended to defy when drafting it. I was raised by British people and the standards of virtue held by them are easily encapsulated in the statement, one must not be weak or unpleasant. So in short you are challenging, here, the British language and not me. Potioncat: > Now how did Severus become Snivelus? Did 11 year old oddball > Severus get hit with a hex and cry/complain to McGonagall about it? The Marauders were given detention and as a result jeered at Severus for sniveling to the teachers. (We're told he followed them around trying to get them in trouble.) > Valky: That is possible, actually. It's called tattle tales and is frowned upon in British culture. Note that Draco did the same in PS/SS with Norbert and Macgonagall gave *him* detention in fairness that he had broken rules as well. Most people familiar with the culture would know that many British ladies such as Macgonagall would consider it *brown-nosing* (hmmm there it is again) to tell tales to a higher authority. There is some resistance to that culture about, but it is relatively a new ethical standard that probably wouldn't have existed in Snapes childhood. That's not to say that MacGonagall wouldn't have been entirely *fair* to Snape she most certainly would have been explicitly fair, she would however have dissapproved of Snapes actions, and they would be seen to be an attempt to manipulate her into *bullying* James and Sirius *for him*. That we already know is *precisely* the reason Draco went to McGonagall with his tale, and frankly, James and Sirius would have seen it precisely the same way. Potioncat: > Sirius Black calling Snape "Snivelus" no more proves a moral > weakness in Snape, than Snape's calling Black a coward disproves > Black's courage. > Valky: This makes a very good point and I will concede it. However, Black *is* locked in Grimmauld Place and is *not* out risking his behind at the time, like Snape is, so in a way Snape does somewhat call a spade a spade. Since Snape has a chance of being killed by what he is doing for the order he spits in anger: Why isn't Sirius risking *his* life too?, and its really quite valid, although cold to Sirius' suffering. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 13:05:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:05:52 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040924083628.01f5fc30@mail.toltbbs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113729 > Phil Responds: > Paddock was the toad in Macbeth. > the Second Witche's own familiar is a large, ugly toad. > The toad is a creature of transformation (tadpole to frog). > So maybe Trevor will finally show some magic abilities in the next book. > Phil Potioncat: Were there 3 witches? What was the third familiar? Does anyone else think it's interesting that there is a toad, and a cat in this story too? Or how about the fact that Snape had Ron and Harry making pickled rats' brains and Ron's pet was a rat. And that he has Neville gutting toads (or was it frogs?) Let's hope Hermione isn't in for a gruesome detention!!! Potioncat who did not enjoy dissecting cats in college. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 13:34:49 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:34:49 -0000 Subject: What is Tom Riddle? Was (a tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > Beg your Pardon, Geoff but wasn't your basic question this: > > > > > Valky: > > > > At the very least he created a secret entrance > > > > to Hogwarts of his own via the fourth floor secret passage to > > > > Hogsmeade. > > > > > > > > > > Geoff: > > > Can you enlarge on your source material for suggesting that? > > Valky: I have answered all your objections fairly and politely. I guess > that I must concede you won't be willing to extend the same courtesy > back. > So in any case, my theory remains to this day far from disproven, > and I shall take my leave with that from this discussion. Geoff: The basic question you quote was one from a different thread. I am happy to concede that you have answered questions fairly (from your point of view) and politely but I still feel that I cannot concur with your findings. There was an element of confusion for me in your early answer when you referred to Tom!Ginny which I assumed to be an "appearance" of Tom but which I now realise you saw as Ginny possessed by Tom. I still fail to see why Ginny should be guided by Tom to demolish the fourth floor corridor - it sounds a bit like a couple of naughty First years out getting up to mischief. In closing, two things. The basic question to which I referred in my last post was, in fact, "What is Tom Riddle?" which was the thread we were following. I am sorry that you have found my answers discourteous - that was certainly not the intent on my part. I think, like many exchanges between posters on this group, we can only agree to disagree and wait for another occasion to cross wands again. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From maritajan at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 13:37:37 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040924133737.62278.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113731 --- "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky: > This makes a very good point and I will concede it. However, Black > *is* locked in Grimmauld Place and is *not* out risking his behind > at the time, like Snape is, so in a way Snape does somewhat call a > spade a spade. Since Snape has a chance of being killed by what he > is doing for the order he spits in anger: Why isn't Sirius risking > *his* life too?, and its really quite valid, although cold to > Sirius' suffering. > Oh, I really have to disagree here. Sirius isn't staying inside 12GP just because he's too afraid (re: cowardly) to venture out. He's been ORDERED to stay, and we see over and over how much he disagrees with that order, even if he obeys it. Snape isn't calling a spade a spade; he's being deliberately insulting, knowing that Sirius *hates* being forced to stay inside 12GP and knowing that the insult to Sirius' bravery is one insult guaranteed to get under Sirius' skin. There's no way I read into any action of Sirius that he's in any way cowardly or less brave than Snape. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 13:49:53 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:49:53 -0000 Subject: Trevor -- not the ideal pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113732 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Phil Responds: > > Paddock was the toad in Macbeth. > > the Second Witche's own familiar is a large, ugly toad. > > The toad is a creature of transformation (tadpole to frog). > > So maybe Trevor will finally show some magic abilities in the > next book. > > Phil > > > Potioncat: > Were there 3 witches? What was the third familiar? Does anyone > else think it's interesting that there is a toad, and a cat in this > story too? Geoff: Indeed there were three witches. I've just hauled out a very old copy of "Macbeth" from the bookshelf which is full of scribbled marginal notes from when my school did a version when I was in the Sixth Form. Being an all-boy's school, we did it Shakespearian style with all parts being cast for us lads and I cleverly collected First Witch (no laughing in the wings there!). So I have taken a "professional" interest in these observations and in the use of Shakespeare's lines in "the medium that dares not speak its name". My point was that, in the notes to my edition of the play, it suggests that Graymalkin was a common cat's name and implied that paddock was use another name for a toad. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 14:04:04 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:04:04 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113733 Eloise wrote: > > Dumbledore says that, "Your mother died to save you. If there is > > one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't > > realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its > > own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so > > deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us > > some protection forever." Kneasy: > The protection is interesting. I've been brooding on that and I've > come up with a slightly different slant on what's been going on. > > From what we've been told Lily's death emplaced the protection and > if the protection was specifically anti-Voldy, which is what we > believe, then there must be something identifiably Voldy to trigger > the protection, Quirrell!Mort's laying on of hands in PS/SS for > example. So how does the protection 'know' that a spell comes from > Voldy? An AK is an AK, and in PS/SS there is the 'binding ropes' > spell and possibly an Imperio! that Quirrell!Mort uses against > Harry. And Harry is not protected against them. It is only when > something identifiably Voldy (a possessed Quirrell)actually touches > Harry that the protection works. Maybe the scene in the graveyard > where Voldy proves that he can actually *touch* Harry is more > significant than we suspect. > > Perhaps it's not spells that matter, it's anything of Voldy's > *persona*, body or spirit, that Harry is protected against. If so, > then if what attacked Harry at GH contained essence of Voldy, his > mind say, then that would automatically activate the protection > when it touched him. And if it went straight into Harrys' mind the > Voldy fraction would be evicted, leaving behind the powers > associated with it. > > In which case Harry has always been vulnerable to spells, it's just > that Voldy never threw any at him. > > Hmm. Seems nicely logical. > Can anyone see any obvious holes in the reasoning? SSSusan: I've been following this exchange with interest, as you & Eloise have been batting about these puzzling bits of AK or not AK at GH. I don't see any holes in this, no, but I do have a question/issue later.... In fact, I think mine is a similar idea to your "automatically activating" scenario, only based upon a different substance than Essence of Voldy. Eloise: > > OTOH, this doesn't really tie up with Voldemort saying in the > > graveyard that he should have remembered the old magic which gave > > Harry protection, implying that he *did* know there was a way of > > blocking whatever spell it was, but just like the Phoenix tears > > he forgot it at the crucial moment in true Evil Overlord manner. > > He didn't remember it when he told Quirrell to seize Harry, > > either. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Kneasy: > True. I've had a whinge before, lamenting at the incompetence of > Voldy. Impressive he's not. Played four, lost four in his matches > against Harry. Poor show. Must do better. He'll never get to rule > the world at this rate. SSSusan: You've got lots of company in this area. See my post #113692, responding to Colin's assessment of Voldy's snafus so far. But I think Eloise raises a possibility here that I would like to address in a bit--that there really MAY actually be a countercurse to or protection against AK. Eloise: > > Which might meant not that he's wrong in saying it was an AK, but > > wrong in saying there's no blocking it. I guess if you need > > someone else to sacrifice themselves for you then essentially, > > there *is* no blocking it. I mean, there you are on a dark night, > > a DE jumps out and shouts "Avada Kedavra!" at you and you'd be > > darned lucky to have a willing victim to hand. Kneasy: > This whole 'sacrifice' thing needs to be cleared up. Are you > listening Jo? There are loose ends flapping around all over the > place - DD hints that he was responsible for the whole idea > (logical - how much ancient magic would Lily know?); different fans > have different ideas of what constitutes sacrifice in this > instance - does eventually being killed after a tooth and nail > struggle constitute a sacrifice within the conditions of the spell > (in which case it's likely Voldy has come across it before) or is > it a willing "'tis a far, far better thing I do.." sort of passive > acceptance of death - a sort of offering? I tend to lean towards > the latter myself, otherwise James counts as a sacrifice too, but > he doesn't get a mention as such in canon. SSSusan: YES, Jo, are you listening?? Please tell us you're listening. Two issues in this section. First, I think we DEFINITELY have a difficult time with this because we don't know exactly how the sacrifice worked, what made it a sacrifice, and what is required for a sacrifice to provide this kind of protection in JKR's world. (And it's complicated further by the possibility, at least, that it wasn't an AK at all that Voldy cast, eh?) I agree with Kneasy about his latter description of sacrifice being most likely, because of the James thing. In fact, I've been annoyed by the way people seem to see James' death as sort of, "Yeah, well, he died," whereas Lily's death is seen as this Ultimate Thing. They BOTH died to save Harry, so James deserves some credit! But I think the reason Lily's "counted" more is that, allegedly, she didn't *have* to die *and yet* she knew that she did have to die in order to set up the protection in Harry. Now this leads to the second issue. That darn protection. I know a lot of people think the mere sacrifice, the very action of dying for Harry, is what set up the protection. DD says "your mother died to save you... and [this action] will give us some protection forever." BUT there's also that reference to "ancient magic" and I just CAN'T believe that Lily's the only person who willingly died for another. It seems there must have been something MORE, some other aspect to it, which made this so very extraordinary. (So extraordinary that we can believe Voldy would've forgotten about its possibility.) This is where I'm with Eloise. Kneasy, you seem to be saying that because there's no protection against an AK, then it must not have been an AK. That is, you seem unwilling to consider that Crouch! Moody just might be wrong about there being no countercurse or protection. Yet C!M also said that it *was* an AK that was cast that night. So it seems to me that one way or another, C!M has to be wrong about SOMETHING. Either C!M is wrong about its having been an AK, or he's wrong about there being no countercurse, that it can't be blocked. How do we know which one he's wrong about? If the issue Crouch!Moody is mistaken about is there being no protection/countercurse/block, then I would return to my argument that the protection for Harry came about not JUST from Lily's sacrifice, but that the sacrifice is what **activated** the "ancient magic" that she had "applied" in anticipation of this Voldy attack. Does that make sense? Kind of like the potential countercurse/protection is like an Easter egg dye tablet just sitting in a bowl. It doesn't DO anything--it isn't effective--until the vinegar is added. Perhaps Lily's sacrifice was the vinegar that activated the dye tablet that protected Harry from the AK. :-) I recognize, of course, that you may be on the right track in your assumption that the curse WASN'T an AK at all [absence of a 2nd green flash]. In fact, I rather like the idea that Voldy was trying to possess Harry and ended up putting something of himself into him. But I think it's at least as possible that C!M was simply wrong about there being no way to defend against an AK. Perhaps there IS a way-- by combination of BOTH a countercurse AND a life sacrifice--and it's just that it's so rarely used, because it requires such an extraordinary action to activate, that most wizards forget about it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From patientx3 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 14:19:55 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:19:55 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113734 Carol wrote: > My point is simply that we're abusing the word "evil," which should > stand for conduct and character so morally reprehensible, so wicked > and cruel that no redemption is possible. Tom Riddle reached that > mark when he murdered his father and grandparents if not before. > But surely we shouldn't use the same term for Fudge as for > Voldemort. If "evil" applies to any behavior we don't approve of, > from Percy's quarrell with his family to Draco hexing Harry when > Harry's back is turned, then the word "evil" has lost its > force. [snip] SSSusan replied: >>Now, your overall point in saying, "Let's watch how we use this word" I think is valid. I'm just saying that, even with that reminder, I'm still thinking Fudge may turn out to be evil.<< HunterGreen: Yes indeed, but I see Carol's point. Too often an evil or questionable act causes the person to be bumped up to 'evil', which would be, as Carol says, abusing the word. I think that someone can do evil acts without definitely becoming 'evil' themselves. Recently both Snape and James have been argued this way. Yes, James did rather reprehensible things to Snape, but does that make him evil? Snape may be mildly sadistic, (although I don't really agree with this pronouncement), but does that make him evil either? I'm not evil sure I agree with Barty Jr. being evil, there doesn't seem to be enough of a personality there to be completely aware of right and wrong and of the choices he's making. He's certainly different than Malfoy, who freely and happily gave the diary to Ginny, or Bella who bragged about crucioing Neville's parents to death. Yes, 'evil' should be reserved for those cases (personally, though, I view ESE! as slightly different...more of a conspiracy label than a personality one). Concerning Fudge though, unless he did do some of the questionable things that SSSusan suggested upthread (and I snipped), I would say he's borderline. I think that wanting power and longevity as a leader more than you want to protect your society, is rather horrible. Not quite *evil*, I suppose, but quite close. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 14:52:47 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:52:47 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113735 > Valky: > Just to answer this, You might notice that the English meaning of > snivelling does not require that the sniveller be crying. Just to > be "weak and unpleasant" which are soft ways of saying that the > person is percieved to lack virtue. Potioncat: I understand that. In my first example below, I did not mean to imply that Severus had to actually be in tears. In America sniveling, as an insult, has a whining, complaining, running to the teacher/boss implication. But it doesn't really apply to virtues in general. If you are telling me it does in Britain, then I'll accept that. I am starting to think that you and I are saying the same thing in different words. Your phrase "to lack virtue" does confuse me a bit. I certainly would not call someone sniveling if I liked the person, but a sniveling person might still be a virtuous person in other respects. Please don't take this as sarcasm, but I see you live in Australia. Did you grow up in England? Because, although Australia and England are more closely related than America and England, I'm sure there are subtle differences between England's English and Australia's English. I'll bet there are subtle differences between London's English and York's English. > Potioncat: > > Now how did Severus become Snivelus? Did 11 year old oddball > > Severus get hit with a hex and cry/complain to McGonagall about > it? The Marauders were given detention and as a result jeered at > Severus for sniveling to the teachers. (We're told he followed them around trying to get them in trouble.) > > > > Valky: > That is possible, actually. It's called tattle tales and is frowned upon in British culture. Potioncat: As it is in American culture. Now, to add to the mix, I looked in an older dictionary and found another meaning of snivel that jumped out at me, given the Pensieve scene. snivel: verb 3. To run at the nose. 4.To utter with with sniveling or sniffing. noun 2. Nasal mucus. 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." and a bit later: "Wait for what?" said Sirius coolly. "What are you going to do, Snivelly, wipe your nose on us?" So, did Snivellus come from Severus in tears, Severus tattling or Severus suffering allergies? And is it just me, or does Sirius sound a lot like Draco? From ExSlytherin at aol.com Fri Sep 24 15:17:02 2004 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Mandy) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:17:02 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand in the Malfoy Residence)Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113736 M.Clifford wrote: > Off the top of my head I just, while reading these passages >thought of how Lucius could have used young Voldemort against old > Voldemort, and that is _whoever has the wand has the advantage_. >If Lucius took in Young Tom Riddle and gave *him* the wand, then he >would therein be handing the balance of power to himself. > As long as he was able to reign the younger version to him he >could be more powerful than anyone even Lord Voldy MkI. > Carolyn wrote: > JKR told a fan at the recent Edinburgh chat that Pettigrew took > Voldemort's wand and hid it, which was why it was available at the re-birthing scene in GOF. Borgin could not have sold it to Malfoy. Mandy here: Yes, but took it from whom? When? And where did he hide it? If Peter took it from LV, little Peter must have been with LV at Godric's Hollow. Possible. And perhaps Peter gave the wand to Lucius to hide? I can't think why he would do that, but if, hypothetically, Lucius knew about Peter's secret Animagus status, Lucius could have struck some sort of deal with him. Keeping quiet in exchange for the Wand kind of deal. This is pure speculation though, and really belongs in FanFic land. ;-) Cheers Mandy From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 24 15:42:22 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:42:22 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > My point is simply that we're abusing the word "evil," which should stand for conduct and character so morally reprehensible, so wicked and cruel that no redemption is possible.< Erm, but wouldn't Dumbledore offer a second chance, redemption, to anyone who sincerely repents? No matter how morally reprehensible, wicked and cruel their conduct was? I use 'evil' when the damage is lasting and serious, and the action that caused it was, in the view of the books, morally reprehensible. I don't think there is any question that Rowling considers Fudge's conduct in OOP morally reprehensible. While it was not immoral for Fudge to believe that Dumbledore was trying to seize power from him, it was immoral and manipulative for him to mislead the public to think that he opposed Dumbledore because the old man was past it. So I would say that Fudge was evil in OOP, but I wouldn't use the ESE! tag, since to me that means he was consciously conspiring with Voldemort. I don't think that will prove to be the case. I think what Rowling wants us to understand with Fudge is that though most of us want to be good, we are all capable of evil, and it is when we don't recognize it, and call it by its true name, that we are most in its power. Pippin who finds this a very appropriate topic for the eve of Yom Kippur From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 15:55:08 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:55:08 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113738 Pippin: > I use 'evil' when the damage is lasting and serious, and the > action that caused it was, in the view of the books, morally > reprehensible. I don't think there is any question that Rowling > considers Fudge's conduct in OOP morally reprehensible. While > it was not immoral for Fudge to believe that Dumbledore was > trying to seize power from him, it was immoral and manipulative > for him to mislead the public to think that he opposed > Dumbledore because the old man was past it. > > So I would say that Fudge was evil in OOP, but I wouldn't use the > ESE! tag, since to me that means he was consciously > conspiring with Voldemort. I don't think that will prove to be the > case. SSSusan: Interesting! I just read HunterGreen's post, two or three back, and she said this: "personally, though, I view ESE! as slightly different...more of a conspiracy label than a personality one." So for HunterGreen, if I've understood correctly, ESE! is a tag we place on a character to identify that they're part of a conspiracy, whereas "Evil" is a label reserved for someone whose actions go beyond a bad choice here or there. If I've understood *Pippin* correctly, ESE! is a tag reserved for those conspiring with Voldy, and "Evil" can describe an action or behavior appropriately, even if the person himself isn't overall "Evil." Personally, I never thought of ESE! as being equal to "In cahoots with Voldy." In fact, I just took it as a way to designate that someone is NOT what he seems...and in such a way that he's much WORSE than he seems. Others have thoughts on "ESE!" and "evil"?? Pippin: > I think what Rowling wants us to understand with Fudge is that > though most of us want to be good, we are all capable of evil, and > it is when we don't recognize it, and call it by its true name, > that we are most in its power. SSSusan: Now, with *this* I am in total agreement. Siriusly Snapey Susan From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 16:01:10 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:01:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chs512001" Chuck wrote: > New to the group and couldn't find in archive any theories on why > Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt (as opposed to > anything else). I'm thinking that a lighting bolt or maybe some form > of lightning may be V's ultimate doom. Any other opinions? Finwitch: Or high voltage electricity? (except that electricity is blue, not green) Or that a lightning never strikes twice into the same spot; most who get struck by a lightning die, but it IS possible to survive from if you have a strong heart; that as Harry is of LIGHT, he's a lightling (not far from lightning)? Anyway, there aren't all that many simple ways to describe scars, is there? Lightning is a very *simple* - just a straight line with a bit of a twist, something you can run your finger across etc... Finwitch From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Fri Sep 24 16:13:34 2004 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:13:34 -0400 Subject: Snape as Borgin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113740 First, forgive me a) if this has been discussed ad nauseam, b) my books are packed up so I don't have page references, and c) I must begin with a question...where is it that Snape is referred to as Lucius Malfoy's lapdog? Is it in OOP when Snape and Sirius Black are bickering at #12? Anyway... I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. There's very little direct evidence to support the conclusion, I state that at the outset. What prompted my little theory is merely the fact that Mr. Borgin is described as having greasy hair as is Snape. That, in itself, wouldn't convince me the sun was going to rise tomorrow. The first two bits of supporting evidence are global storyline trends. That is, we have any number of people who have originally appeared to be other than what they were. Black first appears to be a murdering madman; Snape first appears to be an evil git (as opposed to merely a good but nasty git); Scabbers appears as a rat; Trelawney appears as an utter fraud. There are lots of examples. Also, we have a number of people who appear to be trivial background characters who end up being more than that. These include Mrs Figg, the dog Harry sees after blowing up Aunt Marge, Sirius Black who is originally introduced merely as an escaped prisoner, Draco Malfoy who is originally introduced as the kid in the robe shop, Ginny Weasley who is "merely" Ron's younger sister. Then there's the scene itself. What is the purpose of the scene in the course of the story? From what I can tell, we get the following out of that scene: 1) The downside of floo powder 2) An introduction to the seedier side of wizard commerce 3) An introduction to the Hand of Glory 4) An introduction to Lucius Malfoy with characterization as an arrogant snothead 5) Evidence that Draco Malfoy has an unnatural obsession with Harry 6) Introduction to Mr Borgin 7) Evidence that the Malfoys are dark wizards with nasty secrets to sell The scene of the fistfight in Flourish and Blotts would have served well enough for an introduction to Lucius Malfoy as an arrogant snothead methinks so I think the purpose of the scene lies elsewhere. The most important thing we get out of the scene is, I believe, the evidence that the Malfoys have evil secrets but again, we get that from the scene in the Slytherin common room when Ron and Harry are polyjuiced. To be sure, there's no reason why Rowling couldn't take the pains to make the same points twice, but it seems unlikely to me that she'd include a scene just to reiterate two points that are made elsewhere. Looking at the other things, none of them seem all that important, so any one of them could be more important than the others. All that, in my opinion, gets an "Eh, maybe." Sure it could be, or it could not be, and there's no real reason to believe either more than the other. But we know more than that. We know that Snape is trying to keep an eye on the Death Eaters at great personal risk. We know that he was once a Death Eater. We know that Voldemort believes there is a Death Eater who has left him forever, and that he (Voldemort) intends to kill this death eater. It's not a given that Snape is the one Voldemort is talking about but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. Regardless, if Snape ever were discovered spying, there is no question that Voldemort would want to respond with a killing curse. Therefore, even if Snape is still believed to be a willing DE, he would want to keep his spying as secret as humanly possible. We know that there are ways of changing ones appearance by the use of potions. We've seen the polyjuice potion. In OOP in the packing scene in Harry's bedroom, Tonks mentions that most wizards need wands or potions to change their appearance without mentioning the polyjuice by name. While not specifically stating so, the implication is that there is more than one potion that can change one's appearance. And, of course, we know that Snape has polyjuice ingredients and it stands to reason that other appearance changing potions would have similar ingredients. And, of course, we know that Snape is a better than average potion maker. We also know that Snape is an accomplished legilimens and that a direct line of sight makes legilimency easier. And, of course, a shopkeeper who deals in dark arts toys would reasonably be expected to be in the company of a variety of DEs on occasion, and would appear (to the DEs) to be in a subservient position and thus possibly be overlooked. No better place to hide than right in plain sight is there? In conclusion, Snape has a reason to be near DEs while hiding his identity, the ability to change his appearance, and the ability to extract secrets from people's minds. -- Gregory Lynn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Sep 24 16:17:14 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:17:14 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > I've been following this exchange with interest, as you & Eloise have > been batting about these puzzling bits of AK or not AK at GH. I > don't see any holes in this, no, but I do have a question/issue > later.... In fact, I think mine is a similar idea to > your "automatically activating" scenario, only based upon a different > substance than Essence of Voldy. > snip > > This is where I'm with Eloise. Kneasy, you seem to be saying that > because there's no protection against an AK, then it must not have > been an AK. That is, you seem unwilling to consider that Crouch! > Moody just might be wrong about there being no countercurse or > protection. Yet C!M also said that it *was* an AK that was cast that > night. So it seems to me that one way or another, C!M has to be > wrong about SOMETHING. Either C!M is wrong about its having been an > AK, or he's wrong about there being no countercurse, that it can't be > blocked. How do we know which one he's wrong about? > > If the issue Crouch!Moody is mistaken about is there being no > protection/countercurse/block, then I would return to my argument > that the protection for Harry came about not JUST from Lily's > sacrifice, but that the sacrifice is what **activated** the "ancient > magic" that she had "applied" in anticipation of this Voldy attack. > Kneasy: Yes, you're right - C!M has to be wrong about something, you can't have an irresistible force and and immovable object. Unless you get devious. It's my contention that an AK is an irresistable force and that Harry is an immovable object - but in a very limited way. I've got a horrible feeling that I might be missing the point here, and some of the aspects of this subject aren't easy to differentiate, so what I'll do is break my meaning down into bits and then you thump away at the ones you're not happy with. OK? 1. There's this ancient magic stuff whereby under certain conditions (as yet unknown) a sacrifice can provide protection to another person. 2. DD hints that he placed it, that it was his idea. 3. Lily's sacrifice activated it, flicked the safety catch, if you like. 4. An attack by the designated enemy then triggers the automatic defence. But what is the protection against? Is it harmful spells, a person or both? 5. It's my contention that the protection was against Voldy the person because: 6. There's that puzzling blank. What blank? you ask - the blank during the replay of Voldy's spells in the graveyard, of course. No sign of an AK or any spell that resulted in the destruction of Voldys' body. But if he'd gone for a mind intrusion then there wouldn't be a spell to replay. QED. 7. If the protection guarded against evil spells then one would expect them to bounce straight off - no scar, no bits left in the targets mind. 8. Voldy, even when possessing another body cannot *touch* Harry without disasterous consequences. 9. But when possessing another body he can cast spells at Harry that work. (Rope binding and possibly Imperio! in PS/SS.) 10. We only get Voldy intrusions into Harrys' mind *after* the protection has been nullified. (True, there seems to be a bit of Legilimancy going on at the climax of PS/SS, but it's my contention this is straight-forward magic and very different to the mental invasions in OoP.) Conclusion: the protection is against Voldy, not spells. What happened to Harry at GH did not involve a spell cast by Voldy. That's my bet as to where C!M was wrong. There was only one AK and that was aimed at Lily. Harry was the target for something very different. Whether or no there is a counter to an AK becomes largely irrelevent in this instance because my bet is that one wasn't used and Harry wasn't protected against AKs anyway. A bit of supposition: Voldy has killed lots of people; James, Lily and maybe Harry are next on the list. If Voldy doesn't get them it's possible one of his buddies might. That's important - it's not just Voldy who kills. Lily wants Harry to live, but it's not possible to guard him against every danger. She chooses to guard him against the worst, which isn't death, it's being taken over or subsumed by Voldy. That would be the true horror, that must be prevented at all costs. So the protection is anti-Voldy - nothing else, just Voldy. Voldy cannot touch Harry, if he tries to he will be destroyed. >SSS > I recognize, of course, that you may be on the right track in your > assumption that the curse WASN'T an AK at all [absence of a 2nd green > flash]. In fact, I rather like the idea that Voldy was trying to > possess Harry and ended up putting something of himself into him. > But I think it's at least as possible that C!M was simply wrong about > there being no way to defend against an AK. Perhaps there IS a way-- > by combination of BOTH a countercurse AND a life sacrifice--and it's > just that it's so rarely used, because it requires such an > extraordinary action to activate, that most wizards forget about it. > Kneasy: A combination of counter-curse and sacrifice - I don't know. Seems a bit complicated. I wonder how anyone would be able to discover that trick - be an awful lot of dead bodies before they found out it'd work. Could be, of course, but I'll hold off on that for a while; I'll wait until the hypothesis above has been shot down in flames, forcing me to look at other alternatives. From karen at dacafe.com Fri Sep 24 16:39:18 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:39:18 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113742 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! > > M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > > several times if LV was really back. > > CMC wrote: > Even if BC Jr. had the Dark Mark, surely the real Alastor Moody did > not - so wouldn't Crouch's Dark Mark disappear once he was Polyjuiced > into Moody? > kmc adds: Cannon supports the fact that as Moody, Crouch did not have a Dark Mark just like Harry's scar disappeared when he drank the polyjuice. - kmc From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 16:44:36 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:44:36 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Boggart+Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113743 > > Pippin: > > But he does allow Neville to destroy a Boggart. "Forward Neville, > > and finish him off.'" > > Carol: > Which leads me to wonder how he taught his other third-year students > (the Slytherins, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs) to deal with boggarts, > unless their classes came before the Gryffindors'. And what about the > students in other years? Did he teach them the same curriculum he > taught the third-years? If so, how did they learn to banish boggarts > if Neville had finished the boggart off? Finwitch: I'm not so sure he really did make a mistake with it. Remember how worried he was that the Boggart might take the form of Voldemort with Harry and possibly also with Hermione? Can't let it hang around the castle therefore, now can you? Also, I'm not so sure that a practical "beat the boggart"-lesson wasn't a part of the original plan. At least, not during the first lesson. There just happened to be one to get rid of. (still, Lupin obviously *had* hunted down another boggart for Harry to practice his Patronus on - or maybe he already had that one to begin with? A pet boggart in a box, you know?) And um - Gryffindors are noted for bravery, and bravery is a requirement to face down a boggart, so in a way, Gryffindors ARE more ready to face a boggart than i.e. Slytherins. Beating a Boggart sort of belongs to Gryffindor agenda! Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 16:56:20 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:20 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113744 Gregory Lynn wrote: > I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr > Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. > We know that Snape is trying to keep an eye on the Death Eaters at > great personal risk. We know that he was once a Death Eater. We > know that Voldemort believes there is a Death Eater who has left him > forever, and that he (Voldemort) intends to kill this death eater. > > It's not a given that Snape is the one Voldemort is talking about > but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. Regardless, if Snape > ever were discovered spying, there is no question that Voldemort > would want to respond with a killing curse. Therefore, even if > Snape is still believed to be a willing DE, he would want to keep > his spying as secret as humanly possible. > > We know that there are ways of changing ones appearance by the use > of potions. > We also know that Snape is an accomplished legilimens and that a > direct line of sight makes legilimency easier. > > And, of course, a shopkeeper who deals in dark arts toys would > reasonably be expected to be in the company of a variety of DEs on > occasion.... > > In conclusion, Snape has a reason to be near DEs while hiding his > identity, the ability to change his appearance, and the ability to > extract secrets from people's minds. SSSusan: Just one small, but potentially significant, it seems to me, objection. Are you proposing that Snape is using, daily, a Time- Turner to be in both places at once? Siriusly Snapey Susan From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 17:01:51 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:01:51 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand in the Malfoy Residence)Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mandy" wrote: > > > Carolyn wrote: > > JKR told a fan at the recent Edinburgh chat that Pettigrew took > > Voldemort's wand and hid it, which was why it was available at the > re-birthing scene in GOF. Borgin could not have sold it to Malfoy. > > > Mandy here: > Yes, but took it from whom? When? And where did he hide it? > > If Peter took it from LV, little Peter must have been with LV at > Godric's Hollow. Possible. And perhaps Peter gave the wand to > Lucius to hide? I can't think why he would do that, but if, > hypothetically, Lucius knew about Peter's secret Animagus status, > Lucius could have struck some sort of deal with him. Keeping quiet > in exchange for the Wand kind of deal. This is pure speculation > though, and really belongs in FanFic land. ;-) > > Cheers Mandy Carolyn: See posts 111434, 111437, 111473, 113036 for what Pettigrew might have got up to with the wand at GH and after. I don't know why this little detail that JKR let slip bugs me so much, but it does. I think Lucius is the last person that Peter would approach to hide the wand, and there is no canon to suggest that Lucius has any knowledge of Ron's pet. If he did know anything about the MWPP animagi high jinks, he would know why they'd learnt to transform - ie that Lupin was a werewolf. There is no way Lucius would pass up the opportunity to make a fuss about a werewolf DADA teacher after all the efforts he makes to get rid of Hagrid over Buckbeak's attack. As it is, it's left to Snape to spill the beans at the end of term. Bet that gave Lucius cause to ponder as to where Snape's loyalties really were - why didn't Snape tell Lucius about Lupin before now? Pettigrew must know a lot more about what happened at GH than has been revealed so far. First and foremost whether Voldie left a body behind, for a start. And if the failed attack on Harry was enough to destroy Voldie absolutely so there was nothing left, not even his underpants, why didn't it destroy the wand as well? My thought is because it had Fawkes' feather for a core - it couldn't act properly against Harry, in the same way that it failed to at the graveyard; essentially whatever spell Voldie cast at Harry didn't work as it was intended. Given Voldie's performance to date, it's not hard to imagine he overlooked this tiresome detail, or more interestingly, that he never knew which phoenix had supplied the core to his wand. I've a feeling he'd destroy the wand immediately if he had any idea. Carolyn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 17:08:47 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:08:47 -0000 Subject: Necromancy /was Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113746 > > Mandy wrote: > > Personally I think Lucius's goal with the diary was to bring back a young version of LV that Lucius believed he could control and use. Tonks here: This brings to mind.. NECROMANCY. We don't fully understand, as I think Geoff has said, "what Diary Tom is". I have often thought that when DD talks to the pictures in his office (the ones bond to serve the current Headmaster, even when they don't want to) that this hinted of Necromancy. But Necromancy is part of the Dark Arts, so DD can't be doing that. But surely Tom got into that, and maybe the other DEers did too. I understand that it is very dangerious and that the wizard puts up barriers to protect himself. Maybe this has something to do with the steps that Tom took. And maybe it backfired on him.. he contacted the Ultimate force of evil (what he believes is not good or evil, but only power) and that force took him over. Any thoughts??? Tonks_op From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 24 17:16:56 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:56 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113747 > Gregory Lynn wrote: > I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr > Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. > We know that Snape is trying to keep an eye on the Death Eaters at > great personal risk. > > We know that there are ways of changing ones appearance by the use of potions. > We also know that Snape is an accomplished legilimens and that a > >direct line of sight makes legilimency easier. > > > > And, of course, a shopkeeper who deals in dark arts toys would > > reasonably be expected to be in the company of a variety of DEs onoccasion.... > > > In conclusion, Snape has a reason to be near DEs while hiding his > identity, the ability to change his appearance, and the ability to extract secrets from people's minds. > > SSSusan replied: > Just one small, but potentially significant, it seems to me, > objection. Are you proposing that Snape is using, daily, a Time- > Turner to be in both places at once? Hannah now: I really like this theory, but even so, I'm going to nitpick a bit. SSSusan has a good point about how Snape manages to be in both places at once - unless 'Mr. Borgin' only appears during Hogwarts holidays. But I think Snape probably has enough to do as it is without pretending to be Borgin - teaching all those classes, whatever extra stuff being head of house entails, keeping up membership of two secret societies, prowling round the castle at night... when he says he's busy in OoP he's not joking! OTOH, the idea of Snape disguising himself using one of his favourite potions in order to get information from DE's that he might not be able to come by as himself is definitely a good one. But perhaps not as someone who would need to be around as much as Borgin. The other thing which interests me about your theory is a more general point that I've noticed in other posts - the idea that Snape is an accomplished legilimens. Snape is undoubtably a very good occlumens, and many posters seem to think the two skills go together. But I've always assumed that skill in legilimency is separate from skill in occlumency, since the two seem to be opposites. Although he uses legilimency during Harry's occlumency lessons, there is nothing definite in canon to say he is especially accmplished at it or that he is able to use it at other times or by using less direct methods than pointing his wand and yelling 'legilimens!' (bit of a giveaway that). I guess the value of being a spy, whether as himself or disguised as Borgin or somebody else, is that he can find out secrets by being told, rather than having to extract to them through legilimency. Hannah From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 17:34:25 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:34:25 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113748 SSSusan back again: Actually, Kneasy, when you say this -- > 1. There's this ancient magic stuff whereby under certain conditions > (as yet unknown) a sacrifice can provide protection to another > person. > 2. DD hints that he placed it, that it was his idea. > 3. Lily's sacrifice activated it, flicked the safety catch, if you > like. > 4. An attack by the designated enemy then triggers the automatic > defence. -- I don't think it's so different from what I was saying with *this* before -- > > Perhaps there IS a way--by combination of BOTH a countercurse AND > > a life sacrifice--and it's just that it's so rarely used, because > > it requires such an extraordinary action to activate, that most > > wizards forget about it. When you objected thusly -- > A combination of counter-curse and sacrifice - I don't know. > Seems a bit complicated. > I wonder how anyone would be able to discover that trick - be an > awful lot of dead bodies before they found out it'd work. -- I'm not sure that it's really so different. "Ancient magic" PLACED by DD, you wrote in #2. Could be what I'm talking about but had thought perhaps *Lily* had done at DD's suggestion. Either way, when Lily died, she activated it. I think it's the fact that I keep throwing in that word "countercurse" that's causing the trouble. But that's really for a lack of proper vocabularly on my part. "Ancient magic"..."countercurse"...whatever the heck it is--we likely are referring to the same thing. Something old & extraordinary that only someone wise & old like DD would have known about; something which has to be activated by a sacrifice. DD or Lily sets it up, Lily bows out, which activates said already-in-place, ancientmagiccountercursewhateveryoucallit, and when Voldy's spell/possession/whatever it is--hits... BAM!! The "automatic defence" [note I kept UK spelling :-)] takes place. The way I'm reading this, it really doesn't matter whether Voldy was using an AK or some kind of "possession activity." *Whatever* it was, DD & Lily's plan foiled it. At least most of it. Your spelling things out in sequence like this-- >5. It's my contention that the protection was against Voldy the > person because: > 6. There's that puzzling blank. What blank? you ask - the blank > during the replay of Voldy's spells in the graveyard, of course. No > sign of an AK or any spell that resulted in the destruction of > Voldys' body. But if he'd gone for a mind intrusion then there > wouldn't be a spell to replay. QED. > 7. If the protection guarded against evil spells then one would > expect them to bounce straight off - no scar, no bits left in the > targets mind. > 8. Voldy, even when possessing another body cannot *touch* Harry > without disasterous consequences. > 9. But when possessing another body he can cast spells at Harry > that work. (Rope binding and possibly Imperio! in PS/SS.) > 10. We only get Voldy intrusions into Harrys' mind *after* the > protection has been nullified. > Conclusion: the protection is against Voldy, not spells. -- helps show the possibility of its being a possession attempt rather than an AK. So, again, whatever it was, Harry was just lucky that DD & Lily were able to concoct this protection against it/Voldy. Kneasy: > Whether or no there is a counter to an AK becomes largely irrelevent > in this instance because my bet is that one wasn't used and Harry > wasn't protected against AKs anyway. SSSusan: Precisely. I agree with this. Whether you're right about possession or (dare I say) most others are right about AK & claiming that C!M was just wrong about there being no counter, it wouldn't matter for purposes of the argument. It will only matter how the two variations would play out for JKR. Kneasy: > I'll wait until the hypothesis above has been shot down in flames, > forcing me to look at other alternatives. SSSusan: I'll be curious to see who can shoot it down. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's annoyed by her own run-on style in this post, but couldn't seem to figure a better way to work it. From Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com Fri Sep 24 17:40:18 2004 From: Gregory.Lynn at gmail.com (Gregory Lynn) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:40:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113749 On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:56:20 -0000, cubfanbudwoman wrote: > SSSusan: > Just one small, but potentially significant, it seems to me, > objection. Are you proposing that Snape is using, daily, a Time- > Turner to be in both places at once? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan No, I'm not suggesting such a thing. We have no idea whatsoever how much time Borgin spends in the shop. It's obviously often enough that Malfoy can become familiar with him but beyond that we know nothing. Once people have the ability to apparate, all travel concerns are eliminated so it is completely possible for there to be some sort of sensor that informs Snape when certain people enter the shop so Snape can apparate there, transform, and come out from the back. That's probably stretching things, but he needn't necessarily be there all the time. After all, Borgin has a partner doesn't he? -- Gregory Lynn From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Sep 24 17:53:33 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:53:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What were the Malfoys DOING there? References: <1095976809.7505.29627.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002801c4a25f$695fdee0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 113750 Alla wrote: >Me neither actually. After JKR mentioned that wizards life span is >much longer than us, muggles, I never consider McGonagall to be an >elderly woman. Middle-aged, maybe, but definitely not elderly. I >always consider her 70 to be like our 40s maybe. > >Come to think about it, Sirius and Snape are so VERY YOUNG under our >standards. Maybe that is why they still did not get rid of their >childish behaviour? :) Compare the descriptions of the characters who _do_ appear to be extremely elderly - Dippet in CoS and The Examiners (Marchbanks, Tofty...) in OoP. McGonagall may well be equivalent to someone even younger than their 40s, maybe (at 70) to be someone at the end of the first third of their lives. I keep thinking back to LoTR, where hobbits don't come of age until they are 33: wizards come of age at just over half of that figure, but I'd agree that it doesn't necessarily confer maturity. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From senderellabrat at aol.com Fri Sep 24 18:03:11 2004 From: senderellabrat at aol.com (Sen J) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:03:11 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113751 > Amy here: > I guess after the trip to Egypt, my thoughts on the Weasley's are > that they are not-so-poor, ...they don't have all the gold that > traditional "pure-blood" families are "supposed" to have, but they > still have enough to live on... kinda like America's middle > class...what I mean is, > 1. they did buy all the sets of Lockhart books. > 2. They bought treats for the boys that became prefects. > 3. When Mr. Weasley won the contest, they didn't save for other more > practical stuff, they took a trip. > Now I look at this like, they either don't manage their money well, > or they are just frugal, and don't put much on the need for all new > stuff. > > I consider myself middle class...in this old muggle world...I COULD > spend my money on designer clothes and such, but...I'd rather look > for bargains...go to rummage sales, Goodwill, clearance sales, and > then be able to take a cruise....thats my thoughts anyway...They have > enough money, just choose how to spend it more wisely. (or not so > wisely, however you look at it?) Sen: This post really stood out to me. It makes a *lot* of sense. Just because the kids (well.. Ron) *thinks* they're poor, doesn't exactly make them charity cases. My husband's father had the whole family convinced they were flat broke and having to budget so much to the point of being beyond frugal.. CHEAP is more like it! Fact of the matter was, they were well off. If this happens to be the case with the Weasleys, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting their kids think they're broke. It will give them the message of working & earning the things you have instead of being brats and not *needing* to take care of your stuff because you can easily replace it. Sort of the spoiled brat vibe I get off Malfoy. If he had broken his wand, I'm sure he would've shrugged it off and owled Malfoy Sr and a new one would've been sent the next morning. When Ron makes prefect, he went & told Molly he'd like a particular kind of broom because it was inexpensive. Not to mention, I'm sure with 7 kids & 2 adults... 9 people in the family... You've got to pinch your pennies on certain things. Especially when all of those kids are semi-close in age and you've always got a few in school at the same time. I don't think the Weasleys are hurting for money. They may not be Malfoy rich, but they're not eating out of trashcans and living in a cardboard box either. I would consider them Middle Class too. Middle class doesn't mean broke either. It just means you need to watch your budget closely if you want to have more than the necessities. LOL I wouldn't be surprised if when Ginny is finally done with school Molly & Arthur take a long vacation somewhere great. Sen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 18:19:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:19:26 -0000 Subject: Wisards age. Was: Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <002801c4a25f$695fdee0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113752 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > I keep thinking back to LoTR, where hobbits don't come of age until they are > 33: wizards come of age at just over half of that figure, but I'd agree that > it doesn't necessarily confer maturity. Alla: True, I was not even thinking about strict calculations, otherwise kids should have maturity of the toddlers, but I do think that their full maturity comes later than muggles. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 24 18:36:22 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:36:22 -0400 Subject: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco Message-ID: <001201c4a265$64828b10$3662d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113753 Potioncat: "It looked like the good guy was punishing Draco for attacking Harry. It should have alerted the readers (not to mention Hogwarts staff) that something wasn't right with Moody. We'd been told he never resorted to killing even when it was allowed, so why would he resort to such a severe punishment here?" DuffyPoo: The punishment of Draco by Moody took place early on in the school year, even before the trio had had a class with him. In my edition of GoF it is on page 181 of the chapter titled Mad-Eye Moody. We don't really find out that Moody never resorted to killing, IIRC, until page 461, the Padfoot Returns chapter when the trio are visiting Sirius in the cave outside Hogsmeade after the second task. DD and Snape may have known that Mad-Eye didn't resort to killing unless he had no other choice but it's doubtful any of the rest of the teachers knew that. Why would they? IMO I think Moody's 'but I thought a good sharp shock -- ' line was perfect. Keep in mind that what Moody AND Crouch, Jr hate more than anything is a DE who walked free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 18:47:26 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:47:26 -0000 Subject: JKR web site update (spoiler alert) In-Reply-To: <001601c4a0c3$3e9a6830$6ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113754 I (Carol) wrote: > "I thought it was interesting that JKR referred to Nearly Headless Nick as being from the Elizabethan era, which fits with the ruff he wears in one of the books but does not fit at all with a 1492 death date. In SS/PS he says he hasn't eaten for *400* years, but in CoS we have his *500th* death day (Halloween 1992 if we accept the Lexicon chronology). Clearly If Nick is intended to be an Elizabethan, SS/PS is right and he died in 1592, not 1492. Elizabeth reigned from 1558-1603. Her grandfather, the usurper Sylvia and I do not name (okay, Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII--forgive me, Sylvia and RIII!) was king in 1492. (He was very adept at chopping off heads, or his executioners were, and they would not have botched NHN's execution.> But another scrapbook item shows that neither the Tudor nor his famous granddaughter had anything to do with the matter.)" > > DuffyPoo responded: > In my newer edition of PS (Canadian, published by Raincoast books in 2000) Nick says he hasn't eaten for nearly *500* years. Carol again: Oh, no! And JKR still thinks Nick was an Elizabethan? ("Oh, dear! Maths!" Also History!) But at least the inconsistency (400 vs. 500 years) is being ironed out, one way or another. I wonder if that correction was her idea, or the Canadian editor's. Does it appear in any other new editions? I guess no one bothered to tell JKR that men (and women) in the early Tudor era (ca. 1492) didn't wear ruffs! That error should be corrected, too, IMHO. (And, no, I don't accept the idea that the WW was ahead of the RW in fashion. If anything, it's still way behind the times. And Nick, it seems from the "song" on JKR's website, was in contact with Muggles, and in fact executed by them, so he probably dressed as they did as well.) Carol P.S. Sylvia, my response to your offlist answer to this post bounced! From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 18:51:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:51:29 -0000 Subject: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco In-Reply-To: <001201c4a265$64828b10$3662d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113755 DuffyPoo: snip DD and Snape may have known that Mad-Eye didn't resort to killing unless he had no other choice but it's doubtful any of the rest of the teachers knew that. Why would they? IMO I think Moody's 'but I thought a good sharp shock -- ' line was perfect. Keep in mind that what Moody AND Crouch, Jr hate more than anything is a DE who walked free. > Potioncat: Oh, good point. I can stop feeling guilty for laughing now. (It was really funny before I had time to think it over.) You know, McGonagall is one tough cookie. She called Moody on the punishment, but she didn't offer Malfoy the slightest bit of help or sympathy. But I don't think the real Moody would have done it. Draco, afterall, isn't a DE who walked free. (At least not yet.) From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Sep 24 19:20:01 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:20:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chs512001" wrote: Chuck: > New to the group and couldn't find in archive any theories on why > Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt (as opposed to > anything else). I'm thinking that a lighting bolt or maybe some form > of lightning may be V's ultimate doom. Any other opinions? Geoff: Hi. Welcome to the madhouse! There was some discussion about the scar when the rune studiers got into action. I can point you to the start of a couple of threads back at the begining of the year and, if you dig around in that area, you can follow them up and maybe find other leads.... One thread is "The Scar" and begins at message 89668 and the other is "Rune Shape" and starts at message 89699. Hope this helps. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 19:22:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:22:44 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <154.3fd9512a.2e807d16@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113757 The Other Cheryl wrote: Wasn't it said that part of the Snape/James interaction was James' superior Quiddich skills? Being team members of their respective houses might also, if the Gryffindore/Slytherin rivalry was as strong, be a part of the background hostilities between MWPP and Snape et al. If the seventh years were active members and graduating that year, Snape would have been deprived of support and possibly faced with a much poorer team, much like Gryffindore in OotP. > The Other Cheryl Carol: Sirius, who is not the best person to guess what is going on in Severus's mind, tells Harry that he thinks the young Snape was jealous of James's Quidditch talent. But I doubt that Severus ever expressed any such sentiments to him or to James. He was not exactly in their confidence, or they in his. James was a Quidditch hero, a renowned and popular school athlete, so Sirius is *guessing* that Severus was jealous. (Quite possibly it was James's *popularity* rather than his Quidditch talent that Severus was jealous of--if he was jealous at all. There were clearly other reasons for his intense dislike of James.) We can't take Sirius's guess as fact (canon) here. As for the idea that the Slytherin gang might have been a Quidditch team, that appears to be pure speculation at the moment. (Besides, a Quidditch team has seven members. With Lucius Malfoy gone, the Slytherin gang would have had six members that we know of: Bellatrix Black, the two Lestrange brothers, Evan Rosier, Wilkes, and Severus Snape. Who's the seventh? Macnair? I don't think he's named.) Anyway, I think Sirius would have mentioned that they were a team rather than a "gang" (like Pansy Parkinson's gang of Slytherin girls) if that were the case. Carol From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 19:32:44 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040924193244.12315.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113758 Potioncat: > Now, to add to the mix, I looked in an older dictionary and found > another meaning of snivel that jumped out at me, given the Pensieve > scene. > > snivel: verb 3. To run at the nose. 4.To utter with with sniveling > or sniffing. noun 2. Nasal mucus. > > 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." > > and a bit later: > > "Wait for what?" said Sirius coolly. "What are you going to do, > Snivelly, wipe your nose on us?" > > So, did Snivellus come from Severus in tears, Severus tattling or > Severus suffering allergies? > > And is it just me, or does Sirius sound a lot like Draco? No, it isn't just you. Sirius' obsession with Snape's physical looks sounds very like Draco's unpleasant comments about how the Weasley and Evans homes must smell bad - right after the Quidditch match which cause Fred (?) and Harry to attack him. There is something about Sirius and Draco - a kind of viciousness, a willingness to attack any aspect of an opponent to score a point - that is quite repellent and prevents me from feeling much disappointment that Sirius won't be around any more to influence Harry. It's clear during the Pensieve Incident that Sirius is the one who knows exactly how to goad Snape, how to get his temper roiling - and who makes sure that Snape is disarmed repeatedly. Perhaps there really is something to be said for traits running in families. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 19:35:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:35:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore in CoS was Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113759 > > SSSusan wished that someone would tackle her > question of whether Parseltongue is required to make the SINK > open *or* the serpent DOOR open *or* both....< > Pippin responded: > That one's easy. Harry tried English on the sink and nothing > happened. It's also quite possible that the tiny snake scratched > on the pipe is only visible in the presence of a Parselmouth. > Carol asks: I agree (based on the same evidence) that Parseltongue is required to open the entrance in the girls' restroom. My problem is with Possessed!Ginny opening the Chamber using Parseltongue (which she must have done, via Tom speaking through her). Wouldn't Myrtle have heard the strange hissing and looked out to see what was happening? How could she have missed seeing the basilisk come out? It happened at least four times before Ginny herself was (somehow) taken into the Chamber. Why wouldn't Myrtle hear and see what was happening? or did possessed!Ginny choose times when Myrtle was absent from the restroom? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 20:03:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:03:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: <126AD524.75F2823E.0004E520@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113760 Julie wrote: > Is it only me, or does it seem odd that we haven't heard of any of Snape's Slytherin housemates from his own year, other than the Mauraders? Assuming Snape was in Slytherin, why are all of his friends/associates--the "Slytherin gang"--so much older than him? If the older ones like Bellatrix and Lucius picked Snape specially to be part of their gang, what did they see in him that set him apart from the other Slytherins of his year? Or was there another reason, like a blood connection between Snape and the older Slytherins that we don't yet know about? Or, maybe Snape wasn't Slytherin, but he was invited into the Slytherin proto-Death Eaters gang because it was such a coup to get someone from another house to join their evil clan (especially if Snape was from Gyffindor). As others have noted, we still don't have any conclusive canon that Snape was in Slytherin. Carol responds: I think his precocity was pretty clear from the moment he arrived in Slytherin: an eleven-year-old who knew more curses than most seventh years (and apparently had an early interest in the Dark Arts as well). Lucius Malfoy would have picked up on those traits and made use of them, or rather, cultivated the little boy's friendship in hopes of making use of his talents in the future. As for Snape not being a Slytherin, I think his being head of Slytherin House and his loyalty to the Slytherin team (even being willing to use Slytherin tactics to help them such as allowing Lucius Malfoy to buy them special brooms and rearranging the schedule so they won't have to play in the rain) is a pretty strong indication that he really is a lifelong Slytherin. Look at his personality, too--ambition and the pureblood ethic, apparently instilled in him at a young age--traits that the Sorting Hat would have picked up on, along with that interest in the Dark Arts. The Sorting Hat tries to put children where they belong, and surely it would not have placed Severus in Gryffindor, where he would be miserable. ("Or perhaps in Slytherin you'll make your real friends," SS Am. ed. 118). I'm guessing that after his gang left school, Severus didn't know how to make friends on his own and was rather lonely. And if his classmates were people like Macnair (perhaps not a member of the original gang), who would want them as friends? Maybe they were even jealous of him for his connections with the gang, or he never bothered to make friends with the Slytherins who were his own age, and by the time his gang left school, it was too late? I'm also guessing that Snape's father (the hook-nosed man in the memory, who is surely not Snape himself or Harry would have recognized him) was a Slytherin who inculcated those same values in his son--partly through fear and partly through example. Speculation, of course, but the only evidence I can see that he was *not* a Slytherin is his uncharacteristic courage. Everything else, including his continuing association with Lucius Malfoy and Draco's rather sycophantic respect for him, indicates that he is and was a Slytherin from the beginning. Carol, who wonders why people are suggesting that Snape might have been in Gryffindor. (Wouldn't he have fit better in Ravenclaw if he had to be in a house other than Slytherin?) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 20:22:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:22:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113761 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: snip. > Carol, who wonders why people are suggesting that Snape might have > been in Gryffindor. (Wouldn't he have fit better in Ravenclaw if he > had to be in a house other than Slytherin?) Alla: Well, Carol, since you asked, I will restate it again, why i think that Snape could have been in Gryffindor. The fact that Snape is a Slytherin Head does not really prove that he was there, we don't even know whether McGonagall was a Gryffindor, if I remember correctly. Sirius' "he was part of the Gang of Slytherins". Ummm, why should he stress that? Yes, sure, Sirius, Slytherins do hang out with each other, as we saw, Gryffindors, except in the last book, mainly do the same thing. Why did Sirius said this infamous quote in the first place? Why stress it out for the readers? For the same reason I think that communication between Sirius and Snape , whatever it was , which lead to the Prank, could show that Snape and Sirius were in the close proximity to each other. Why would Slytherin and Gryffindor seek each other out? Of course, it could be that Sirius and Snape knew each other before school, which is the theory I also like, but what if they did not, then why, why, why Snape followed Marauders around in the first place? I want to think that he wanted to be friends with them and was somehow misconstrued, not that Snape wanted to harm him since the day he saw them. Although I could be wrong, of course. As you said, Snape is very brave and this is the quality which supposed to be dominating for Gryffindors. Sure, everybody has it to different extent, but unless I read that Snape is brave only to get something for himself, I choose to view his bravery in a positive light. The main reason I think Snape could eba Gryffindor is plot -related- I am adamant that Harry is bound to learn some surprised revelation about somebody's House association. Before OOP I thought that Sirius could turn out to be a Slytherin, since that was not true, I still think that Snape as a Gryffindor could be the likely candidate. Alla I will not be surprised, if Ravenclaw was also suggested during Snape's sorting From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 20:27:33 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040924202733.93973.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113763 > Sen: > > This post really stood out to me. It makes a *lot* of sense. Just > because the kids (well.. Ron) *thinks* they're poor, doesn't > exactly make them charity cases.... I don't think the > Weasleys are hurting for money. They may not be Malfoy rich, but > they're not eating out of trashcans and living in a cardboard box > either. I would consider them Middle Class too. Middle class > doesn't mean broke either. It just means you need to watch your > budget closely if you want to have more than the necessities. Yes, I agree with this. But Ron's touchiness about his family's poverty ("why is everything I own rubbish?") didn't appear out of thin air. I suspect he's heard Molly grumbling about it at home and blaming Arthur's job in a small branch of the MOM as the reason. Kids do tend to pick up such background noise and incorporate it into their mindsets. It isn't helped of course because Ron is the youngest son and there would be no one to pass new clothes down to if they bought him new ones. Also he grows so fast that the thought of buying new clothes can be daunting for his parents. (Why you can't just magically adjust a hemline if not actually magic up new clothes is another issue entirely.) But I really think that Ron isn't upset so much with the poverty issue as he is with the feeling that everything he owns is someone elses' trash. He's just the youngest Weasley boy who doesn't have much that's actually his. His mother knits him sweaters in colours and makes him sandwiches that he doesn't like. And then when she hands him a set of dress robes that have tatty yellowing lace at the neckline and sleeves, he finally blows a head pipe. About time too. Molly was hateful at that point in GOF. Insensitive, callous, hateful. I don't care how much she "loves" her kids, that was simply inexcusable to give Ron an article of clothing that would show him up in front of the school as an object of mockery. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 20:34:36 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:34:36 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: snip. > There's something awfully thematically important about the Black > family background, and the two scions of that family who told it to > go screw. If Draco keeps down his path (which I suspect he will), we > really need to see some of the *why*--or we need more detail on the > *why not* in the cases that we don't get that. > > But. Trying to match everything up very closely, priviledging the > correspondences over the differences...take it with a grain of salt, > methinks. Alla: Very true, Nora. I don't see Draco, especially after OOP, ever defying Lucius and leaving Malfoys' nest. I don't think that he cannot, but I think that JKR wrote him in the corner. It is a VERY big difference for me, even the curcial one. And yes, we cannot match the parrallels too closely, unfortunately. When Dumbledore says that Snape and James were like Harry and Draco, does it mean that we saw many similarities between Snape and Draco or James and Draco? > From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 24 20:34:41 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:34:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113765 SSSusan: > > Just one small, but potentially significant, it seems to me, > > objection. Are you proposing that Snape is using, daily, a Time- > > Turner to be in both places at once? Gregory: > No, I'm not suggesting such a thing. We have no idea whatsoever how > much time Borgin spends in the shop. It's obviously often enough > that Malfoy can become familiar with him but beyond that we know > nothing. > > Once people have the ability to apparate, all travel concerns are > eliminated so it is completely possible for there to be some sort of > sensor that informs Snape when certain people enter the shop so > Snape can apparate there, transform, and come out from the back. > That's probably stretching things, but he needn't necessarily be > there all the time. After all, Borgin has a partner doesn't he? SSSusan: True enough, he has a partner. But I can't imagine Snape could be there often at all. I mean, he CAN'T apparate out of Hogwarts; he'd have to leave the grounds and then apparate; or use the floo network. He'd have to have an instant-acting potion which would change his appearance for those quick "pop-ins" to the shop. And, presumably, business hours at B&B would overlap a lot with classroom time at Hogwarts. I just think if this were happening fairly routinely--or even just a couple of times a month--the kids would notice that Snape was missing from the Head Table again, or there'd be a substitute in Potions class, or etc. Unless Mr. Burkes is pulling the vast majority of the duty, I don't see how Severus could be swinging this. But it *would* be a good way to gather that information if he could manage it! Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 21:02:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:02:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's housemates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > Is it only me, or does it seem odd that we haven't heard of any of > Snape's Slytherin housemates from his own year, other than the > Mauraders? Assuming Snape was in Slytherin, why are all of his > friends/associates--the "Slytherin gang"--so much older than him? If > the older ones like Bellatrix and Lucius picked Snape specially to > be part of their gang, what did they see in him that set him apart > from the other Slytherins of his year? > snips > > Do we know that Bellatrix is that much older than him? I don't > remember Sirius mentioning that she was older when he pointed her > out on the Black Family Tree, Though we know Malfoy is five years > older. But there is no reason not to assume that some of the other > DEs are not Snape's age or year. (Though, then again we have no > canon either way!) > Meri Carol: Sirius tells Harry near the begining of OoP that he hasn't seen Bellatrix since he was Harry's age. Harry has just turned fifteen and is between his fourth and fifth years. Most likely Sirius last saw Bellatrix at the end of his own fourth year (the end of her seventh year). Or possibly he last saw her at the end of his fifth year if he was still fifteen then, but as he would have been nearly sixteen then, the first explanation seems more probable. The chapter is "The Noble and Ancient House of Black." (I don't have the page number handy, but someone else has recently given it.) Since Severus and Sirius were in the same year, the age difference would apply to Severus, too. (And we can safely assume that Rodolphus was around the same age as Bellatrix, maybe a year or so older.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 21:29:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:29:47 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rob" wrote: > Angie wrote: I never thought about why Moody > attacked Draco; I thought he was trying to get on Harry's good side. > Rob responded: > I suspect he also did it because that's what bullies do, and the DE's are nothing if not bullies. (E.g., The Muggle tormenting during the World Cup, etc.) Carol: Exactly. And good guys (unless they're fifteen-year-old *future* good guys named Sirius and James) *don't* bully, even if they're paranoid retired aurors like the real Moody. IMO, the scene with Crouch!Moody transfiguring Draco (and bouncing him hard against the floor) is our first clue that this new teacher has a sinister side. The fact that it's directed against Draco, our hero's primary antagonist at Hogwarts, is beside the point. The punishment is sadistic, and the stern but fair McGonagall clearly disapproves of it. (I wonder what Snape would have thought if he had been present. Would his suspicions have been raised?) Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 21:34:42 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:34:42 -0000 Subject: Family/House traits was Re: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: <20040924193244.12315.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113768 Magda: > Perhaps there really is something to be said for traits running in > families. > Potioncat: You know, JKR shows families with certain traits, but each member is still an individual so that even the common traits are demonstrated in different ways. The same is true of the Houses. Look at all the different ways bravery is manifested. If you were a Hufflepuff who didn't know Neville as well as the readers do, you might wonder how he was sorted into Gryffindor. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 21:40:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:40:58 -0000 Subject: Scabber's Attack on Goyle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113769 Carol wrote: snip IMO, the scene with Crouch!Moody > transfiguring Draco (and bouncing him hard against the floor) is our > first clue that this new teacher has a sinister side. The fact that > it's directed against Draco, our hero's primary antagonist at > Hogwarts, is beside the point. The punishment is sadistic, and the > stern but fair McGonagall clearly disapproves of it. (I wonder what > Snape would have thought if he had been present. Would his suspicions > have been raised?) > Potioncat: And the scene closes with Crouch!Moody taking Draco to see Professor Snape. Too bad Harry didn't sneak after him so we could see the interaction. The questionable Forbidden Curses Classes has come up again in another thread. Everyone seems to think it was common knowledge around the school that Harry had thrown off the Imperius. So Snape and DD know about it. But did Snape ever know Moody well enough to know this isn't consistent with Moody? Snape certainly is not comfortable around him. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 24 21:54:19 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:54:19 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113770 Gregory Lynn asked: > First, forgive me a) if this has been discussed ad nauseam, b) my > books are packed up so I don't have page references, and c) I must > begin with a question...where is it that Snape is referred to as > Lucius Malfoy's lapdog? Is it in OOP when Snape and Sirius Black are > bickering at #12? > Potioncat: I see this hasn't been answered. Yes, in OoP chapter 24. The two really do act like children. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 22:12:58 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:12:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK References: Message-ID: <001601c4a283$a6da0ce0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 113771 From: "arrowsmithbt" > Kneasy: > This whole 'sacrifice' thing needs to be cleared up. Are you listening Jo? > There are loose ends flapping around all over the place - DD hints that > he was responsible for the whole idea (logical - how much ancient magic > would Lily know?); different fans have different ideas of what constitutes > sacrifice in this instance - does eventually being killed after a tooth and > nail struggle constitute a sacrifice within the conditions of the spell (in > which case it's likely Voldy has come across it before) or is it a willing > "'tis a far, far better thing I do.." sort of passive acceptance of death - a > sort of offering? I tend to lean towards the latter myself, otherwise James > counts as a sacrifice too, but he doesn't get a mention as such in canon. charme: AMEN to JKR's clarification of the "whole sacrifice thing." Indeed, I have often thought that all these theories I read are almost missing something I can't quite place my finger on, like perhaps there was much less planning of Lily sacrificing herself with premeditation from anyone, including DD, than some people think. What if she simply jumped in the way at the last moment, and fortunately in JKR's world, DD could use this to his advantage in the ancient magic protection factor? Let's put it this way: how would anyone who was not there know what *really* happened? Maybe the curse intended for Harry passed through his mother and bounced off him... Just a thought :) charme From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 22:17:00 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:17:00 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > mhbobbin: > The wording about the Third Death Eater is most interesting. If > Crouch Junior was conclusively a DE prior to LV's Fall, then I would > be more comfortable assuming that the Third DE was Crouch Jr and > that he had *re-entered* the service. But that is far from clear, > and significant doubt has been sown. No resolution yet. > > Bookworm: > Since reading GoF, I've thought that the Karkaroff/Snape/Crouch > triumvirate was too easy to assume. At the time, I argued Bagman > was the cowardly one (because of the way he was running from his > debts to the goblins), but reading this thread makes me think he > might have been the faithful DE and his cowardice is a cover. > > Canon against Crouch Junior being the third missing DE: > If Junior was the `most faithful servant' would he have > shrieked during his trial: "I didn't, I swear it Father, > don't send me back to the dementors - " and "Mother, stop > him, Mother, I didn't do it, it wasn't me!" [GoF, Ch30] > > This doesn't sound very faithful. Bellatrix was standing right > next to him, so it is probable she reported it to Voldemort. Fudge, > OTOH, was very quick to have him `kissed' so that he > couldn't tell anything more. Was it so he couldn't name > Fudge? Or so that no one would realize that he [Junior] *wasn't* > guilty of earlier crimes? > > "`The Lestranges should stand here,' said Voldemort quietly. > `But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went > to Azkaban rather than denounce me....When Azkaban is broken open, > the Lestranges will be honored beyond their dreams.'" [GoF, Ch33] > > The Lestranges were `faithful' and didn't renounce > Voldemort. It doesn't make sense that Junior would also be > described as `the faithful servant' even though he calls > himself that. [GoF, Ch35] > major snips of support for Bagman as candidate for Third DE. > > mhbobbin: > Interesting how JKR has given us two absolutely known former DEs (Snape, Kark.), two suspected DEs (Bagman, Crouch Jr.) and at least other character (Fudge) to consider for these three missing death eaters. > > Bookworm: > We wouldn't want her to make it easy for us, would we? > I'm not 100% positive of my own arguments here (I haven't > figured out how Fudge fits into this whole picture), but am positive > some of you will disagree. > >mhbobbin writes some more: I've been arguing against Crouch Junior as the Third DE because of the Penseive scene and because it wasn't clear that Crouch Junior had been more than a DE wannabe when he was caught with the LEstranges. And then I found this quote which had previously, for me, gone unnoticed. (GOF Ch. 35, Veritaserum) Crouch Junior (to DD): "When I had recovered my strength, I thought only of returning to my master...of returning to his service." There is that pesky word "returning" which echoes LV's statement that the third DE had "re-entered his service". IT's kind of hard for me to argue that Crouch Junior is not the Third DE after all. Still, I expect that the identities (per LV) of the Three MIssing DEs will surprise us when we finally learn who they are. Bagman is still under suspicion in my book. Maybe DE Numero Uno. This would make the Penseive scene with Crouch Junior pleading with his father an act. So I'm still hesitant to believe it 100%. mhbobbin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 22:17:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:17:39 -0000 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113773 Harriet wrote: > JKR says that that is one of the two questions that people should ask > but haven't asked. Well, I feel the reason why people haven't asked > it is because the answer is given to us in the Prophecy in Book 5... > > JKR tells us that only Harry can kill V and D knows it. I feel that > D is stalling when he stands up to V in the MoM, when he tells V that > there are things "worse than death". He can only defend Harry by > putting things in the path of V's would-be death curse. We all know > that D cannot kill V. Carol adds: Of course, there's also the inconvenient fact that LV was possessing Harry much of the time, so to kill LV he'd have to kill Harry, too, at that point. I do agree that Dumbledore knows (or believes) that only Harry can kill Voldemort but he doesn't want Voldemort (who has only heard part of the Prophecy) to know that. He has to be sure that Voldemort continues to fear him. (And it's probably true that there are fates worse than death, including, just possibly, the inability to die--a nice little lesson for "Tom" to think about if he will, though he probably won't.) We also see Dumbledore's greatness--he is demonstrating to both Voldemort and Harry that he can quite easily defend both himself and Harry without resorting to an AK (aside from thae fact that the AK wouldn't work, which DD doesn't want Voldemort to know). But we seem to be forgetting McGonagall's words about Dumbledore in SS/PS chapter one: that he has powers he's too noble to use. Even if he could be sure of killing Voldemort with an Avada Kedavra, he wouldn't do it, IMO, because it's an evil curse, an Unforgiveable Curse, and Unforgiveable Curses, as we've seen through Voldemort and Barty Jr., corrupt the caster. Quite possibly Dumbledore is also illustrating *mercy* as an example to Harry (who has used it himself in the case of Wormtail). I won't argue this point since I may be projecting Gandalf onto Dumbledore, but I do think it's possible. At any rate, even though Dumbledore's *primary* reason for not killing Voldemort is that only Harry will (one day) be able to destroy him, I think his motives are (as usual) more complex than they appear. And I also think the scene foreshadows a complex final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, which will not, IMO, involve an AK or any Unforgiveable Curse from Harry. That would be too simple, on the one hand (setting aside the brother wands problem), and it would blur the line between Good and Evil on the other. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 22:53:03 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:53:03 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Does anyone else wonder what "thrice defied" means in the prophecy in > OOP? Does that mean Lily & James and the Longbottoms refused to join > LV three times each? Or does "defy" mean something else? Regardless > of what it means,why would LV give them a second or third chance to > defy him? Unlike DD, I would imagine LV doesn't believe in second or third chances. > > Angie Carol: I asked the same question some time ago. I can't find my original post, but here's a link to one that quotes mine and links to some of the responses (including mine to my own idea): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/112452 I think we agreed that the "defiances" were not necessarily physical conflicts (duels). In fact, they were almost certainly defiances of Voldemort's will (or his supposed authority) rather than some sort of defeat, as some readers have supposed. Beyond that, I don't think we reached any consensus. Carol From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 23:04:25 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:04:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113775 An old post but a kewl ne that deserves re-visiting in light of recent discussions (so unsnipped - sorry) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > > > Haven't heard from Kneasy in a while, but I'm sure he would agree > > that this simply shows that LV never learns and has more weaknesses > > than he should have as an archetypically ESE character. That is, > > though JKR says he's the baddest - he's actually a completely > > bungling baddie. He's *still* convinced that little HP is a mere > > upstart who fluked it first time. Despite knowing half the prophecy > > he still feels he can snuff (swat) this pesky little Potter (he is, > > after all, the darkest, mst powerful wizard ever!). Fans of > > Divination surely will have spotted LV's boast in GoF graveyard > > scene to his assembled DE's > > > > Setting oneself up to fail? hmmmmm JKR loves to show how dumb LV > > (ESE defined) can be and how HP (we the reader see as good) will > > prevail - though she may not protect him in book 7 by which time he > > is as expendable as any other character). It has always struck me > > that yes, the developments of this scene (Harry's survival despite > > LV's intent to make an example of him) show that in fact HP is the > > stronger, for he escapes, against all odds and, notice, without DD's > > or Lily's obvious protection (excepting that Lily is there during > > the priori incantatem spell and perhaps DD might be argued to be > > too, through the pheonix song and the wand cores involved). This > > scene reemphasises that LV constantly under-estimates whatever it is > > about Harry that makes him a formidable adversary - a theme returned > > to in OotP (DD saying HP has powers LV knows little of and/or > > underestimates - which we all take to mean love and selflessness). > > LV still hasn't learned this by the end of book 5 (nor I suspect the > > denoument in book 7). > > Did I hear my name invoked? > "For I can call demons from the vasty deep.." > > Generally speaking I do tend to be scathing about Voldy; difficult to > take him seriously when he constantly falls flat on his face. Sad, that. > Down to my FEATHEROA leanings, I suppose - similar to the views > of Mr & Mrs Ramsbotham in "The Lion and Albert" > "...the waves they was fiddling and small, > No wrecks and nobody drowning, > In fact nowt to laugh at at all." > > But just this once, and as an exercise in lateral thinking, devious > interpretation and mostly because it's fun, let's assume that there's > some method to his madness. > > Four times he's been confronted by Harry and come off worst. > Godric's Hollow > In front of the Mirror of Erised > The graveyard > The Ministry > (I'm not counting the CoS; strictly speaking that wasn't Voldy.) > > Harry's protection was emplaced at Godric's Hollow - but protection > against what? > "Voldy!" you reply, "as ane fule kno." > "Ah," says I, "does Voldy know that?" > All Voldy knows is that the particular spell he cast was repelled - and > I have a sneaking suspicion that it wasn't an AK. Most posters will > disagree. 'Twas ever thus. (I first put this one on the board last year, > and it's repeated in a post made yesterday - 112046). > > For the sake of argument, let's assume that my suspicions regarding > the spell are justified. So; he casts a spell; it doesn't work. OK, next > time we'll try something different - the "hands on" approach adopted > by Quirrell. (Never did like that one - so unwizardly. What's wrong > with "Accio! Stone?) Never mind, that one didn't work either - but > now Voldy has learned two facts concerning Harry Potter; the spell > used at GH won't work and neither will a physical assault. > > He fixes the latter in the graveyard but instead of utilising it, the > silly bugger has to go and ponce around playing at duels. Oh dear. > This is where he learns the third brutal fact of life - wand conflict. > Unfortunately (from Voldy's point of view) this wand conflict > prevents Voldy from learning something I'm sure he'd like to know, > namely - is Harry now vulnerable to an AK? He can't tell, the wand > conflict prevents the AK from reaching Harry. > > But being a persistent sort of cove, he's willing to give it another > go; this time in less formal circumstances and where Harry might > not be casting an interferring spell at the same time - the Ministry. > He throws an AK at a defenceless Harry, only for an animated > statue to interpose itself. (This should tell him something; if > Harry is invulnerable why did DD block the AK? Yippee! Progress!) > > He tries something else during his tactical withdrawl - possession. > This time it doesn't work because of some property inherent in > Harrys personality (according to DD) and therefore unlikely to be > part of the original protective magic. > > So if you want to be magnanimous, you can say that Voldy has > been on a learning curve, he's been experimenting and like any > good investigator he's been changing one parameter at a time. > > GH - a spell (probably a form of possession or mental intrusion) > that is repelled by the protection. Is the protection general or > specific to the spell used? > > Then the Mirror - try a physical attack; no joy. It's general. > > The graveyard - remove protection and try again. Has it worked? > Can't tell, those bloody wands get in the way. > > The Ministry - Try an AK - but it's blocked by outside agency > (promising) and as a bonus he finds out that Harry's mind has > developed in ways that Voldy can't live with. ("Make a note of that, > Bella.") > > If I was Voldy, I'd be sticking to the AK from now on, it could well > do the trick. Mind you, I doubt he will, he'll try to come up with > something 'foolproof' that won't work for one reason or another. > As Hermione observes, wizards aren't renowned for logical thinking. > > Kneasy This analysis by kneasy is, as ever, thought-provoking. So what thoughts? 1. CoS showed that even diary!Tom couldn't 'get' Harry either (perhaps this was a chief purpose of the book)? and 2. Lv *STILL* seems not to have learned the leasson that he should NOt try to AK Harry. Perhaps next, by kneasy's reasoning, Voldy will try to get HP in the back (the baddie never does this in Westerns and probably won't in JKR world either) - but I suspect that kneasy would reckon, and certainly I do, that THIS wouldn't work either. He may never learn that he just can't 'get' Harry. *HE* can't anyway. (?) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 23:24:53 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:24:53 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113776 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: >C!M has to be wrong about something, you can't > have an irresistible force and and immovable object. Unless you > get devious. It's my contention that an AK is an irresistable force and > that Harry is an immovable object - but in a very limited way. except that C!M is talking from experience about every other AK/wizard he's known. *HE* has never seen anyone be able to resist it, but then he's never met Harry before and neither had Voldy. So, C!M is'nt wrong based on what AK SHOULD do, but he hadn't figured on Harry and his protection. Having said all of this, it's either a Flint or significant that the AK aimed at Harry didn't figure in the priori incantatem as I've said before (post 112086), not least because JKR calls it a killing curse (post 112146 quoting Edinburgh August 04 interview transcript) and this is in favour of the idea that it WAS an AK. (Kneasy:) >She chooses to guard him against the worst, which isn't death, > it's being taken over or subsumed by Voldy. > That would be the true horror, that must be prevented at all costs. > So the protection is anti-Voldy - nothing else, just Voldy. Voldy cannot > touch Harry, if he tries to he will be destroyed. Taken over by Voldy? yes, how horrific? yet it seems to have happened anyway/ What if it would have been much worse/total had Lily NOT intervened? GH seems to have fused *some* aspects of Harry and Voldy, not least parselmouth and who knows what else. Perhaps Voldy thought 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'? If this kid has powes to vanquish me then why don't I just take them into myself? An error. It left his conscious part disembodied. Hmmm, a theory? - well see. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 23:45:15 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:45:15 -0000 Subject: WW Communications (was Re: Why didn't C!M apparate?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > HunterGreen: > I think it was me who asked that question the most (or all) times. > Can dementors appaperate? You're right that they had to get to Surrey > somehow, I'd doubt they'd be missed if they glided or flew (or > however they move) all the way there. I can't see Dementors using a > portkey (I don't know why, just seems strange to me), so appaperation > does seem the most likely answer. Did Fudge send an emergency owl to > Azkaban then? Or use Floo powder? Do fires even work around > Dementors? (or is that movie contamination?). Speed of communications in the wizard world are, indeed, intriguing. Owls, because they can take months/days (and be intercepted or occluded against by their targets), seem to me to be like muggle world snail mail or even Email (you can't guarantee its recipient has read it until you hear back), whereas fireplaces are like instant messaging/telephones. You know if you didn't connect. Two- way Mirros (a la OotP - though we've not seen one in action yet, except between the Marauders off-page) are also an 'instant' way to communicate and another (or fairly instant at least) is pictures (the healer/headmistress witch who goes from DD's office to St.Mungo's to check on Arthur Weasley). And then there's the Bertie Botts' beans cards (?) if you believe the theory. So, if wizards can do 'instant', whyever do slow (apart from from physically delivering something)? I would guess that this is another 'when it suits the plot' issue. It suited the plot, for example, for Harry to forget the 2-way mirror, but not in future if JKR's hints are for real. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:04:50 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:04:50 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Malfoy then hands out the diary, either deliberately to Ginny > because of her father (depending on his motive) or just because she > is the first young girl about to start at Hogwarts that he comes > across. Tom finds out all about Harry from Ginny (and she's got a > huge crush on him, so she's going to be only too pleased to tell Tom > his life story, even without prompting). He then makes Harry his > new target. > > Hannah 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. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:07:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:07:50 -0000 Subject: Why dislike Hagrid? (Was: Snape and Neville) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113779 huntergreen wrote: > > (personally, I cannot stand Hagrid, the fact that the > > author likes him makes no difference). Tonks responded: > > Ah.. now what have you got against good ol' Hagrid? He is a > sweetheart.. good natured .. not the sharpest.. but hearts in the > right place. What could anyone have against our buddy Hagrid? ?? Carol adds: First, I agree with Huntergreen's general point that the author's opinions and (expressed) intentions regarding characters and houses shouldn't affect our interpretations. We can't help our *preferences* any more than she can help hers and her affection for Hagrid isn't going to make huntergreen like him any more than I can make a child like liver by telling him it's delicious. (Which would be a lie in any case. Gaah.) As for interpretations, we have to look at what's on the page--and not just one page, but every page related to that character or house or object and derive our conclusions from textual evidence rather than what the author wants us to think. (Granted, remarks like "Snape is a sadistic teacher" or "Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness" can be used to support our interpretation of a character, but only if the text itself also supports that interpretation. I still hold my view that "sarcastic" is a better word than "sadistic" to describe Snape. A matter of semantics, if you like, but I reserve "sadistic" for Umbridge, Bellatrix, Voldemort, and Barty Jr. Otherwise, "sadistic" becomes a relative term and loses its force and effectiveness.) As for liking and disliking Hagrid, that of course is purely a matter of taste. To me he's a bit like Sam Gamgee--a little goes a long way, and I can hardly stand to read the Grawp chapter in OoP because there's too much of Hagrid's slow, homely speaking style and too much of the "interestin' creature" motif (even if "Grawpy" isn't exactly a creature). Given a choice between Dobby and Hagrid, I'd choose Hagrid, but given a choice between Hagrid and Snape, I'd choose Snape. Why? Because I enjoy reading about Snape. I like the cool, mildly sarcastic way he usually speaks. I like his complexity. I like his intelligence. There's none of that in Hagrid, and very little mystery to him, either. So to each his or her own taste in characters, and to each a valid, canon-based interpretation determined by our own powers of observation and deduction and not by what the author wants us to think. Carol From katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 24 10:36:18 2004 From: katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk (kate_bossetti) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:36:18 -0000 Subject: Homorphus charm & Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his students > including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga Werewolf > which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the village > from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. > > In POA Lupin tells the trio about his becoming a werewolf, and that > in those days there was no cure and that Wolfsbane potion is a > recent discovery which allows him to become a harmless wolf. > > While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus > charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or > he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so > resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for > someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or Dumbledore > helped their friend more. Well, maybe this wizard, as well as that charm was only Lockhart's imagination's product to make his book more interesting. He tells Harry and Ron about stealing other peoples' memories and presents them as his own, so you have to agree we can call him a liar. Perhaps he made that spell up, especially when you suggest that only this particular wizard could perform that particular magic. "kate_bossetti" From spoonmerlin at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 12:02:27 2004 From: spoonmerlin at yahoo.com (Brent) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:02:27 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113781 Hannah: > > Lucius can't have had it for the entire 50 years. In OoP (or is it > > GoF?) a newspaper article gives his age as 41. He might be fibbing > > a bit, but I doubt he's much older than 45. Even if he's old > enough > > to have been alive when Riddle made the diary, he would only have > > been a baby/ small child, and not to be entrusted with it. Could > > Riddle have given it to Lucius' father? 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. Brent From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:16:44 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:16:44 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113782 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > > Mac wrote: > > Lastly, as a kind of extra controvesial thing - someone suggested > > Lily threw the spell at Harry - I hardly think so!!!!!!!! (even if > > not impossible to conceive). It did get me thinking though about > > whether Harry was born with green eyes or only has them since GH. > Is there a part of Lily in her son additional to that which any > mother muggle or witch) normally conveys to her children? > > Hannah: I originally made the suggestion (unless someone has in the > past) that Lily AK'ed Harry to save him from a worse fate. I > suggested it to create debate and try to see the thing from a > different angle, I'm not saying that I really believe that is what > happened, though I do think it is a possibility worth considering. > > I've never personally thought the green eyes were significant, > though I can see the logic behind it. One thing that I don't > understand though, is that if green eyes are so important, why does > Dan Radcliffe of the forbidden media have blue eyes? We know JKR > had plenty of influence over the film, and thinks Radcliffe is an > ideal Harry. If his having green eyes was going to be vital to the > plot later, wouldn't she have made them chose a green-eyed actor/ > got them to put green contact lenses in his eyes/ digitally enhance > him to have green eyes? > > Hannah Good point Hannah since I think that JKR *does* demand enough control that anything significant in the films that will *matter* in the books is faithful. I didn't know Dan Radcliffe had blue, not green, eyes but I'm sure JKR took a question on eyes at some interview or another realtibely recently to which her answer suggested they were impostant in magic: see: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/JKRWorldBookDay2004.html (link from lexicon on sources of info - world book day interview 2004) "" ... Sussie: Does Harry's eyecolour become important in the future books, like we've heard? JK Rowling replies -> No comment! ... " Certainly, in the books it is stated (several times IIRC) and seems highly significant that Harry looks exactly like his father EXCEPTING Lily's green eyes. From katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 24 13:47:45 2004 From: katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk (kate_bossetti) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:47:45 -0000 Subject: Hermione's popularity In-Reply-To: <003801c23408$2b27b340$0987aa41@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: > You know, I've noticed an assumption on-list for a while now. Basically, > because _we_ almost all love Hermione, we assume that her classmates do, as > well. But do we have any proof that, other than the Trio, she really has > many friends? > > Firstly---she comes across at first as a know-it-all and a show-off in > class. Whether rightly or wrongly, most children don't care for this sort > of behavior in their peers. [snip] > > Secondly---she has not only threatened to go to the school authorities about > rulebreaking, but has actually gone to them about Harry's new broom. Again, > like it or not, the average child's view of "tattle-tales" is extremely > negative; the usual POV on them is akin to prisoners' views of snitches, and > some of the same dynamic applies. [snip] > > Thirdly---AFAICR, she doesn't seem to have girlfriends, much. [snip] Well, I think she's kind of person that achieves what she wants, and ? in my opinion ? she doesn't much care about being popular ? that's the reason she's not. She's much more grown up then her classmates, Ron, even Harry. Often they don't understand her and precise remarks she makes about different people or situations (e.g. Harry's broom from Sirius, understanding why Sirius is so keen about Dumbledore's Army ? `You don't think he's kind of living through us?') ? remarks that make Ron said `you do sound just like my mother'. I'm sure you can remember some event from your childhood when you couldn't understand your parents' reasons for make you doing something, and now you understand and agree with them. And that's the point I'm trying to make: she's not only intelligent, but she also has something more: emotional intelligence. She knows that being popular is no worth her effort. "kate_bossetti" From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 14:26:26 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:26:26 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <001601c4a196$4d5d4120$11c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113784 > DuffyPoo: >They could, quite easily have bought one set for F&G to share since >they would be in the same class, and presumably doing homework at >the same time (yeah, right!) frugalarugala: Actually, if my own experiance sharing textbooks means anything, F&G should be the only two who couldn't share--if they had to each have their own at class time. That's assuming the 4-5 sets are all the same. > DuffyPoo: >Fred and George were far enough along by then that they wouldn't >need 'A Beginner's Guide to Transfiguration' yet Molly bought Ginny >a second hand copy when she could easily have used the twins' (they >would have been using 'Intermediate Transfiguration' by then). frugalarugala: Maybe Molly hocks their used books to get what they need next. Or maybe it was a different textbook or edition. > DuffyPoo: >The Weasleys must think it important for each child to have their >own set of books, to start their own personal wizarding library, so >to speak. frugalarugala: Or more likely Lockhart is shamelessly requiring that each student have their own set to boost his book sales. From u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au Fri Sep 24 15:05:00 2004 From: u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au (colbernays) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:05:00 -0000 Subject: How does Snape know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113785 potioncat wrote: > In OoP Snape is starting Occlumency classes and comments that Harry > has some skill in resisting the Imperius Curse, comparing it to > resisting Legilimency. > > How did Snape know Harry could resist Imperius? If C!M was working > as Moody under DD's instructions, he could have reported it DD. But > why would C!M tell DD? And why didn't LV know that Harry could > resist it? Do you think Crouch!Moody forgot to tell him? It seems to be common knowledge what happened in Crouch!Moody's class as even Umbridge appears to know: In OotP 'Professor Umbridge' 'It is my understanding that my predeccessor not only performed illegal curses in front of you, he actually performed them on you.' Dolores said in their first DADA lesson. It would seem, that however the info got out (as others have mentioned the kids would talk about it a lot), LV was about the only one not in the loop on Harry's abillities. It would appear Crouch and LV didn't have much communication throughout GoF, which means they had a very busy couple of weeks between the Quidditch Cup and the start of school to plan everything. Colin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:31:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:31:21 -0000 Subject: Why dislike Hagrid? (Was: Snape and Neville) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: snip. > So to each his or her own taste in characters, and to each a valid, > canon-based interpretation determined by our own powers of observation > and deduction and not by what the author wants us to think. > Alla: Agreed, but to me the arguments are stronger, if it is supported by authoritarial intent. Let's take Snape for example (Ha! Did you think I would choose anybody else? :o)) So, we argue about "Sadistic v Sarcastic". Say we both support our arguments by canon, even by the same canon, but interpret it differently, which happens quite often. JKR then says that "he is a sadistic teacher". Granted, you can argue that what author says and how author conveyed it are two different things. You can argue that JKR did not manage to protray sadist in the classroom ( IMO, she totally did, but that is beside the point). But the books are still her creation and I do not think that authoritarial intent should be completely disregarded when we interpret the text, unless of course we absolutely do not see what author sees in his/her work. Of course I read Elkins' arguments about "subversive readings of the canon" and enjoyed it (it is impossible not to enjoy Elkins' work, IMO), but when push comes to shove, I am one of those readers, who finds author's intention to be the important one. I LIKE being skillfully manipulated by the talented author into being on the "same page" with his/her. It does not mean that I will like or dislike exactly the same characters JKR does (I am quite indifferent to Hagrid), but in general, I cannot disregard her intent. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 24 20:33:14 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040924203314.45300.qmail@web61109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113787 Hello. Kim here. Interesting discussions generate more questions (again, I hope I'm not repeating what's been asked and discussed before): Wouldn't the old magic that Harry possesses, transferred to him by Lily when she died, be the same magic in the room in the Dept. of Mysteries that Dumbledore tells Harry about in OoP in his office after the battle at the MoM? DD tells Harry that it contains the most powerful magic of all (love?) and so wouldn't that magic be able to trump all other magic, including the Avada Kedavra curse ("love conquers all")? During the battle, when Lord Voldemort possesses Harry in an attempt to get DD to kill him (also seems to me that LV has a kind of unconscious suicide wish here), Harry sends LV packing by recalling his (Harry's) love for Sirius. One might read into this that Harry needs to "invoke" the ancient magic to protect himself as opposed to being automatically protected by it all the time. Does LV know about the room? Here's a speculation: Maybe the way for Harry to conquer LV once and for all is to enter the room (provided he figures out how to open the door...) and get LV to follow him into it. Voldemort might be overwhelmed by the power of love and vaporize completely (bye bye forever, Dark Lord) or else be overwhelmed by the power of love and come back out purring like a sweet harmless old pussycat... (for my part I wager things go some other cleverer way of JKR's devising) Other questions puzzling me (face it, tons of things in the books puzzle me): When someone kills you with AK, your body would still be lying there afterwards, right? So at GH when James and Lily died, did someone come around afterwards and bury their bodies, which would mean Harry, et al. would have been able to visit his parents' graves someplace? Also, when Sirius went through the veil and apparently died, what happened to his body? Which might suggest that he's not exactly dead... Any comments are greatly appreciated. Kim From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Sep 24 21:35:29 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:35:29 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113788 --- Gregory Lynn said: > > I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr > Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. > > There's very little direct evidence to support the conclusion, I state > that at the outset. What prompted my little theory is merely the fact > that Mr. Borgin is described as having greasy hair as is Snape. > > [snip] From what I can tell, we get the following > out of that scene: > > 1) The downside of floo powder > 2) An introduction to the seedier side of wizard commerce > 3) An introduction to the Hand of Glory > 4) An introduction to Lucius Malfoy with characterization as an > arrogant snothead > 5) Evidence that Draco Malfoy has an unnatural obsession with Harry > 6) Introduction to Mr Borgin > 7) Evidence that the Malfoys are dark wizards with nasty secrets to sell Karen L., Have you considered that Mr. Borgin may be one of the DE's that LV doesn't name in the circle in the graveyard? Borgin, being in the trade of Dark art "memoriabillia" and his comment regarding pure bloods. " 'It's the same all over,' said Mr. Borgin, in his oily voice. 'Wizard blood is counting for less everywhere-'" (COS, UK ed. page 80) IMO, This indicates that he at least agrees with LV about Pure blood. I find it highly unlikely that Snape is Borgin, or vise versa. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 22:41:06 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:41:06 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <20040924202733.93973.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113789 Magda wrote that Molly was "hateful" to give Ron sandwiches and sweaters in varieties and colours he didn't like, and dress robes that would expose him to mockery by the school. I've long thought it's very odd of Molly to repeatedly give him maroon sweaters and socks when he hates that colour--maroon woll can't be any cheaper than other colours, can it? and the sweaters that she makes are probably the only brand-new clothes he gets, which compouds the insult. The sandwiches I can excuse--with four kids going off to school that year, plus one still at home, I can understand her not having time to make a different kind of food to suit each one's likes and dislikes. In a big family, "like it or lump it" is a common attitude toward food preferences. But the sweaters *have* to be made one by one, and she's already buying different colours for each child, so it's hard to grasp why she keeps giving him maroon. Unless he simply hasn't mentioned that he doesn't care for it--which is a remote possibility, since he is aware that his mother has a lot on her plate, and he's not a big complainer. But the sweaters do seem to disrupt the image of Molly as harried and strict but loving--if she really cared, you'd think she'd notice that his entire bedroom is orange, so maybe he'd prefer an orange sweater. (I can't quite handle the thought of orange dress robes.) As far as the dress robes go, I agree that it's a little cruel. I can see Molly thinking, "Well, he's a boy, and boys don't really care much what they wear"--but after raising six of them, you'd think she'd realize that they *do* care what they wear if it makes them stand out from their peers. She could at least have taken off the lace, since she'd probably have done a neater job of it than Ron did. And it's hard to believe that the maroon set were the *least* offensive set of used dress robes available. Alex From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 24 23:24:12 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:24:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113790 Alla wrote : > > Very true, Nora. I don't see Draco, especially after OOP, ever > defying Lucius and leaving Malfoys' nest. I don't think that he > cannot, but I think that JKR wrote him in the corner. I've heard this contention before, so I'm not putting you on the spot here, but I'm a little unclear on *why* Draco was considered up for grabs evil-wise up to book four but book five puts the nail in the coffin. He is runing out of time to see the Light if he's going to, but he doesn't really seem any *worse* in book five than he is in the previous books. So, for Alla and everyone else who thinks Redeemed!Draco is foreclosed by book five, why? Another thing about Draco's Nastiness: whenever we see him being mean to Harry et al., he's always surrounded by a group of laughing Slytherins. Now, it's possible that they're just sucking up, but it seems equally possible that his Housemates regard him as a bit of a class clown. In his head (which we don't have access to in the books), it could be that he isn't *trying* to be cruel to Harry, Neville, etc., he's trying to be *funny* to his Housemates, and simply doesn't care (or notice) whether he's *also* being mean or not. When Sirius and James are mean to Snape, they do it *mainly* to amuse each other. (There's textev for this, but I can't remember where the actual passage is. Sirius says that he was mean to Snape mainly to give James a laugh, or maybe the other way around.) Now, of course, I've come down very hard on James and Sirius for being mean to Snape, even if they didn't mean to cause him permanent psychological trauma (which I'd say they have, though I'm also sure they had no idea, and perhaps if someone in authority had sat them down and told them it *really wasn't funny* in strong enough terms for the message to get through, they'd have stopped). So it would be hypocritical of me to say that it's OK for Draco to pick on Harry and his friends if he's just trying to be funny. But I've also said that doing bad things doesn't make James bad, provided he repents and changes his ways later (which apparently he did). I don't see Draco as having necessarilly crossed the line between being an "arrogant berk" and being ESE! He doesn't *have* to change--plenty of people are arrogant berks in school and continue being arrogant berks for the rest of their lives. But some grow out of it. Draco is still only 15--I for one am *substantially* less obnoxious than I was when I was that age. Now, there is the last major Malfoy scene in OoP (p. 851 in the US hardback). He says "You're dead, Potter," (Which, I want to emphasize, Harry considers insufficiently threatening to respond with a joke: "Funny, you'd think I'd have stopped walking around.") And, "I'm going to make you pay for what you did to my father." I think reading this scene depends on whether we see Draco at this point as a child or as an adult. If we read him as an adult, he is choosing up sides--he's going to follow in his father's footsteps and exact revenge on Harry for ruining his life. When he says "I'm going to make you pay" he means he's going to kill him or take away someone he loves so that Harry will feel the way he feels. (Of course, Harry already *has* just lost someone he loves...) In this reading, while Redeemed!Draco is not *entirely* foreclosed, non-ESE!Draco would require a one-hundred-eighty-degree reversal. However, if we read Draco as a child, then his reaction is psychologically realistic but doesn't necessarilly mean that he's going to "make Harry pay" in the potentially lethal way we would expect if we're reading him as an adult. When a parent is arrested, it's normal for a child to respond with rage against authority figures or anyone else the child sees as responsible for the parent's arrest (including victims or witnesses), in order to avoid the psychologically unbearable realization that the parent chose to break the law and is responsible for his/her own arrest. It doesn't matter that Malfoy Sr. is a Bad Guy-- child!Draco would be *compelled* to absolve him of responsibility and hold Harry (Lucius's victim) responsible instead. One even sees this dynamic when a child's father goes to jail for beating his mother--the child might say "I hate you, I'm going to kill you for making Dad go to jail." So Draco could just be expressing his (entirely normal, if misdirected) anger, rather than declaring a serious intent to "make Harry pay." *If* Draco's response is childish rather than adult, he *could* realize (perhaps over the summer) that Lucius did, after all, try to kill Harry, so perhaps Harry oughtn't to be blamed for his going to jail. On the other hand, as we've seen in this very series, it's possible for grudges born out of childish thinking to be carried into adulthood, where they have real consequences. I'm not at all sure which of these readings is correct. At age 15, Draco's thinking could be childish or adult. I will note, however, that we've no evidence that Draco is particularly mature for his age. Rather the contrary, I'd say. Alex From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:43:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:43:12 -0000 Subject: Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113791 Rob wrote: > > I'm playing around with the idea that Luna has been introduced as an all-purpose opposition to Hermione. I figure this character is required because Hermione's other nemeses (is that even a word?), namely Trelawney and Skeeter, don't seem to be taking anything more than a bit part in the action, and Hermione definitely deserves better than that. > > > > Luna, on the other hand, provides this opposition in spades. Luna is an... 'intuitive' thinker, shall we say, vs. Hermione's straight up rationalist approach to the world. I suspect she will provide romantic competition for Hermione vis a vis Ron. And as flakey as she presents, Luna is no pushover. Pat responded: > > I love Luna's character. She does seem to fill in the missing > pieces of personality that Hermione lacks. It was fun to watch > Hermione's attitude toward her change--at first she was entirely > annoyed with anything Luna did or said, but by the end, even though > she thought she was still a bit wacky, she refrained from making a > snide comment when Luna said where she and her dad were going on > holiday. > > I don't know about anything romantic with Luna/Harry or Luna/Ron. > But I do think she will be the person who gives Harry permission, so > to speak, to open up about his grief as well as his anger. Hermione > is very perceptive--as we saw with her explanation to the boys about > what girls are thinking and feeling. But when Harry has a problem, > she's ready to jump in and fix it. Luna seems more likely to just > let him talk, with a few comments to let him know that she > understands--such as their conversation at the end about ghosts and > about the voices behind the veil. Right now, Harry needs a good > listener, and I think that is going to be Luna. Carol adds: While I don't "love" Luna, I think she's an important counterbalance to Hermione. (I won't call her a foil because she doesn't have enough traits in common with Hermione for the term to apply, and she's not a nemesis, either, since they're not really enemies--more like opposing forces in Harry's life.) Certainly she's intended as a recognizable antithesis of Hermione, but I think she may also have a role to play in helping Hermione to develop a more balanced view of reality. Even if authors were infallible, books would not provide the answers to every question in life. Some things have to be experienced, not read about, to be learned or understood, and some truths defy rationality and empiricism and can only be "learned" through intuition or a leap of faith. I'm surprised that Hermione so readily accepted the existence of ghosts, which her Muggle books must have taught her were figments of the imagination. Luna almost certainly has a better grasp of what death might mean than Hermione does. I'd like to see her in Trelawney's class (although we won't, unless she skips a year and is moved to Gryffindor). What would she see in the crystal ball, and how would she interpret it? Maybe she's a Seer, the Heir of Cassandra Trelawney. ;-) In any case, I expect to see Hermione learn some sort of lesson through Luna, something that makes her less skeptical and judgmental and more tolerant of intuitive as opposed to reason-based thinking. No, I don't think Luna's father's Quibbler articles are anything other than the WW equivalent of the National Inquirer (a sensational newspaper with headlines like "Alien Pregnant with Elvis's Twins"), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Luna and her father bring home a crumple-horned snorkak over the summer and it ends up as the subject of study in Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures class. It would just prove that books in the WW can be as mistaken in their ideas of which creatures are real and which are mythical as the RW books Hermione must have read as a child were about unicorns and dragons. Carol From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Sep 24 23:40:59 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:40:59 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <001601c4a283$a6da0ce0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113792 Charme: > AMEN to JKR's clarification of the "whole sacrifice thing." Indeed, I have > often thought that all these theories I read are almost missing something I > can't quite place my finger on, like perhaps there was much less planning of > Lily sacrificing herself with premeditation from anyone, including DD, than > some people think. What if she simply jumped in the way at the last moment, > and fortunately in JKR's world, DD could use this to his advantage in the > ancient magic protection factor? Let's put it this way: how would anyone > who was not there know what *really* happened? Maybe the curse intended for > Harry passed through his mother and bounced off him... Karen L., My opinion of the entire "sacrifice" thing, was that it was definately an unplanned, maternal instinct of protecting one's child. How could DD and Lily have preplanned the sacrifice? They did not Know that LV was on his way. The prophecy was known, but they did not know that it was about Harry, it could have been about Neville. Harry's name was added to the prophecy After LV's attack on the Potter's! And After the attack DD used a charm to *seal* the protection that Harry received through his mother's sacrifice of herself. But the one thing that does bother me that was touched on was about James' sacrifice of himself. Did his sacrifice of himself for his family increase the protection that Harry received? In other words did HP receive double protection because both his parents died trying to protect him? Just one of my many random thoughts. Any ideas, responses? Karen From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:10:08 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:10:08 -0000 Subject: JKR and a clever allusion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113793 Recently, while re-reading CoS for the umpteenth time, I discoverd something new, an allusion I'd never noticed before, that I thought I'd share with all you wonderful people. It happens when Ron and Harry find TMR's diary, and Ron is warning Harry about how dangerous books can be in the WW. "And some old witch in Bath had a book that you could *never stop reading*! You just had to wander around with your nose in it, trying to do everything one-handed" (CoS, UK paperback ed, pg. 172). Now, one of JKR's self-proclaimed favorite authors is Jane Austen, who happens to be from Bath. And JKR has mentioned how she couldn't put Jane Austen books down, once she starts reading them! But, then we all knew that our favorite authors have 'magical' abilities with words. Anyway, I though it was clever and I'd share it, to prove (as we all know) that there's always something new to discover in the HP books, and (as we all knew, as well) these books are definitely not just for children! From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:35:03 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:35:03 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113794 > professorfionafawkes says: > My theory is that since Molly takes such a fancy to Lockhart, that > maybe she doesn't have so much hesitation to purchase Lockhart's > books for the kids. She herself swears by the sets that she has > (thinking back to her looking up what Lockhart has to say about de- > gnoming the garden when this has obviously been done often enough at > the Burrow not to warrant needing to look it up every time.) Just my > two knuts on the matter. Yeah, and look how effective Lockhart's de-gnoming advise is! The little beggars just keep coming back! It makes me think of how many self help books in the real world are just pretty bits of marketing hype, containing little of real practical value for the readers. They serve for little more than mediums for convincing the gullible just what a wonderful smart bloke the author is. -cunning spirit From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:59:44 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:59:44 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > >> > I've heard this contention before, so I'm not putting you on the spot > here, but I'm a little unclear on *why* Draco was considered up for > grabs evil-wise up to book four but book five puts the nail in the > coffin. He is runing out of time to see the Light if he's going to, > but he doesn't really seem any *worse* in book five than he is in the > previous books. So, for Alla and everyone else who thinks > Redeemed!Draco is foreclosed by book five, why? > > Alla: Hi, Alex! I cannot speak for others, but my thinking about Draco being in the corner evil-wise after OOP is more metathinking, than any particular event. I just feel that if JKR decides to change Draco in book 6, I will NOT believe it. Two books left, that is it and NO hint whatsoever dropped in any of the previous books that Draco has a fighting chance to see the light. Am, I being clear? I wil simply find Draco's redemption to be sloppy writing with only two books left. Much as I hate Draco and I consider him being more than simply bad kid, but kid who already committed some "evil" acts, I would welcome a carefully written story of his redemption (he is only fifteen indeed), but I don't think JKR has time for it. Add to it her remarks at last appearance in Eddinburgh about girls being in love with Draco Malfoy, when they really should be in love with Harry and I think Draco is doomed, doomed, doomed. :)) (Please note, I am NOT telling anybody that they should not fall in love with Draco :o) and for all my adoration of Harry, I am really too old to fall in love with him :o). I would LOVE to "mother" Harry though :)) By the way, I completely agree with you that Draco's reaction "I will make you pay" is completely natural as child's whose father was taken away from him. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 01:02:39 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:02:39 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113796 > > Valky: > > Just to answer this, You might notice that the English meaning of snivelling does not require that the sniveller be crying. Just to > > be "weak and unpleasant" which are soft ways of saying that the > > person is percieved to lack virtue. > > Potioncat: > I understand that. In my first example below, I did not mean to > imply that Severus had to actually be in tears. In America > sniveling, as an insult, has a whining, complaining, running to the teacher/boss implication. But it doesn't really apply to virtues in general. If you are telling me it does in Britain, then I'll accept that. Valky: Well in a way I am not actually saying that it applies to virtues in general. Oh oh now I am gonna confuse you.... sorry. I am saying that in the culture that I was raised into by my british family, the fact that someone does whine complain and run to teacher is like a cardinal sign of lacking several virtues. Such as valor, justice, charity, honesty. Like I said it would be difficult to understand if you weren't subject to the standard first hand. And very difficult to explain. Put it this way, the way I was raised, the *good* ones will chin up and face it, and that is that. Potioncat: I am starting to think that you and I are saying the same > thing in different words. Your phrase "to lack virtue" does confuse me a bit. I certainly would not call someone sniveling if I liked the person, but a sniveling person might still be a virtuous person in other respects. > Valky: I don't have PoA on me because I lent it, but if you could please refer to the Shrieking Shack where Pettigrew pleads desperately for mercy. Now _that_ is snivelling where I come from. Does that help? Potioncat > Please don't take this as sarcasm, but I see you live in Australia. Did you grow up in England? Because, although Australia and England are more closely related than America and England, I'm sure there are subtle differences between England's English and Australia's English. I'll bet there are subtle differences between London's English and York's English. > Valky: Not at all Potioncat, naturally you would need to question what authority I have to make claims like this and your point is well taken. As a matter of fact AFAIK there *are* differences between Londoners and Yorkers, there are caste differences between one Londoners English and another Londoners English, as you probably know. For me personally I am relaying, what I know of, a culture that my family brought with them from England. One that was from the same era as Sirius and James childhood, and I am supposing probably JKR's childhood too. That, I am supposing, is what she refers to when writing the marauders story. JKR and I are fairly close in age she is only a few years my senior so she probably is referring to cultural standards much like what I was raised to. And that is where I feel I have a little of the same understanding of the colloquialisms that Jo uses. Of course I may be far far wrong, as you have pointed out, but I have my doubts about that. If I had POA, I would look through the shrieking shack to see if anyone calls Pettigrew snivelling, just to be sure, but I am afraid I can't. > > Potioncat: > Now, to add to the mix, I looked in an older dictionary and found > another meaning of snivel that jumped out at me, given the Pensieve scene. > > snivel: verb 3. To run at the nose. 4.To utter with with sniveling or sniffing. noun 2. Nasal mucus. > > 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." > > and a bit later: > > "Wait for what?" said Sirius coolly. "What are you going to do, > Snivelly, wipe your nose on us?" > > So, did Snivellus come from Severus in tears, Severus tattling or > Severus suffering allergies? > Valky: In my experience, it is both. If Severus has a greasy nose *and* is a sniveller it makes it all the *funnier*. Potioncat: > And is it just me, or does Sirius sound a lot like Draco? Valky: I don't think so, but perhaps we will find that he is. The main differences I see is that Sirius is a rebel where Draco is a follower. Sirius has a better sense of humour, in spite of his crudeness towards Snape, most people found his antics quite good fun. Whereas Draco has *nothing* beyond the crudeness. Among other things but I think those are the stand out differences. And I think we will find that Sirius wouldn't run to teacher........ ever............... From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 01:29:39 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:29:39 -0000 Subject: Homorphus charm & Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kate_bossetti" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" > wrote: > > > In COS Lockhart discusses his various achievements with his > students including performing the Homorphus charm on the Wagga Wagga Werewolf which changes the WW back into a man thereby delivering the village from the monthly terror of Werewolf attacks. snip > > While we know Lockhart was not the wizard to perform the Homorphus charm, there had to be fact to the possibility of it being done or he would not be famous for having done it. So why is Lupin so resigned to his fate and not wandering the world searching for someone who can perform this charm? Why hasn't Sirius or Dumbledore > helped their friend more. snip snip > "kate_bossetti": Well, maybe this wizard, as well as that charm was only Lockhart's imagination's product to make his book more interesting. He tells Harry and Ron about stealing other peoples' memories and presents > them as his own, so you have to agree we can call him a liar. Perhaps > he made that spell up, especially when you suggest that only this > particular wizard could perform that particular magic. mhbobbin: I think the Homorphus Charm was included for a yet-to-be-revealed reason connected to Lupin. Wouldn't it be too happy if Lupin was cured? JKR deftly weaves this clue into Cos long before we know there's a werewolf in the story. And consistent with Lupin's tragic life (so far), the cure for his illness is buried in the ruined memories of two characters, only one of whom Harry knows. Assuming there's any truth to the story of the Wagga Wagga Werewolf. That's alot of hoops to jump through... We know little about Lupin, what he does with his missing years, missing months etc. Perhaps he is aware that Lockhart has written about a cure in one of his books. Perhaps not. Harry may be will put two and two together before the end. Perhaps Lupin is seeking for the cure, to the ends of the earth. Many posters have indicated that they think Lupin is not going to survive the end of the story. I kinda agree. But maybe...there's hope that Lupin will have a happy ending. NOT!!! He'll find the cure, just as Death Eaters surround him and vaporize him!!! mhbobbin From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 01:40:24 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:40:24 -0000 Subject: Prophecy - Thrice Defied? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113798 ---> Carol wrote: >> I think we agreed that the "defiances" were not necessarily physical > conflicts (duels). In fact, they were almost certainly defiances of > Voldemort's will (or his supposed authority) rather than some sort of > defeat, as some readers have supposed. Beyond that, I don't think we > reached any consensus. > >Angie writes: Thanks for the link. Yeah, I didn't assume that it necessarily something big and dramatic. Still don't understand, though, how the Potters and the Longbottoms got second and third chances to defy LV. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 01:44:58 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:44:58 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113799 Alex wrote: And it's > hard to believe that the maroon set were the *least* offensive set of > used dress robes available. > Angie replies: Even if Maroon was all she could get, couldn't they have dyed it? Surely, they know about dyes! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 01:45:46 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:45:46 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113800 > Carol: > Sirius, who is not the best person to guess what is going on in > Severus's mind, tells Harry that he thinks the young Snape was jealous > of James's Quidditch talent. But I doubt that Severus ever expressed > any such sentiments to him or to James. He was not exactly in their > confidence, or they in his. James was a Quidditch hero, a renowned and > popular school athlete, so Sirius is *guessing* that Severus was > jealous. (Quite possibly it was James's *popularity* rather than his > Quidditch talent that Severus was jealous of--if he was jealous at > all. There were clearly other reasons for his intense dislike of > James.) We can't take Sirius's guess as fact (canon) here. Neri: Actually, Lupin had the same hypothesis about Snape even before Sirius: "We were in the same year, you know, and we ? er ? didn't like each other very much. He especially disliked James. Jealous, I think, of James's talent on the Quidditch field" (PoA, Ch. 18). Of course, both Sirius and Lupin might be wrong about it, but it would be a reasonable conjecture for them to make if they know that Snape was in the Slytherin team. It is also revealing that current-day Prof. Snape takes a lot of interest in his house team. In fact, whenever McGonagall becomes obsessive regarding the Gryffindor team she makes some remark revealing that it is because Snape is goading her about it. Also, when Snape trashes James in front of Harry he says: "How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter. He too was exceedingly arrogant. A small amount of talent on the Quidditch field made him think he was a cut above the rest of us too. Strutting around the place with his friends and admirers " (PoA, Ch. 14). You could have interpreted this as the typical sneer of the Professor towards athletes who are not academically inclined, if you didn't know that Severus takes so much interest in Quidditch and that James was also a star student. So what is Snape's thing about Quidditch? > Carol: > As for the idea that the Slytherin gang might have been a Quidditch > team, that appears to be pure speculation at the moment. (Besides, a > Quidditch team has seven members. With Lucius Malfoy gone, the > Slytherin gang would have had six members that we know of: Bellatrix > Black, the two Lestrange brothers, Evan Rosier, Wilkes, and Severus > Snape. Who's the seventh? Macnair? I don't think he's named.) Neri: You forgot Avery, whom Sirius mentioned as one of the Slytherin gang, but OTOH Sirius didn't mention the second Lestrange brother. Another player could be Regulus Black, although he'd be even younger than Severus. His favorite cousin Bella might have let him into the team if she was the captain. Narcissa Black is also a possibility, though my privet impression is that she's not one to risk messing her hair. Of course this is all highly speculative, but there are some indications that the "Slyhtherin gang" was a multi-year gang (as you know well; I think you were the first to notice that Bellatrix must be at least two years older than Sirius) and the Quidditch team might be a possible way for such a gang to form. There is no need to assume a 100% overlap between the team and the gang. There are other ways for a multi-year gang to form. It could be that these kids were all active in some kind of a pro-Voldemort political youth organization. It seems that at that time the LV's party was a legitimate political force, of the type that loves recruiting teenagers. We somehow assume that these kids turned out Death Eaters because they were together in the same gang, but it could be the other way around: they were in the gang because of their political inclinations. The other way to form the gang is that there was a secret club, similar to the present-day DA, for learning the Dark Arts, perhaps out of anger towards DD who elected not to teach it in Hogwarts, while wizarding schools like Durmstrang do have it in their curriculum. This Dark Arts club would probably be sponsored by LV, and it would be an obvious way for a strange reclusive type like young Severus to become popular and make friends. Of course, all the above three explanations: the sportive, the political and the military, are not mutually exclusive. Neri, who takes advantage of Yom Kippur to appologize to anybody in this list he has offended during the last year. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 01:56:52 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:56:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chs512001" wrote: > New to the group and couldn't find in archive any theories on why > Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt (as opposed to > anything else). I'm thinking that a lighting bolt or maybe some form > of lightning may be V's ultimate doom. Any other opinions? > > Chuck suggest you read: http://www.cosforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16412.html and similar From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Sat Sep 25 02:21:49 2004 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:21:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhar... Message-ID: <1c4.1ebf22a7.2e86303d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113802 Molly thinks Ron looks good in maroon. Ron's opinion is irrelevant. It's not that she's trying to embarass him, she's trying to help him because he doesn't know any better and she does. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 02:24:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:24:22 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113803 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: In my view (only my view), it's just > that I think it's quite plausible that there *is* something special > about Harry and that, yes, the prophecy could be interpreted to mean > Harry was *born* with the power to defeat Voldy. > > No, I don't have AN incident in canon which I can point to to > say, "THIS is it! Now I know!" But I think there are possible clues to Harry's "specialness." SNAPE doesn't buy it, perhaps, but I'm not sure I put much stock in this assessment of Harry. :-) > > I don't think an interpretation that Harry was born w/ special power > (s) means necessarily that he would have inadvertently finished off > Voldy in the GH attack, either. In my view of things, Harry isn't SO gifted that nothing could touch him from birth. But I think there > might be *something* exceptional about him which: 1) gave him an > added protection that night; and 2) means he is more capable [or > *potentially* more capable] than your average wizard. > > I actually agree with Snape that Harry, at 15, may well not be ready > for a final showdown with Voldy--he will need to focus and work > hard. But I think that he has some natural talents & abilities that > demonstrate he's not an average wizard. Think of how he can produce > that patronus that so impresses everyone in the Wizengamot and at his OWL practical exam. Think of how, under pressure [which would work AGAINST some and FOR others], he is able to Accio his broom to him in the TWT, put up the Protego charm during Occlumency lessons, send away a mass of Dementors descending upon himself & Sirius, exhibit amazing flying skill in the TWT and Quidditch, hang on in a wand duel with Voldy. He is good enough that his peers want HIM to be the leader in DA. I'm not saying that he's the only one who can do > things--NOR that he's exceptional at everything [clearly NOT true re: potions & transfiguration]--but that when it comes to DADA skills, at least, he seems to be able to learn quickly and demonstrate advanced skill. > > In sum, no, I don't have "proof" and so I don't expect to sway your > view that there wasn't anything special about Harry at birth. I do > agree with you that Harry did nothing deliberately at GH. But I also > don't think there's any "proof" that those of us who think there's > Something About Harry have to give up that belief just yet. Carol responds: I think we have a blend of Nature and Nurture here. Harry's parents were a powerful witch and wizard, so it would be logical (though not inevitable) for him to inherit some of their powers. His skill in Quidditch, and at flying in general, is clearly an inheritance from James. Parseltongue, OTOH, is a clear legacy from Voldemort, as are whatever powers are connected with his scar. Then there's his skill with the Patronus charm. At least two factors are operating here in addition to whatever inborn or Voldemort-acquired powers he may have. One is special training, lessons from Lupin. The other is the fact that his boggart happens to be a Dementor, which makes it possible for him to be able to practice his Patronus on a realistic Dementor substitute, an advantage the other students never have. When Hermione, who produces a fine Patronus in practice, is confronted by a real Dementor, she faints. Harry himself doesn't do much better. Future!Harry casts his Patronus after having seen himself cast it in that godawful confusing time-turning sequence. He is not actually in danger from a Dementor when he casts it, though Past!Harry is (along with hermione and Sirius). With all that practice behind him, it's no surprise that he's able to drive away the Dementors when they show up on Privet Drive. As for the Patronus on his OWL exam, there was no Dementor (or boggart) to face. Ernie Macmillan, or maybe even Neville, could have done it. Anyway, my point is that Harry's experience (and Dumbledore's and even Snape's training) is helping to make him ready to face Voldemort. Even Crouch!Moody, who meant to deliver him up to his "master," helped to prepare him. and we haven't yet seen all the powers that were given to him when the Avada Kedavra backfired and somehow, Protegolike, spilled those powers into Harry. I think the best evidence that this viewpoint is valid is the quotation from OoP that Susana provided in Message 113557: Dumbledore is speaking to Harry about Voldemort: "He saw himself in you before he had ever seen you, and *in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far*--something that neither your parents, nor Neville's parents, ever achieved." (OoP Am. ed. 842) So, if Dumbledore is right, Harry wasn't born with the power to defeat Voldemort. Voldemort, ironically, gave him that power himself. Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 25 02:50:56 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:50:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113804 Carol: > With all that practice behind him, it's no surprise that he's able > to drive away the Dementors when they show up on Privet Drive. SSSusan: I don't agree with this. I think it's still amazing that he can do it, and I think the reaction of the folks at his trial shows that they're surprised, too. If you re-read that scene, it was VERY difficult for Harry to manage to conjure the patronus, and I think it truly IS advanced magic for someone so young. Carol: > Anyway, my point is that Harry's experience (and Dumbledore's and > even Snape's training) is helping to make him ready to face > Voldemort. Even Crouch!Moody, who meant to deliver him up to > his "master," helped to prepare him. and we haven't yet seen all > the powers that were given to him when the Avada Kedavra backfired > and somehow, Protegolike, spilled those powers into Harry. > > I think the best evidence that this viewpoint is valid is the > quotation from OoP that Susana provided in Message 113557: > > Dumbledore is speaking to Harry about Voldemort: > "He saw himself in you before he had ever seen you, and *in marking > you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave > you powers, and a future, which have fitted you to escape him not > once, but four times so far*--something that neither your parents, > nor Neville's parents, ever achieved." (OoP Am. ed. 842) > > So, if Dumbledore is right, Harry wasn't born with the power to > defeat Voldemort. Voldemort, ironically, gave him that power > himself. SSSusan: Yes, DD & Snape & Lupin, et al., are training Harry up, but why does that have to mean that he doesn't have special power? HAVING the power doesn't mean an automatic understanding of how to use it. To counter the quote you've provided, I offer up these, also from DD in OotP: "...you will remember the events of your first year at Hogwarts quite as clearly as I do. You rose magnificently to the challenge that faced you, and sooner--much sooner--than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face with Voldemort. ...You fought a man's fight." [US hardback, 837] "And so we entered your second year at Hogwarts. And once again you met challenges even grown wizards have never faced. Once again you acquitted yourself beyond my wildest dreams." [838] And, most importantly, to me, about his 3rd year: "Young you might be, but you had proved you were *exceptional.*" [839, emphasis added] 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. Siriusly Snapey Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 02:53:05 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:53:05 -0000 Subject: "Why didn't Dumbledore try to kill Voldemort...?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > > Carol adds: > But we seem to be forgetting McGonagall's words about Dumbledore in > SS/PS chapter one: that he has powers he's too noble to use. Even if he could be sure of killing Voldemort with an Avada Kedavra, he > wouldn't do it, IMO, because it's an evil curse, an Unforgiveable > Curse, and Unforgiveable Curses, as we've seen through Voldemort and Barty Jr., corrupt the caster. Quite possibly Dumbledore is also > illustrating *mercy* as an example to Harry (who has used it himself in the case of Wormtail). I won't argue this point since I may be projecting Gandalf onto Dumbledore, but I do think it's possible. > > At any rate, even though Dumbledore's *primary* reason for not killing Voldemort is that only Harry will (one day) be able to destroy him, I think his motives are (as usual) more complex than they appear. And I also think the scene foreshadows a complex final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, which will not, IMO, involve an AK or any Unforgiveable Curse from Harry. (snip) and it would blur the line between Good and Evil on the other. > > Carol Tonks here: I agree that DD can kill LV but chooses not to, because there is more to the story than that. Harry is the one to defeat LV and he will do it without using an unforgivable curse. He will do it with love, as I have said before. And it has to be Harry because LV has marked him, but also because Harry is a half-blood. Harry's being a half-blood is more important to the story than most think. Also it is not odd that DD and Gandalf might have simular mindsets. They are great wizards and great wizards that are good wizards tend to think along the same lines. And yes, it is true that the use of evil in whatever form comes back to the user. In real magic they have a saying "what you give out comes back to you 3 fold". It also goes with the idea of not returning evil for evil. I think JKR will show that before the series is over. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 03:25:10 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:25:10 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > Magda wrote that Molly was "hateful" to give Ron sandwiches and > sweaters in varieties and colours he didn't like, and dress robes that would expose him to mockery by the school. > > I've long thought it's very odd of Molly to repeatedly give him maroon sweaters and socks when he hates that colour The sandwiches I can excuse--with four kids going off to school that > year, plus one still at home, I can understand her not having time to make a different kind of food to suit each one's likes and dislikes. Unless he simply hasn't mentioned that he doesn't care for it-- which is a remote possibility, if she really cared, you'd think she'd notice that his entire bedroom is orange, so maybe he'd prefer an orange sweater. > As far as the dress robes go, I agree that it's a little cruel. I can see Molly thinking, "Well, he's a boy, and boys don't really care much what they wear"--but after raising six of them, you'd think she'd realize that they *do* care what they wear if it makes them stand out from their peers. She could at least have taken off the lace, since she'd probably have done a neater job of it than Ron did. And it's hard to believe that the maroon set were the *least* offensive set of used dress robes available. > > Alex Tonks here: Maybe Ron has never told her that he hates that color. If he had I think she would have given him a different color. (I think orange is an ugly color, myself.) Maroon goes more with the Gryffindor colors than orange and maybe Maroon goes better with his other clothes. Also, I know a large family that had a different "favorite" color for each kid. So if the 5th one came along and blue and green and red was already taken.. they had to choose another color. Seems odd to me, but that is the way that family did thing. So maybe it is something like that. Also with a large family if each kid has his own color it would be easier to do the laundry and get it back to the right person. As to the robes. Molly like most adults probably doesn't know what is "in". And this is the wizard world. Men might well wear lace on their robes, we don't know. I think Molly is a kind and loving mother. Like most teens Ron shows that Mom just is not in touch with the younger generation and their styles. That is not unusual in the Muggle world and I doubt that it is any different in the wizard world. I know some here don't like Molly and Arthur, but I do. If they were real I would love to have them for friends. And Hagrid too!! And Snape too! ;-) Cheers, Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 25 03:32:09 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:32:09 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113807 > Valky: > I don't have PoA on me because I lent it, but if you could please > refer to the Shrieking Shack where Pettigrew pleads desperately for mercy. Now _that_ is snivelling where I come from. Does that help? Potioncat: Bingo! Now we are on the same page. This reminds me of the thread not too long ago about Hermione's ambition/Slytherin traits. Yes, without looking back myself, Peter was snivelling and I don't think this is strictly a British definition. So we are agreed on this meaning of snivelling although we may see it differently on a continuum of character... (and that may be individual differences rather than cultural differences.) Without looking back, Draco may have been sniveling when he complained that he couldn't prepare his potion ingredients and Snape made Harry and Ron do it. (He might not have been, I don't completely remember.) 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. I can certainly see McGonagall nipping that sort of behavior in the bud. In today's touchy-feely world, the child would be encourage to validate their feelings. (or something of the sort.) 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. Now, within the British use of the word, is it also possible he got the name because he had been crying over something? Or is it possible they are just calling him a "snot"? All the runny nose comments at the pensieve scene make me wonder if that is the case. (Not even that he really did have a runny nose.) 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! Do you see any snivelling behavior in the Pensieve scene? Or have you seen adult Snape behave in a snivelling manner? > > snipping Potioncat post: > > 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." > > > > and a bit later: > > > > "Wait for what?" said Sirius coolly. "What are you going to do, > > Snivelly, wipe your nose on us?" > > snipping Valky's reply > Potioncat: > > And is it just me, or does Sirius sound a lot like Draco? snipping Valky's reply again 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. I won't say every minute of this thread has been fun, but working it out has! Potioncat From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 25 03:38:42 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:38:42 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks here: > > Maybe Ron has never told her that he hates that color. If he had I > think she would have given him a different color. (I think orange is > an ugly color, myself.) Maroon goes more with the Gryffindor colors > than orange and maybe Maroon goes better with his other clothes. > Also, I know a large family that had a different "favorite" color > for each kid. So if the 5th one came along and blue and green and > red was already taken.. they had to choose another color. Seems odd > to me, but that is the way that family did thing. So maybe it is > something like that. Also with a large family if each kid has his > own color it would be easier to do the laundry and get it back to > the right person. >SNIP > I think Molly is a kind and loving mother. Like most teens Ron shows > that Mom just is not in touch with the younger generation and their > styles. That is not unusual in the Muggle world and I doubt that it > is any different in the wizard world. > > I know some here don't like Molly and Arthur, but I do. If they were > real I would love to have them for friends. And Hagrid too!! And > Snape too! ;-) > > Cheers, > Tonks_op imamommy: I think Arthur and Molly are really good parents; not without their flaws, but they love their kids and try to do what's best for them. Can someone point out a canonical reference to Ron hating maroon? I just got the impression that he was sick of it. Maybe it was his favorite color once, and he's never updated his mother that orange is the new maroon. Another idea: in my husband's family growing up, each kid had a color; red, yellow, blue or green. Each kid had his or her toothbrush, dinner plate, towel, etc. in their signature color so they wouldn't fight over who used what. Perhaps this type of system was in place in the Weasely home, and Molly hasn't quite gotten used to the fact that her kids have outgrown this stage. imamommy Raising teenagers is like nailing jello to a tree. From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 03:45:13 2004 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:45:13 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113809 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" > wrote: > > if green eyes are so important, why > does > > Dan Radcliffe of the forbidden media have blue eyes? We know JKR > > had plenty of influence over the film, and thinks Radcliffe is an > > ideal Harry. They tried. He had an allergic reaction to the contacts and couldn't wear them. (Some wonder how hard digitizing would have been...) They (in the media) still emphasize (twice) that Harry has Lily's eyes, so maybe the theoretical similarity is enough for the important parts of J.K.R.'s designs for the story... whether or not the eyes were exactly a certain shade... A.J. (who looks like D.R. but not with blue eyes, and receives comments about it every so oft) From slytherin_punk_pirate at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 25 01:27:45 2004 From: slytherin_punk_pirate at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_punk_pirate) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:27:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's House (WAS: Snape's housemates) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113810 Howdy! I've been subscribed to this group for a long time and I've never had the guts to post, so please forgive me if I've done it wrong (very likely!) Carol: > wonders why people are suggesting that Snape might have been in >Gryffindor. (Wouldn't he have fit better in Ravenclaw if he had to >be in a house other than Slytherin?) Alla: > The fact that Snape is a Slytherin Head does not really prove that >he was there, we don't even know whether McGonagall was a Gryffindor, >if I remember correctly. I agree. Although it's probable that he was in Slyth as a student, it might just be that none of the alumnae from Slytherin house became Professors (many became DEs after all) and so someone from another house had to take the role of Head of Slytherin. DD must be aware of the fact that Slytherin house turns out more dark witches and wizards than any other, and so he asks Snape, as someone who has made those mistakes in the past, to guide the snakes into doing the right thing and using their ambition for good. >The main reason I think Snape could eba Gryffindor is plot -related- > I am adamant that Harry is bound to learn some surprised revelation > about somebody's House association. Definitely! I really hope Harry discovers someone he dislikes was in Gryffindor, or someone he likes was in Slytherin (maybe Tonks?) I'd be pretty disappointed if JKR sticks to the whole Slyth = bad, Gryff = good thing all the way through the story. Just to add another random thought I had before reading this post. If Snape was in Gryffindor at school and then made head of Slytherin, I can see Slyths being pretty annoyed at the situation and so maybe Snape favours 'his house' to prevent people thinking he's biased against the Slytherins. He just overdoes it a bit! Anyhoo, to sum up - I reckon Snape was probably in Slytherin, but wouldn't be suprised to hear (like Carol and Alla) that he was a Ravenclaw, and would be very interested to see Harry's reaction if he was a Gryffindor. wysiwyg (who is madly in love with Snape, but still reckons he's a bit of a git at times) From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 01:22:57 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:22:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <002501c4a29e$30bbe810$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113811 > Valky: > Carol you must not have any close British descent because that is > the purely American definition. > In British english the word Lapdog also applies to a person and with > quite different meaning. > Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: > Definition > lapdog (PERSON) > noun [C] DISAPPROVING > someone who is willing to do anything that a more important person > tells them to do: feklar: no, that's the standard American figurative understanding of "lapdog" as well. Same for "snivel" and "snivelling," tho' I think the term might be considered a bit archaic here. feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 01:33:16 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:33:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <002b01c4a29f$a2119ea0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113812 > Alla: > > Term "Snivelius" is undoubtedly a derogatory one, but do we KNOW > what kind of weakness it berates? feklar I guess I should have added to my last post, "snivel" is also a subjective term. To an unsympathetic person, a kid might be snivelling, to the sympathetic, they might simply be crying or weepy. My interpretation of "Snivellius" is that it was simply a clever way of calling Snape a "cry-baby." I don't think it necessarily indicates Snape actually cried a lot, i think, like many childhood insults, the name stuck with him because someone (presumably James and Sirius) made sure to use it as often as possible, even if he was just caught crying once or in situation other kids might have cried in as well (like being a lonely first-year). Current reality doesn't matter much if you have a clever insult at the ready. Feklar From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 02:26:09 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:26:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113813 Alla wrote: > I just feel that if JKR decides to change Draco in book 6, I will > NOT believe it. Two books left, that is it and NO hint whatsoever > dropped in any of the previous books that Draco has a fighting > chance to see the light. I see what you mean here--JKR hasn't really left herself much room for a redemption story arc, since she would still have to *get* him to Ever-So-Evil, and then *back* to Redeemed, in only two books. I'd say "neither totally evil nor Redeemed!" would be an option, except she's given him an awful lot of ink for him not to have any major role. I do wonder if he's an option for playing out the "The world isn't divided into nice people and Death Eaters" concept, where Harry has to face up to the fact that Draco, while not nice, has never actually been evil (this would, I guess, be the Misunderstood!Draco plot that your post indicates you don't believe in). But she's got plenty of *other* characters to do that with, so probably not. Which is such a shame, because I *like* the little blighter. I think in real life I'd find Harry, Ron, and Hermione to be tedious little goody-goodies. Draco's got some edge. *I*, personally, find it a little disappointing that the Spoiled Rotten Rich Boy introduced in the first book is apparently not going to develop past that. Harry pegs him as the "wrong sort" the very first time he sees him....and, lo and behold, he's the wrong sort. I *hope* he'll be redeemed--but I think I agree with you that if he was going to be, there would be *something* that a determined reader such as myself could interpret as hinting at his Inner Goodness. And while I maintain that evidence of his Inner Evil is inconclusive, I admit that there's not anything to point toward Inner Good. Alex From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 02:40:21 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:40:21 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113814 > Valky: > Well in a way I am not actually saying that it applies to virtues in > general. Oh oh now I am gonna confuse you.... sorry. I am saying > that in the culture that I was raised into by my british family, the > fact that someone does whine complain and run to teacher is like a > cardinal sign of lacking several virtues. Such as valor, justice, > charity, honesty. Like I said it would be difficult to understand if > you weren't subject to the standard first hand. And very difficult > to explain. I see where you're coming from here--I've read enough boarding school stories to have heard of the schoolboy code of honor, where you're supposed to handle your own problems and not go telling on people for matters that are supposed to be between you and another boy (or girl, though snivelling in any sense is far more stigmatized for boys than for girls). So maybe Snape doesn't cry, maybe he goes to his teachers and tries to get them to stop the other kids picking on him. Which, yeah, is an annoying trait in a kid. Teachers don't like it any more than the other kids do. Except I keep going back to the part of the Worst Memory scene where it says that Snape reacts "as though he had been expecting an attack." There is *definitely* some real-life contamination in my reading of this scene, but I read Snape in this scene as *afraid*. In his mind, James et al. have gone beyond the sort of hassling he should take in good fun, and he's in *actual danger*. (This reading makes more sense if you buy the theory that Snape comes from a violent home.) If he thinks they're *really going to hurt him* (which, if he thinks that, he's right, isn't he?), *shouldn't* he go to the teachers and try to get them to protect him? Su maybe I buy that *James and Sirius* think that Snape is lacking in cardinal virtues--but I don't think that *we* should necessarilly agree with them. > Valky: > Sirius has a better sense of humour, in spite of his > crudeness towards Snape, most people found his antics quite good > fun. Whereas Draco has *nothing* beyond the crudeness. Except the other Slytherins think that what Draco does is funny. Hilariously so. And, really, the Weasley song *is funny*. It's mean, but funny. And a much more sophisticated form of humor than pantsing someone. (Not a fan of physical comedy, here.) Alex From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 02:51:15 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:51:15 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > I've long thought it's very odd of Molly to repeatedly give him maroon > sweaters and socks when he hates that colour--maroon wool can't be any > cheaper than other colours, can it? and the sweaters that she makes > are probably the only brand-new clothes he gets, which compouds the > insult. Frugalarugala: Actually, I knit and sew and I'm frugal (arugala, hello), and um... If you're waiting to clearance sales, yeah maroon is one of the cheap colors. It's unpopular. Here's my two-cents on the marooning of Ron: I think Molly may be trying to pick colors that won't clash with the Weasley hair. His house colors are red and gold, two colors as a redhead myself, I know I can't wear. Maroon is a reddish-brown, it might be the nearest thing to red that looks good on him. Orange would be dead out--he'd look like a giant traffic cone! Alex Boyd: > She could at least have taken off the lace, since > she'd probably have done a neater job of it than Ron did. Frugalarugala: Yeah, I didn't understand why she didn't at least modify it for him. She knits, sewing is not much different. Maybe Molly flunked transfiguration. Alex Boyd: > And it's hard to believe that the maroon set were the *least* > offensive set of used dress robes available. I'd be surprised if, having shopped for redheads all her life, Molly didn't just automatically ignore certain colors. I know I do--bright pink that's so popular on little girls, I swear shopping for my daughter, I swear it doesn't even register. Would wizards wear synthetic fibers? 'Cause you can't dye that stuff. At least not without magic. Alas. But, come on, these people have POLYJUICE--they have to be able to magically change colors of things! For that matter, why can't people who can make mice into teacups just zap up an infinate number of copies of Lockhart's books? Magical copyright? Here's a question, what must transfiguration do to an economy? I think there must be some way to magically setting something in stone (so to speak), or Ron wouldn't have hand-me-downs and Harry's last name would be mouse-breeder. From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sat Sep 25 03:40:14 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:40:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? References: Message-ID: <007b01c4a2b1$604285e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: >>>Maybe Ron has never told her that he hates that color. If he had I think she would have given him a different color. (I think orange is an ugly color, myself.) Maroon goes more with the Gryffindor colors than orange and maybe Maroon goes better with his other clothes. Also, I know a large family that had a different "favorite" color for each kid. So if the 5th one came along and blue and green and red was already taken.. they had to choose another color. Seems odd to me, but that is the way that family did thing. So maybe it is something like that. Also with a large family if each kid has his own color it would be easier to do the laundry and get it back to the right person. As to the robes. Molly like most adults probably doesn't know what is "in". And this is the wizard world. Men might well wear lace on their robes, we don't know. I think Molly is a kind and loving mother. Like most teens Ron shows that Mom just is not in touch with the younger generation and their styles. That is not unusual in the Muggle world and I doubt that it is any different in the wizard world. <<< Hi guys, again new to the board here and I don't know if anyone mentioned this in the thread so far but the Weasleys (senior) are fairly notorious for having bad clothing tastes...mostly they "wore long robes in varying states of shabbiness" (GoF p 40). So Molly could have no clue but I also think it's a part of that whole "you get what you can afford and you like it" thing that is part of being in a large family. And, if the second hand stores in Diagon Alley are anything like the Goodwill, for example, then there won't be a whole lot of selection. Of course, why she just doesn't make them is beyond me...maybe sewing is not something that can be done with magic or maybe you have to learn it as a muggle skill first or something like that... Anyways, my two cents... Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 02:12:59 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:12:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <003401c4a2a5$2e1f6710$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113817 > Valky: > Ok to clarify completely, I guess that my post was fully intended to > address only those that aren't convinced. > Snivellus is not a mitigating circumstance. It is an implied > character judgement. > Snivelling is not a description of someone who cried, in "English" > english it is a > *Character Judgement* > Of someone who is weak. And, although, you learned it in English > class Alla, I learned it in real life used by those in command of > the language in which it was written. It implies a person is weak of > *virtue*. feklar: I don't dispute your def. of snivel. but I'm not sure how that changes any thing. As you say, the use of snivel implies a character judgement, more to the point it's a subjective term that implies dislike or disdain of the subject. The use of lapdog is pretty subjective too. What is the difference between "friend" and "lapdog" in the eyes of your enemy? I think it is entirely possible that Snape was objectively as well as subjectively Malfoy's lapdog, but I think that because of my own reading and understanding of the story--a highly subjective declaration by someone who dislikes Snape carried the least weight in my analysis. In any case, we already knew James and co. disliked Snape and therefore use derogatory terms about him. How does this create a "different portrait of James, Sirius and Snape "? > Alla: > > Weakness is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I hate Pettigrew > type weakness, but what if Snape was too "weak" to do something > Malfoy told him to do? You know, "too weak" to do the bad thing? > > > > Valky: > Then surely James would like him and Sirius wouldn't be calling him > Lucius' "lapdog"? I'm assuming you meant that as a joke? James and Sirius were cruel kids. Snape may or may not have been a cruel kid--we don't know for sure, it wouldn't surprise me, but it's likely he was at least arrogant, rude and snarky. After reading your post a couple of times, I think you are saying James and Sirus dislike Snape because of a moral decision on their part? And that the evidence of this moral decision is the fact that they use derogatory terms implying Snape has a weak character? Aside from the fact that that is rather circular logic, why whouldn't they use those derogatory terms simply because they don't like him? Do you really think they would like him if he was an undeniably good guy? What if he was a good little Gryffindor like Neville and turned them in for something, isn't it as likely they would call him a snivelling brat? The point is we don't know why they call Snape those things other than that they clearly don't like him. I guess for me it's a case for Occam's Razor. Sirius admits they didn't like Snape in school because he existed (after school better reasons to hate him might have arisen, but that's not what Sirius was talking about). This is, unfortunately, very common among kids, so it's believable as most of JKR's kid-characterizations are. JKR is very good at showing how kids make up irrational rationalizations to explain their world and their decisions. So why make it more complicated? Feklar From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 04:06:23 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:06:23 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <003401c4a2a5$2e1f6710$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113818 > > feklar: snip. > > I guess for me it's a case for Occam's Razor. Sirius admits they didn't > like Snape in school because he existed (after school better reasons to hate > him might have arisen, but that's not what Sirius was talking about). This > is, unfortunately, very common among kids, so it's believable as most of > JKR's kid-characterizations are. JKR is very good at showing how kids make > up irrational rationalizations to explain their world and their decisions. > So why make it more complicated? > 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. I feel that I am not expressing myself clearly again. To make a long story short - I think the possibility that behind the fights between Marauders and Snape and his gang lies bigger struggle of good an evil, is real enough. 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. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 25 04:11:22 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:11:22 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113819 Alla wrote: >>> I just feel that if JKR decides to change Draco in book 6, I will NOT believe it. Two books left, that is it and NO hint whatsoever dropped in any of the previous books that Draco has a fighting chance to see the light.<<< Alex: >> I see what you mean here--JKR hasn't really left herself much room for a redemption story arc, since she would still have to *get* him to Ever-So-Evil, and then *back* to Redeemed, in only two books. I'd say "neither totally evil nor Redeemed!" would be an option, except she's given him an awful lot of ink for him not to have any major role. I do wonder if he's an option for playing out the "The world isn't divided into nice people and Death Eaters" concept, where Harry has to face up to the fact that Draco, while not nice, has never actually been evil (this would, I guess, be the Misunderstood!Draco plot that your post indicates you don't believe in). But she's got plenty of *other* characters to do that with, so probably not. Which is such a shame, because I *like* the little blighter. I think in real life I'd find Harry, Ron, and Hermione to be tedious little goody-goodies. Draco's got some edge. *I*, personally, find it a little disappointing that the Spoiled Rotten Rich Boy introduced in the first book is apparently not going to develop past that. Harry pegs him as the "wrong sort" the very first time he sees him....and, lo and behold, he's the wrong sort. I *hope* he'll be redeemed--but I think I agree with you that if he was going to be, there would be *something* that a determined reader such as myself could interpret as hinting at his Inner Goodness. And while I maintain that evidence of his Inner Evil is inconclusive, I admit that there's not anything to point toward Inner Good. << SSSusan: Picking up on your last paragraph a bit, Alex, as for me, I'll settle for something more than 2-D Draco! I've found him one of the biggest disappointments in the books. There's just nothing TO him that we've gotten to see. He's simply a carboard nemesis for Harry, a sneering, drawling, snob. I hope for some *depth* at some point, whether he's evil or redeemed or a tormented somewhere-in-the-middle. Siriusly Snapey Susan From drcarole71 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 04:18:46 2004 From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:18:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's eye color and killing curse (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "earendil_fr" wrote: > > > Earendil: >> > > We know the Avada Kedavra curse produces green light when cast. > > > Green light is reflected by green things > > > Would that mean the green light of the Avada Kedavra could have > > been > > > reflected by Harry's green eyes? > > > > Earendil > > AmanitaMuscaria again: > > Only problem is, Harry has Lily's eyes. Now, I read that as saying > > Lily had green eyes, too, so with your theory, Lily should also > have > > survived. But, who knows? Only JKR, and she's not telling us yet! > > Earendil: > I think it will reveal very important in later books that Harry has > *Lily*'s eyes, but is the colour in itself important? > Earendil. >From Carole- I hope I "snipped" this properly. Still trying to learn to do that. White light would look green when shining on a green surface as well. I've tried to figure out the significance of red and green. When I have time, I will try to make a meaningful list of red and green things. I'm also curious about silver and gold... Carole From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 04:26:09 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:26:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chs512001" > wrote: > > New to the group and couldn't find in archive any theories on why Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt (as opposed to > > anything else). I'm thinking that a lighting bolt or maybe some > form of lightning may be V's ultimate doom. Any other opinions? > > > > Chuck Tonks here: Welcome!! A charm (amulet) shaped like a lightning bolt is a form of protection in Tibet. Also the wood used in Harry's wand is Holly. Holly is the Symbol of Christ. Magical Properties of Holly include protection against bad fortune and lightning. So there might be some connection there. Having said all of that, I think JKR has said that the shape of Harry's mark has no important meaning. She said that the fact that he has it is the most important part. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 04:47:59 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:47:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's Eyes and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113822 Just a quick thought. Maybe the fact that Harry has his mother's eyes and that they are green is because Lily was able to talk to snakes too. She was a Gryffindor that could talk to snakes. We assume and I think DD says that Harry got that talent from LV. But are we sure DD is telling the whole truth? He has left parts out before. Also I think that Petunia's little secret is that she is a person who had the talent of a witch and chose not to use it. She made a choice to live as a Muggle. There is no one else in the story that fits that description and it seems to me that there should be someone like that somewhere. Sort of like a person to whom talent was given and they buried it. Tonks_op From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 04:48:52 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:48:52 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Valky: > the Shrieking Shack where Pettigrew pleads desperately > for mercy. Now _that_ is snivelling where I come from. Does that > help? > > > Potioncat: > Bingo! Now we are on the same page. > > Yes, without looking back myself, Peter was snivelling and I don't > think this is strictly a British definition. So we are agreed on > this meaning of snivelling although we may see it differently on a > continuum of character... (and that may be individual differences > rather than cultural differences.) Valky: You're probably entirely right there Potioncat, I guess I was working for a long time from the assumption that the Webster definition clearly excluded the Cambridge definitions and so too did the American language exclude them. >Potioncat: > > 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? Valky: Ummm, kind of. See the particular case of Pettigrew snivelling is a demonstration of a sort of complete character continuum where, as I have known the word to be used, it is fitting. So to say, that Pettigrew was confronted with the consequences of his own pathetic behaviour and compounded his wrongdoing with more weakness and unpleasantness. The difference you point to between adults and children is quite important, I agree. It takes a mature mind rightly assume that someone *snivelling* has, indeed, a need to face up to his own apathy and misconduct. This I will definately agree that Sirius and James probably didn't have so, as was written by Feklar or Alex (I think) in another response to this thread, we shouldn't necessarily think that they are right. Still I wonder, Sirius' passionate discourses reveal to me someone who felt as strongly against the injustices that he hates when he was a child as he does now. The main problem with Sirius getting his message across is that he is one-eyed and a hypocrite (both endearing and not endearing characteristics for me), not that he doesn't truly deeply believe in moral virtue when he is fifteen or when he is older. > Potioncat: > 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! > Valky: As I said above, not really. I don't think so much that Snape deserved the nickname, but that it is revealed in Sirius passion for the righteousness that he upholds, that they probably have a much deeper issue with Snape than is revealed in the penseive scene. Potioncat: > Do you see any snivelling behavior in the Pensieve scene? Or have > you seen adult Snape behave in a snivelling manner? > Valky: Umm I will definately get back to you on this because I don't see snivelling in the pensieve scene but I *think* there is some small thing of adult Snape, I will have to check it out. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 04:57:12 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 04:57:12 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <002501c4a29e$30bbe810$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "feklar" wrote: > > Valky: > > In British english the word Lapdog also applies to a person and with quite different meaning. > > Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: > > Definition > > lapdog (PERSON) > > noun [C] DISAPPROVING > > someone who is willing to do anything that a more important person tells them to do: > > feklar: > > no, that's the standard American figurative understanding of "lapdog" as well. Same for "snivel" and "snivelling," tho' I think the term might be considered a bit archaic here. > Valky, Thankyou Feklar, I find the word archaic a bit amusing, though. I am only 30 and "Lapdog" has been in common use, this way, in my lifetime. I realise that the millenium turning has ushered in a lot of changes, but where I come from Lapdog isn't really that old, AFAIK. The interesting thing is that Sirius fits the profile of someone who *is* using the word entirely figuratively, hailing from the right generation for this *archaic* term LOL, as far as I know anyway, and having some tendency to apply dissapproving adjectives to Snape. From sad1199 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 05:01:50 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:01:50 -0000 Subject: What are the WW rules? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113825 sad1199 here: 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? Does anyone know of a spell that is permanent besides Avada Kedavra? I think that some of the Dark Arts must be permanent because of Neville's parents. Any comments? ...happy, caring, loving... sad1199 From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Sep 25 05:33:09 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:33:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? Message-ID: <20040925.013403.2992.5.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113826 Someone who didn't sign his/her name said: > My own take on this is that despite poverty the Weasley's hold with > the old school (UK) view that every student should have a copy of > the recommended text. Plus, I don't get the sense that the Weasley's are dirt poor; they just have a lot of kids and aren't Malfoy-level-rich. They spend money on things that are really important, like school supplies (ie, investing in the future) but dress robes that'll be worn once and pets that are useful but not necesary they scrimp on. Amy said: > I consider myself middle class...in this old muggle world. I COULD >spend my money on designer clothes and such, but...I'd rather look >for bargains...go to rummage sales, Goodwill, clearance sales, and >then be able to take a cruise....thats my thoughts anyway...They have >enough money, just choose how to spend it more wisely. Yes, exactly. Molly always reminds me of Roseanne Conner (in their more comfortable seasons): a mom whose primary objective is to stretch the budget. Visiting their son in Egypt and spending money on the kids' education is deemed a worthy investment, but she still has to tell her kids, "no, we can't afford that" a lot. I grew up in a home like that. We were perfectly comfortable, but I knew to not expect designer jeans or rediculously overpriced sneakers every year. My parents would rather spend the money on a yearly summer vacation. Duffypoo said: >I think they're rather hard up, myself, from reading in CoS, "Harry enjoyed the break-neck journey >down to the Weasleys' vault, but felt dreadful, far worse than he had in Knockturn Alley, when it was >opened. There was a very small pile of Silver Sickles inside, and just one gold Galleon. Mrs. >Weasley felt right into the corners before sweeping the whole lot into her bag That just means they don't have a lot of savings. With a lot of kids and only one income, they probably spend about as much as they make. Which is adverage for the middle-class family. Magda said: >But Ron's touchiness about his family's >poverty ("why is everything I own rubbish?") didn't appear out of >thin air. But he's a kid. And he's at an age where material things *do* affect your standing with other kids. Take it from a middle class kid whose mother dragged me to JC Penny for school clothes *every*damn*year* (to non-Americans: not the cheapest of the cheap, but hardly a fashion-forward department store, either): it sucks when everyone else seems to have better things than you. But I only thought that because I was only noticing the popular, rich kids' things. The fact that there were probably more kids at school in knock-off jeans like mine than the few in genuine Guess completely slipped past me. It's just one of those arguments every kids have with their parents at some point. No matter how rich you are, there always will be a kid who seems richer, better off, *has a better life*, because that's kids and their insecurities. >Molly was hateful at that point in GOF. I think that's a little harsh. She did say that there wasn't much option. I think the mom-logic here was that he'll only wear the robes once, so it's not like he'll be going around school in them every day. And she, like most adults, probably doesn't realize the importance adolescents put on clothes. Or, indeed, the daily drama adolescents go through because of popularity and appearance. She could have hemmed the lace off of them, though. Maybe there wasn't enough time, with all the other pre-school stuff to do. I can't find who brought it up first, but I think Molly probably thinks maroon "looks good" on Ron. She seems like the semi-controlling but well-meaning kind of mother who would force a color on her kid because she thinks it looks good on him. Aura ~*~ "Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns, it calls me on and on across the universe." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Sep 25 05:22:24 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:22:24 -0400 Subject: ESE!Draco (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. Message-ID: <20040925.013403.2992.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113827 Alex said: > it could be that [Draco] isn't *trying* to be cruel to Harry, Neville, > etc., he's trying to be *funny* to his Housemates, and simply > doesn't care (or notice) whether he's *also* being mean or not. Yes, I think this is very true. I don't think he's ever been taught that his behavior is inappropriate; if anything, Lucius' sharp tongue has given Draco the sense that teasing people is okay, part of socialization, etc. > I don't see Draco > as having necessarilly crossed the line between being an "arrogant > berk" and being ESE! I think he has. I didn't want to, but the riot in GoF changed my mind. I read that scene before bed, and the whole Nazi/KKK overtones gave me nightmares. Any kid Draco's age should have been terrified, by the chaos if nothing else. But Draco wasn't. He thought the way the DEs were treating the muggles was funny. He knew what was going on, who was causing the violence and danger, and he not only condoned it, but was entertained by it. To me, that said that JKR was deliberatly taking Draco's character beyond "irritating bully" to "miniature bad guy." Functionally, as far as the story is concerned, Draco is as evil as his father. Not to say he may not be reformed. I'd really like to see something that was best summed up in this drabble: http://www.angelfire.com/anime3/winner01/war01.html (scroll to "Aftermath", second from last) btw, re: James and Sirius *causing* lasting psychological harm to Snape: while I don't mean to belittle the impact of childhood bullying into adult life, I think no bully can cause the kind of emotional problems Snape must have if those problems weren't already there, or beginning to be there. Snape's just a mess, for a variety of reasons. > Now, there is the last major Malfoy scene in OoP (p. 851 in the US > hardback). He says "You're dead, Potter," I think > reading this scene depends on whether we see Draco at this point as > a child or as an adult. But Draco isn't a child or an adult - he's a teenager, inbetween those ages. He can be both picking sides and being petulant. He could be *planning* on exacting some sort of revenge on Harry or his friends (I didn't think about that, but now that you mention it, I can see Draco getting back at Hermione for slapping him as a way to get back at Harry) but, since he's a kid, will probably botch it up. > When a parent is arrested, > it's normal for a child to respond with rage against authority > figures or anyone else the child sees as responsible for the parent's > arrest (including victims or witnesses), in order to avoid the > psychologically unbearable realization that the parent chose to > break the law and is responsible for his/her own arrest. IMO, the only anger Draco would have against his father is for *getting caught.* I think Draco knows that Lucius breaks the law, but Malfoys are above the law. Any Malfoy cruelty is excusable as long as said Malfoy is slytherine enough to get away with it. Read that way, Harry's crime isn't being the cause of Lucius getting arrested, but that Harry brought shame upon the family by causing Lucius to get caught. Draco would never forgive Harry for humiliating his family. Aura ~*~ "Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns, it calls me on and on across the universe." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 06:41:47 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:41:47 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: > Having said all of this, it's either a Flint or significant that the > AK aimed at Harry didn't figure in the priori incantatem as I've > said before (post 112086), not least because JKR calls it a killing > curse (post 112146 quoting Edinburgh August 04 interview transcript) > and this is in favour of the idea that it WAS an AK. > Geoff: Just in passing, I wrote a while ago in message 103447..... "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....." Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 06:46:47 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:46:47 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: > 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: 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. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 06:53:15 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:53:15 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > > So maybe I buy that *James and Sirius* think that Snape is lacking in cardinal virtues--but I don't think that *we* should necessarilly > agree with them. > Valky: Point taken, and I to an extent I don't feel that I am necessarily agreeing with James and Sirius. Not the least reason for which is that Sirius as an adult is a darned hypocrite sometimes. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 06:55:03 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:55:03 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brent" wrote: Brent: > 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: Bu what does canon say..... '"I bet Dumbledore saw right through you," said Harry, his teeth gritted. "Well, he certainly kept an annoying close watch on me after Hagrid was expelled," said Riddle carelessly. "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. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 07:16:30 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:16:30 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <003401c4a2a5$2e1f6710$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113832 > feklar: > > I don't dispute your def. of snivel. but I'm not sure how that changes any thing. As you say, the use of snivel implies a character judgement, more to the point it's a subjective term that implies dislike or disdain of the subject. In any case, we already knew James and co. disliked Snape and therefore use derogatory terms about him. How does this create a "different portrait of James, Sirius and > Snape "? > Valky: What it changes is small in staure but is fundamental. It puts a question mark over wether Snape was really the innocuous target he seems to be in the pensieve. That it implies he may have been a sniveller of the sort that we see in Fudge and Pettigrew, rather than limiting the bound of *what Snape was*, to James and Sirius, by the Webster etc *literal* definition of the word, which I have definitely come across in this discussion. > > Alla: > > > Weakness is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I hate Pettigrew > > type weakness, but what if Snape was too "weak" to do something > > Malfoy told him to do? You know, "too weak" to do the bad thing? > > > > > > > Valky: > > Then surely James would like him and Sirius wouldn't be calling him Lucius' "lapdog"? > Feklar: > I'm assuming you meant that as a joke? James and Sirius were cruel kids. Snape may or may not have been a cruel kid--we don't know for sure, it wouldn't surprise me, but it's likely he was at least arrogant, rude and snarky. Valky: Yes I was having a chuckle. Feklar: After reading your post a couple of times, I think you are saying > James and Sirus dislike Snape because of a moral decision on their part? And that the evidence of this moral decision is the fact that they use derogatory terms implying Snape has a weak character? Aside from the fact that that is rather circular logic, Valky: it's circular reduced to those two terms but I think we are able to know a little more about what James and Sirius might choose *morally* in some respects than you are letting on. That is all assumed by my logic here. Feklar: > ......why whouldn't they use those derogatory terms simply because they don't like him? Do you really think they would like him if he was an undeniably good guy? What if he was a good little > Gryffindor like Neville and turned them in for something, isn't it as likely they would call him a snivelling brat? The point is we don't know why they call Snape those things other than that they clearly don't like him. > Valky: We know that they dissapprove of prejudice, even as youngsters, so I seriously doubt that they would not have gotten to know a little about Snape before they decided that they did not like him. > I guess for me it's a case for Occam's Razor. Sirius admits they didn't like Snape in school because he existed (after school better reasons to hate him might have arisen, but that's not what Sirius was talking about). This is, unfortunately, very common among kids, so it's believable as most of JKR's kid-characterizations are. JKR is very good at showing how kids make up irrational rationalizations to explain their world and their decisions. > So why make it more complicated? > > Feklar Because I am a literature lover studying mathematics so here is my outlet... because I have nothing better to do... for the fun of it... you pick.... lol The story of Sirius James and Snape isn't all contained in that scene we have to take into the pensieve what we had previously learned about each character. Simple is to dismiss all the cruelty Snape had shown innocent Harry in books 1,2,3,and 4 and immediately imgine that this one day in his life proves he was *never really* this git that he *is*. I, personally, would rather avoid such unsound reasoning and remind myself that James and Sirius were fighters for good. Why does this *one* day have to mean that they weren't in their hearts those same people? (And yes I mean then! no dramatic change!) Valky From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 00:42:27 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:42:27 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040924203314.45300.qmail@web61109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113833 kim reynolds: >> When someone kills you with AK, your body would still be lying there afterwards, right? So at GH when James and Lily died, did someone come around afterwards and bury their bodies, which would mean Harry, et al. would have been able to visit his parents' graves someplace? Also, when Sirius went through the veil and apparently died, what happened to his body? Which might suggest that he's not exactly dead...<< I believe that while filming the recent HP film, Cuaron originally intended to have a scene set in a graveyard on the Hogwarts property that JKR requested removed since she intended on having the Hogwarts cemetery show up in one of the two remaining volumes. I've read speculations on some other boards that this will be when and where Harry will finally see his parents' graves. -cunning spirit From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 05:16:42 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:16:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <001701c4a2be$d86aa450$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113834 > > feklar: > > > > no, that's the standard American figurative understanding > of "lapdog" as well. Same for "snivel" and "snivelling," tho' I > think the term might be considered a bit archaic here. > > > > Valky, > Thankyou Feklar, I find the word archaic a bit amusing, though. I am > only 30 and "Lapdog" has been in common use, this way, in my feklar the archaic comment was part of the snivelling sentence, not the lapdog one. Lapdog is still pretty commonly used. Actually, I suspect most people do usually think of the figurative meaning (subordinate, errand-boy, brownnoser, whatever) rather than a cute, ornamental canine when the word appears. OTOH, "snivelling" seems kind of old-fashioned, possibly even overwrought. Ironically, in ref. to the other def. potioncat produced, "snivelling child" does immediately produce the image of a snot-faced, sniffling kid to me. I expect sniffling and sniveling are closely related, but snivel has a derogatory import that sniffle doesn't...Ironic that Padfoot's alternate name is Snuffles, eh? Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 09:34:35 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:34:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <001101c4a2e2$ded6e370$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 113835 > Feklar: > After reading your post a couple of times, I think you are saying > > James and Sirus dislike Snape because of a moral decision on their > part? And that the evidence of this moral decision is the fact that > they use derogatory terms implying Snape has a weak character? > Aside from the fact that that is rather circular logic, > > Valky: > it's circular reduced to those two terms but I think we are able to > know a little more about what James and Sirius might choose > *morally* in some respects than you are letting on. That is all > assumed by my logic here. feklar: What other terms would you use? Ultimately, words are symbols and arguments are equations. If they don't work at their most simple iteration, they won't work at a more complex iteration, they'll just be obfuscated by the extra words. Actually, I don't know that we know anything about them morally. If anything, their teenage selves come across as very amoral to me. Again, to me this is a characterization choice JKR made: they are typical of children in that their cruelty comes of amorality rather than evilness. Though I do think by 5th year they were hitting an age where they should have been developing a sense of morality, Lilly and Remus seem to be, but James, Sirius and Peter haven't -- at least with regard to Snape. By moral choices, do you mean we know they wouldn't choose to be be cry-babies and tattle-tales? Well, I guess, but what little boy would if he could help it? But honestly, I can't see Snape in those roles either--after all, his first response to attack was to go for his wand and when Lilly tried to help him, he not only refused help but drove her off with insults. So he showed himself to be slow on the draw and an ingrate, but not a sniveller in the one scene we have of him and the marauders. 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 about most things (that way he doesn't have to feel bad about being vindictive or rude) but in his mind they are the "little things." He feels he's doing alright so long as he does the right thing when it comes to the big things--Support Voldemort or Dumbledore? Save Potter or do nothing and let him fall? But it could be he had a highly developed sense of conscience as a kid, but after seeing his mother abused, was just bound and determined to defend himself at school no matter what sort of curses that required. MAybe he only joined the DEs at DD's behest. But I think that would make Snape a less complex character. > Feklar: > > ......why whouldn't they use those derogatory terms simply because > they don't like him? Do you really think they would like him if he > was an undeniably good guy? What if he was a good little > > Gryffindor like Neville and turned them in for something, isn't it > as likely they would call him a snivelling brat? The point is we > don't know why they call Snape those things other than that they > clearly don't like him. > > > > Valky: > We know that they dissapprove of prejudice, even as youngsters, so I > seriously doubt that they would not have gotten to know a little > about Snape before they decided that they did not like him. feklar: Do we know that? I can't really think of any evidence that they even know what prejudice is much less disapprove of it. Granted, they accepted Remus, but maybe that was simply because he was a Gryffindor. Maybe they just thought it was a great adventure to know a werewolf? Maybe if they had known what he was from the beginning, they would have shunned him, but since they didn't they were able to overcome that particular prejudice? Maybe if he'd been a Slytherin, they would have felt it just confirmed their belief that Slytherin is full of dark wizards and dark creatures? 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: > The story of Sirius James and Snape isn't all contained in that > scene we have to take into the pensieve what we had previously > learned about each character. Simple is to dismiss all the cruelty > Snape had shown innocent Harry in books 1,2,3,and 4 and immediately > imgine that this one day in his life proves he was *never really* > this git that he *is*. > I, personally, would rather avoid such unsound reasoning and remind > myself that James and Sirius were fighters for good. Why does this > *one* day have to mean that they weren't in their hearts those same > people? > (And yes I mean then! no dramatic change!) Feklar: Personally, I like the idea that Snape is a mean bastard who chooses to do the right thing. I think it makes him more interesting character. I'd like to think he actually enjoys his petty tyrannies, but other times I think he's just so angry and unhappy that being a bastard is the only way he gets through the day. As for Sirius and James, they seem to have been "unkind" to others besides Snape. In any case, I don't think it's contradictory to that they were amoral and cruel w/r/t Snape (or any individual), but think torturing and killing muggles is wrong. If anything, it's probably easier to want to save a people you don't know anything about. It's easier to idealize them as innocent or helpless (as most of the benevolent WW seems to think of muggles) when you don't know them. Kind of like people who will donate money to prevent starvation abroad, but are disgusted to encounter a homeless person on the street. There could be other reasons they ended up fighting with DD. I think the inertia factor played a major part. As Gryffs, there would have been heavy expectaions that they would join the side of light from the beginning. James' family would have underscored this indoctrination. 17-year-olds aren't exactly known for their deeply thought out decisions. It's entirely possible that they joined the OOTP and the side of light, because they were taught to believe it was the right thing to do, without ever thinking about what right and wrong really mean. James also had a more selfish motivation: impressing and, later, protecting and fighting alongside Lilly. Also his parents were killed, presumably by DEs, so vengeance was part of his motivation as well. Feklar From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Sep 25 10:33:59 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:33:59 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Just in passing, I wrote a while ago in message 103447..... > > "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....." > 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. Kneasy From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 12:39:10 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925123910.36422.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113837 --- Alex Boyd wrote: > Magda wrote that Molly was "hateful" to give Ron sandwiches and > sweaters in varieties and colours he didn't like, and dress robes > that would expose him to mockery by the school. > No, I said Molly was hateful about the dress robes incident, not the sandwiches and sweathers. She's just being insensitive there. It's actually worth re-reading the whole dress robes page to show just how goaded Ron is before he erupts: ********************************************** Goblet of Fire, end of Chapter 10: ...Ron made a loud noise of disgust behind him. "What is *that* supposed to be?" He was holding up something that looked to Harry like a long, maroon velvet dress. It had a mouldy-looking lace frill at the collar and matching lace cuffs. There was a knock on the door, and Mrs. Weasly entered, carrying an armful of freshly laundered Hogwarts robes. "Here you are," she said, sorting them into two. "Now, mind you pack them properly so they don't crease." "Mum, you've given me Ginny's new dress," said Ron, holding it out to her. "Of course I haven't," said Mrs. Weasley. "They're for you. Dress robes." "*What?*" said Ron, looking horror-struck. "Dress robes," repeated Mrs. Weasley. "It says on your school list that you're supposed to have dress robes this year...robes for formal occasions." "You've got to be kidding," said Ron in disbelief. "I'm not wearing that, no way." "Everyone wears them, Ron!" said Mrs. Weasley crossly. "They're all like that! Your father has some for smart parties!" "I'll go starkers before I put that on," said Ron stubbornly. "Don't be so silly," said Mrs. Weasley, "you've got to have dress robes, they're on your list! I got some for Harry, too...show him, Harry..." In some trepidation, Harry opened the last parcel on his camp bed. It wasn't as bad as he had expected, however; his robes didn't have any lace on them at all; in fact, they were more or less the same as his school ones, except that they were bottle green instead of black. "I thought they'd bring out the colour of your eyes, dear," said Mrs. Weasley fondly. "Well, they're OK!" said Ron angrily, looking at Harry's robes. "Why couldn't I have something like that?" "Because...well, I had to get yours second-hand, and there wasn't a lot of choice," said Mrs. Weasley, flushing. Harry looked away. He would willingly have split all the money in his Gringotts vault with the Weasleys, but he knew they would never take it. "I'm never wearing them," Ron was saying stubbornly. "Never." "Fine," snapped Mrs. Weasley. "Go naked. And Harry, make sure you get a picture of him. Goodness knows I could do with a laugh." She left the room, slamming the door behind her. There was a funny spluttering noise from behind them. Pigwidgeon was choking on an overlarge Owl Treat. "Why is everything I own rubbish?" said Ron furiously, striding across the room to unstick Pigwidgeon's beak. ************************************************ So first she tries to tell him that everyone wears them, then that he's being silly, then that they're just like Harry's, before she finally admits that he'll have to settle for this dress-thing because its the best they can afford - supposedly. But Harry gets robes that match his eyes. I really wonder if she'd remember Ron even exists if he weren't Harry Potter's best friend. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 12:56:20 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925125620.6024.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113838 --- macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" >> wrote: >>Tom finds out all about Harry from Ginny (and she's got a >>huge crush on him, so she's going to be only too pleased to tell >>Tom his life story, even without prompting). He then makes Harry >>his new target. >> >> Hannah Mac: > 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. I agree with Mac. The plan from the inception (wherever or whenever that occurred) was for Tom Riddle to step out of the diary reanimated by the life force of another person - and who better than Harry, who'd shown his power to defeat the Dark Lord as a baby? Ginny was a sideline only, a stepping stone. Dobby wouldn't have been in such a panic or gone to such lengths if it had been Harry who was the target in the first place. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 13:05:55 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:05:55 -0000 Subject: C!M and Imperius (was: How did Snape know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113839 Yb: ...and we know C!M is a VERY powerful wizard Bookworm: 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. (See my post 113598 for thoughts on Bagman.) Ravenclaw Bookworm From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 13:07:08 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and a clever allusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925130708.11364.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113840 --- beatnik24601 wrote: > Recently, while re-reading CoS for the umpteenth time, I discoverd > something new, an allusion I'd never noticed before, that I thought > > I'd share with all you wonderful people. Yes, indeed a good point. I've always felt that way about Jane Austen. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 13:23:29 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 06:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925132329.19556.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113841 Alla: > I just feel that if JKR decides to change Draco in book 6, I will > NOT believe it. Two books left, that is it and NO hint whatsoever > dropped in any of the previous books that Draco has a fighting > chance to see the light..... > > Add to it her remarks at last appearance in Eddinburgh about girls > being in love with Draco Malfoy, when they really should be in love > with Harry and I think Draco is doomed, doomed, doomed. :)) Yep, Draco's not going to be redeemed, definitely. I don't think he'll die - I just don't see him being the type to put himself close to any place dangerous enough for that to happen - but I do think he'll find himself graduating from Hogwarts having to find a job because his family's money and power are gone. While I was reading OOTP for the first time, it occurred to me that Draco had regressed as a character somehow. Now I wonder if JKR isn't letting her fans reactions influence her portrayal of him - it's clear that she really doesn't like the fangirl response to him - and is making him even more repulsive so that people can't possibly like him. To answer Alex's question: why do people think Draco was redeemable before Book 5, I think it's the age issue. By the time he's 15, Draco is old enough to think for himself and to question his parents' beliefs and convictions. Sirius did the same thing by that age and moved out of the house as soon as he could. If Draco is too much in his father's personal thrall to have the independence to do this (as I think he is), then that's his problem and he'll pay for it. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 13:53:18 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:53:18 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113842 Carol: I agree that LV doesn't know about the attempt, but that doesn't mean that Lucius wasn't trying to bring him back. (Otherwise, how can we explain Dobby's concern for Harry and Harry only since Harry isn't a Muggleborn? Bookworm: Picture this: In 1991 Harry reappears in the WW. Draco writes home the first day to tell his parents (if they haven't already heard). For months Dobby hears derogatory comments about Harry, then the plotting starts. Dobby knows that the object of any plot would ultimately be Harry. As SSSusan said, "One point, though, is that while he is not Muggleborn, Harry is also NOT a pureblood, and so might be targeted. Or perhaps the goal WAS to kill some "mudbloods," get DD ousted, and THEN attack Harry, and that's what Dobby knew?" Malfoy would know that Harry was protected by Dumbledore, so getting Dumbledore out of the way would be the first step. SSSusan: And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of restoring Voldy. *But* "LV's not knowing about it in GoF" really *isn't* my argument. It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that Lucius doesn't use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. Bookworm: Malfoy may have know that one doesn't successfully argue about things like that in front of the crowd, that he would get more "brownie points" if he mentioned it quietly later. Mandy here: Personally I think Lucius's goal with the diary was to bring back a young version of LV that Lucius believed he could control and use. Bookworm: Very likely. It's hard to argue a theory from just one scene. I've state before that I think Lucius is out for himself, was using his position as one of Voldemort's senior DEs to strengthen his own power, and would turn on Voldemort as soon as he though he could get away with it. A Junior!Voldemort could be his pawn, instead of him being Voldemort's pawn. Ravenclaw Bookworm From senderellabrat at aol.com Sat Sep 25 14:15:11 2004 From: senderellabrat at aol.com (Sen J) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:15:11 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <007b01c4a2b1$604285e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113843 Kethryn I don't know if anyone > mentioned this in the thread so far but the Weasleys (senior) > are fairly notorious for having bad clothing tastes...mostly they > "wore long robes in varying states of shabbiness" (GoF p 40). Sen: I never saw it as being just a state of shabbiness or going to the WW Goodwill store. IMO, Molly & Arthur do without (unless it's a diehard necessity) so they can make sure their kids have what they need. With that many children at home, I'm sure Molly has gotten used to doing for her kids first & foremost (Like any good mom with any number of kids I'm willing to bet) and puts herself last in line. This even goes for robe shopping. Sen From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 14:27:10 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925142710.40671.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113844 Sen: > IMO, Molly & Arthur do without (unless it's a diehard > necessity) so they can make sure their kids have what they need. > With that many children at home, I'm sure Molly has gotten used to > doing for her kids first & foremost (Like any good mom with any > number of kids I'm willing to bet) and puts herself last in line. > This even goes for robe shopping. Except that by the beginning of GOF, there are only four kids to buy for. Bill, Charlie and Percy are out on their own (although Percy still lives at home) and earning wages. If anything, splurging a little so that Ron can have a set of dress robes should have been possible. I think it's more likely that Molly is just an ingrained scrimper by this point. Buying second-hand and making do has become her automatic response to the need for "new" items. Why she didn't ask Bill or Charley to buy the robes for their kid brother suprises me. In the big families I've been familiar with, older siblings were expected to kick into the pot for the younger ones when they were out on their own and earning money. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From jlawlor at gmail.com Sat Sep 25 15:27:22 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:27:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What are the WW rules? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96773c8804092508273c1d7c37@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113845 > sad1199 here: > 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? > Does anyone know of a spell that is permanent besides Avada Kedavra? > I think that some of the Dark Arts must be permanent because of > Neville's parents. Any comments? James: I've been thinking about this some myself, and just how it relates to Transfiguration and Conjuring spells in general. I'm thinking that when we see someone "conjuring" something, that they're not actually making the item out of thin air, but are transporting it from another location. For example, in CoS when McGonagall conjured a plate of sandwiches for Harry and Ron, she was moving the sandwiches from somewhere in the kitchens (where she knew there ought to be plates of sandwiches) to the classroom. That would also raise the question of why Conjuring and Vanishing is taught in Transfiguration and not Charms. Maybe it's just One of Those Things - perhaps we'll see similarly that Apparation is taught in Transfiguration even though it doesn't seem to be "transfiguring" anything. Also, there could be a level of impermanence to transfiguring things - transfigured items do, after all, seem to remain what they truly are. Eg: Malfoy the Amazing Bouncing Ferret, pincushions that still curl up when you try to put a pin in them. So that might explain why you can't conjure a lot of things - if you conjured or transfigured a meal, it wouldn't really be food you're eating, or if you conjured a set of robes, the spell might wear off at an inopportune time. (This would assume that Dumbledore "conjuring" chairs is something different from McGonagall "conjuring" plates of sandwiches - if they are the same it means that "conjuring" and "vanishing" is (I suppose) just moving things around ). Or, another explanation: you're perfectly able to magically create or transfigure anything you need, but *most* wizards and witches don't have the skill to do it. Most people can do simple things like chairs (Arthur) and with experience can do some parts of meals (Molly making sauce in GoF, I think) but few people have the skill to wave their wand and have a meal turn out exactly like they want it. But I rather doubt that myself. - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 15:35:29 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:35:29 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <20040925142710.40671.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Sen: > > IMO, Molly & Arthur do without (unless it's a diehard > > necessity) so they can make sure their kids have what they need. > > With that many children at home, I'm sure Molly has gotten used to > > doing for her kids first & foremost (Snip> ------ > Except that by the beginning of GOF, there are only four kids to buy for. (snip) If anything, splurging a little so that Ron can have a set of dress robes should have been possible. > > I think it's more likely that Molly is just an ingrained scrimper by this point. Buying second-hand and making do has become her > automatic response to the need for "new" items. > > Why she didn't ask Bill or Charley to buy the robes for their kid > brother suprises me. (snip) > Magda Tonks now: I agree with Sen, the Weasley parents dress poorly because they put themselves last. I disagree with Magda. They have 4 children in a private school. That is not cheap!! And they had to buy all of those books because Lockhart is such an egotist. Of course there is no money for a fancy robe that he is only going to wear one time. He is a boy. It will be dark. They are not a bright color.. he will blend it. Give Molly a break!! He is just being a teenager. No parent can please their teenager. (and no I have never had children, but I know.) And in Molly's mind, it is not Bill or Charley's place to help their parents. She would see it as her place to care for her children. Now it would have been nice if Bill and Charley would send money home from time to time. Maybe they have tired to, and it would be an insult to their father, so Molly won't let them. If Molly was a widow, yes her older sons would help. They would be the "men" of the family in Arthur's absence. But Arthur is there. Can you imagine the feeling of shame that would put on him? They are doing the best they can. And Molly was upset like many parents are when they do their best, wishing they could do better, and their child rubs it in their face that it is not good enough. Ron will get over it. In a 100 years it won't matter. ;-) Tonks_op From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 15:38:35 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:38:35 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113847 Tonks_op I think Molly is a kind and loving mother. Like most teens Ron shows that Mom just is not in touch with the younger generation and their styles. That is not unusual in the Muggle world and I doubt that it is any different in the wizard world. Bookworm: For the last few years, I have refused to buy clothes for my teens without them present. In our case, my kids wear their own styles. I could get outfits that my daughter's friends would love but that she won't touch. imamommy: Can someone point out a canonical reference to Ron hating maroon? I just got the impression that he was sick of it. Bookworm: "`I hate maroon,' Ron moaned halfheartedly as he pulled it over his head." [PS/SS, Ch12] imamommy: Maybe it was his favorite color once, and he's never updated his mother that orange is the new maroon. Bookworm: Or his mother doesn't remember. I went through a phase for about a year in school when I loved white chocolate. Until about three years ago (more than two decades later) my mother was still giving me white chocolate. I finally had to tell her very emphatically ? no more. And can you really see red-haired Ron wearing orange?? imamommy Raising teenagers is like nailing jello to a tree. Bookworm: Definitely! (I'd say that is true for all kids.) Ravenclaw Bookworm From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 13:33:35 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:33:35 -0000 Subject: Brain in Snape's office? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113848 After reading a number of posts refering to a possible connection to books 2 and 6, I have been going through CoS while at the same time reading OoTP to my daughter. In doing so something interesting popped out at me last night. In CoS while Harry and Ron are sitting in Snape's office after flying into the Whomping Willow, Harry ..... ".. now felt extremely sick. He tried not to look at a large, slimy something suspended in green liquid on a shelf behind Snape's desk"..(CoS, UK ed. pg. 119). And in OoTP while in the DoM the teens entered a room that had .."an enormous glass tank of deep green liquid, big enough for all of them to swim in; a number of pearly-white objects were drifting around lazily in it. 'What are those things? whispered Ron..........'No,' said Hermione. She sounded odd. She moved forward to look through the side of the tank, 'They're brains.' 'Brains?' 'Yes..I wonder what they're doing with them?' Harry joined her at the tank. Sure enough, there could be no mistake now he saw them at close quarters. Glimmering eerily, they drifted in and out of sight in the depths of the green liquid, looking something like slimy cauliflowers." (OoTP, UK ed,. pg 681) Three similarities that struck me was the description of the "green liquid" containing something "large/cauliflower sized" and "slimy". Now if Snape does have a brain in his office, why does he? What would he use it for? Does he do "experiments"' on it in his spare time? Does it have something to do with Occlumency? I know that JKR sometimes mentions something in one book /chapter only to wait a few more books/chapters to bring it up again. Do you think she may be "testing" us to make sure we are paying attention? Or do these things have something to do with the next two books or something that Harry or his fellow DA members will have to deal with later? I was hoping that some of you more serious, learned scholars of the HP series could share with the rest of us. Karen L. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 16:07:25 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:07:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113849 Tonks_op: Having said all of that, I think JKR has said that the shape of Harry's mark has no important meaning. She said that the fact that he has it is the most important part. Bookworm: What she said was "The shape is not the most significant aspect of that scar, and that's all I'm going to say!" (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/JKRWorldBookDay2004.html) That tells me that the shape probably has *some* significance, but there is another aspect that is more important. Ravenclaw Bookworm From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 16:20:41 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:20:41 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113850 Kneasy 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. 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. Either this is a major Flint, or the spell was cast with a different wand. Ravenclaw Bookworm (who is not about to jump into the possibilities of what *that* implies) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 25 16:25:05 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:25:05 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113851 > Hannah originally wrote: > > > Malfoy then hands out the diary, either deliberately to Ginny > > because of her father (depending on his motive) or just because > sheis the first young girl about to start at Hogwarts that he comes across. Tom finds out all about Harry from Ginny (and she's got a huge crush on him, so she's going to be only too pleased to tell Tom his life story, even without prompting). He then makes Harry his new target. >Hannah > Then Mac replied: > > > 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. Hannah now: I'm not ignoring Dobby's warning to Harry. I just don't think that necessarily means the whole plot was aimed at him. Perhaps it was - I consider it to be a possibility, though I think it was only for whatever benefits removing Harry might have for Lucius, not because he wanted LV back. But Dobby may still have warned Harry even though the plot wasn't specifically aimed at him. Dobby knew there was a plot that would involve attacks on non-purebloods. Knowing that Harry was a half- blood, he feared that Harry would be attacked, and warned him. OK, other students would be as well, but Harry is the one that Dobby cares about enough to defy his master by warning. Or perhaps he overheard Malfoy's plan to oust DD/ discredit Weasley and realised that Tom Riddle wasn't going to settle for killing off just any mudbloods once he'd heard of Harry Potter. Maybe Dobby judged future events more accurately than his master? Hannah From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 16:25:55 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:25:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113852 > SSSusan: > Yes, DD & Snape & Lupin, et al., are training Harry up, but why does > that have to mean that he doesn't have special power? HAVING the > power doesn't mean an automatic understanding of how to use it. > > To counter the quote you've provided, I offer up these, also from DD > in OotP: > And, most importantly, to me, about his 3rd year: > "Young you might be, but you had proved you were *exceptional.*" > [839, emphasis added] > Nope, I still interpret this as DD's believing Harry is truly > different from other wizards, truly gifted in some extraordinary way. Jen: You make a good case, Susan! I also think Harry is special in a way that has nothing to do with magical prowess, or maybe it does but JKR hasn't explained it yet. Harry says it's 'luck' that helps him defy Voldemort, but he seems a little *too* lucky, you know? It seems more than coincidence when help always arrives in the nick of time. And I do think this is a power Harry posesses that Voldemort didn't transfer to him, perhaps this power is even connected to his ability to do wandless magic. Whatever it is, Harry is able to call forth what he needs in his darkest moments of despair. Jen Reese From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 17:33:03 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:33:03 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <20040925123910.36422.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113853 Magda wrote: > It's actually worth re-reading the whole dress robes page to show > just how goaded Ron is before he erupts: snip excerpt from GoF > So first she tries to tell him that everyone wears them, then that > he's being silly, then that they're just like Harry's, before she > finally admits that he'll have to settle for this dress-thing because > its the best they can afford - supposedly. But Harry gets robes that > match his eyes. > > I really wonder if she'd remember Ron even exists if he weren't Harry > Potter's best friend. > > Magda Ginger, having now coughed up the orange juice that went down the wrong way, responds: Oh, wow, do we read this differently! You read it and thought Molly was horrible. I read it and thought Ron was a spoiled brat. It is one of the few times in the book that I haven't liked Ron-usually I adore him. Let's look at things from Molly's POV. She has all the family home, plus company. More cooking, more cleaning, probably a lot of preparations to make sure everyone has a nice time and all that. After fixing a big meal, cleaning up, and getting to bed late, she wakes up before dawn to get everyone up that's catching a portkey, fixes breakfast, goes off on the twins, gets the others on their way, hops over to Diagon Alley with 6 lists of things to get for school, 2 of which aren't even her duty -she does it out of the goodness of her heart. After getting books, potion ingredients, robes for those who have outgrown theirs (if needed-kids do grow), 5 sets of dress robes - and may I say she did a bangup job on Hermione's- or 6 if she got Ginny some that day assuming she'd be asked, and any other items that they may need, such as underwear, toiletries, etc. she goes home and hits the hay. The next morning she is awakened bright and early with an exaggerated report of the events at the QWC (as if the real events weren't bad enough), awaits word from her family, not knowing if they are dead, injured, or otherwise harmed (darn Rita Skeeter) and hoping that her last words to F&G won't be her last words to them, period. During the following week, Arthur is rarely home, she still has a houseful, and things are strained because of Rita and the hubbub at the Ministry. The day before they leave, she does everyone's laundry, and makes sure everyone gets packed. I'd bet a galleon she hasn't thought about Ron's dress robes since she bought them. There are more important things to worry about, especially with a houseful of company. She may have intended to alter them, but who can blame her for forgetting. When she sees them again, Ron is pitching a fit about them. Had he asked nicely, she might have considered altering them for him, but he doesn't ask for alterations, he simply refuses to wear them. And he does so rather rudely. Then he starts in on Harry's robes and their financial situation. After she does his laundry for him, he has the nerve to rub it in her face that she can't do as well for him as Harry's inheritance allows. He embarrasses her in front of Harry, which, in turn, embarrasses Harry. Molly runs her behind off for him, and he has the nerve to complain. I wanted to turn him over my knee. Ginger, who wonders why Ron got to bring 2 friends when the other kids didn't get to bring any. Harry, I can see. He loves Quidditch. But Hermione? Wouldn't Lee Jordan have been a better choice for the extra ticket? Why didn't F&G get to bring him? Even if he had a ticket, these were box seats! Yes, yes, plot purposes, but it looks like Ron isn't so overlooked after all. From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 25 17:31:59 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:31:59 +0100 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon /5 sets of Lockhart's book? and WW economy References: <20040925123910.36422.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00be01c4a329$df42a550$232f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113854 Magda wrote: "I really wonder if she'd remember Ron even exists if he weren't Harry Potter's best friend." ---------------- Oh, Madga! I agree she's being awful, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think? Molly doesn't put extra effort when shopping for her kids because she's been doing it all their lives; it's her money, not theirs; she's under the impression she knows them very well; and she thinks she knows what's best for them better than themselves. It's such a normal mistake parents do, that it even has a name: generation gap. Think of her comments about Bill's hair and her autism about F&G choice of a future. She's *being* awful, but she isn't *awful*. She manages the family money according to what she thinks is their happiness, their needs. She just fails to see the teenagers as people with different priorities and - worst thought - different values than hers. Now, shopping for Harry is a completely different thing. First, it's his money. She's not likely to buy second-hand things unless he tells her to. Second, regarding clothes, it's the first time she's done it - she's likely to take extra care to buy something that Harry won't find completely ridiculous. And she has the extra challenge of never having seen Harry in wizards' clothes except for the school robes. So what does she do? She picks something very similar to the school robes, but in different colour. And what colour? Well, Molly-like, the same colour of Harry's first and forth Christmas sweaters: green to mach his eyes. The fact Molly managed to pick something Harry felt comfortable with actually proved to me she doesn't see Harry as an extra son. My mother, who is very picky about her own clothes, stopped buying clothes for me when I was 15 because she couldn't get it right and until this day she doesn't understand what I have against flower patterns. Yet, if my sister's friend (who's practically family) says she doesn't like flowers, she'll accept and remember. Now, this thread(s) are taking a turn into WW economy. I'm sure this was discussed do death - I've read some posts in the archives - but I'll try to illustrate what's been written with the current example: Ron's dress robes and Lockhart's books. In the WW people have professions just like in ours. Some people will be writers and singers who live out of their creations. To buy one set of Lockhart's books and duplicate it is probably as illegal as in MW. It doesn't mean it can't be done, just that precautions would be taken to make it difficult and that you don't want to be caught doing it. As for conjuring a book (with all the writing inside) I'd say is not possible. To little muggle me, it would seem the conjurer would have to know the contents very well to do so. The task would be so complex that few (or none) would be up to it. When tasks are too complex for muggles, we built machines. Wizards built magical artefacts for the same purpose. And other professions came up: magical printers manufacturers, magical printers operators, magical printers maintenance personal, unduplicate spell experts, load operators (levitosa spell experts), book distribution managers, distribution vehicles manufacturers (who employ invisibility spell experts, movement spell experts, more levitosa spell experts), distribution vehicles operators, book retailers, book shop managers, shop decorators, ... These people go home after a full time job's day and are not likely to take the time to learn (research, practice) the "making clothes fold themselves when packing" spell, less alone the "designer clothes conjuring" spell - which is bound to be far more complicated and requires good taste and a fertile imagination. And if someone doesn't think that being a hose wife with seven children is a full time job, I'd like to see them try (even with magic)! It's not for show off that wizards spent 5 to 7 years learning magic (full time) before entering WW work force. There will be exceptions like we have in MW: people who became regarded members of society without taking the time to improve themselves (study). But mainly, people without studies will become ground keepers or something like that. So, if Molly decides to have a vanishing closet in her kitchen, she's not likely to let her family starve to death wile she goes to a library and research the right spells (bound to be more than one) and sets up an experience laboratory in the living room to built a pilot-scale vanishing closet, experiments on it and finely builds the full scale version beneath her sink. She's likely to pay someone who has done all that, works in the vanishing closets business since 1936 and will do a better job then she would in just half an hour. Hoping this was helpful, Susana From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 05:17:34 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:17:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? Message-ID: <1BE87C59.7F8851CF.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113855 Kaylee: I do feel sorry for ickle Ronniekins though. Maroon? Hmph. I don't like maroon either. I only eat corned beef once a year, on St. Patrick's Day. It tastes okay, but it's served with cabbage, which I hate. :-( Tonks here: Maybe Ron has never told her that he hates that color. If he had I think she would have given him a different color. (I think orange is an ugly color, myself.) Maroon goes more with the Gryffindor colors than orange and maybe Maroon goes better with his other clothes. Also, I know a large family that had a different "favorite" color for each kid. So if the 5th one came along and blue and green and red was already taken.. they had to choose another color. Seems odd to me, but that is the way that family did thing. So maybe it is something like that. Also with a large family if each kid has his own color it would be easier to do the laundry and get it back to the right person. As to the robes. Molly like most adults probably doesn't know what is "in". And this is the wizard world. Men might well wear lace on their robes, we don't know. I think Molly is a kind and loving mother. Like most teens Ron shows that Mom just is not in touch with the younger generation and their styles. That is not unusual in the Muggle world and I doubt that it is any different in the wizard world. I know some here don't like Molly and Arthur, but I do. If they were real I would love to have them for friends. And Hagrid too!! And Snape too! ;-) Cheers, Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 18:37:12 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:37:12 EDT Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. Message-ID: <1c2.1ee58eb1.2e8714d8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113856 Alex wrote: > > *I*, personally, find it a little disappointing that the Spoiled > Rotten Rich Boy introduced in the first book is apparently not going > to develop past that. Harry pegs him as the "wrong sort" the very > first time he sees him....and, lo and behold, he's the wrong sort. I > *hope* he'll be redeemed--but I think I agree with you that if he was > going to be, there would be *something* that a determined reader such > as myself could interpret as hinting at his Inner Goodness. And > while I maintain that evidence of his Inner Evil is inconclusive, I > admit that there's not anything to point toward Inner Good. << > > > SSSusan: > Picking up on your last paragraph a bit, Alex, as for me, I'll > settle for something more than 2-D Draco! I've found him one of the > biggest disappointments in the books. There's just nothing TO him > that we've gotten to see. He's simply a carboard nemesis for Harry, > a sneering, drawling, snob. I hope for some *depth* at some point, > whether he's evil or redeemed or a tormented somewhere-in-the-middle. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Julie writes: This is one of the limitations of the story being told almost completely from Harry's POV. We've seen Sirius, Snape and others fleshed out some because they've spent enough meaningful time with Harry for us to evaluate not only Harry's thoughts about them, but their own actions under differing circumstances, as well as glimpses into their histories. I'm hoping at some point during the next two books Harry and Draco will be thrown together in some meaningful way (i.e., not just in class or passing in the halls sniping at each other). If that doesn't happen, Draco may remain a 2D character who just flits in and out of Harry's conciousness whenever they periodically and briefly encounter each other. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 14:36:27 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:36:27 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <20040925142710.40671.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113857 Magda Grantwich wrote: > I think it's more likely that Molly is just an ingrained scrimper by > this point. Buying second-hand and making do has become her > automatic response to the need for "new" items. > > Why she didn't ask Bill or Charley to buy the robes for their kid > brother suprises me. In the big families I've been familiar with, > older siblings were expected to kick into the pot for the younger > ones when they were out on their own and earning money. If Hermione can magically knit caps and socks for the house elves, why can't /won't Molly Weasley sew new robes for Ron and Ginny? Is she that cheap? Karen L. From joseph at kirtland.com Sat Sep 25 15:23:02 2004 From: joseph at kirtland.com (Joe Bento) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:23:02 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: <20040925132329.19556.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > To answer Alex's question: why do people think Draco was redeemable > before Book 5, I think it's the age issue. By the time he's 15, > Draco is old enough to think for himself and to question his parents' > beliefs and convictions. Sirius did the same thing by that age and > moved out of the house as soon as he could. If Draco is too much in > his father's personal thrall to have the independence to do this (as > I think he is), then that's his problem and he'll pay for it. Magda, Someone else brought up in this topic the fact that Draco has done many bad or hurtful things, but he hasn't yet shown a characteristic of being truly evil. Perhaps redemption is yet possible. Is it 17 that a wizard comes of age? If so, he still has another year left to go. In taking of the dark mark, if Draco receives it, I don't feel it will be at his own free will. I think we may see a serious fight between Draco and Lucius over this matter. Is his behavior in Slytherin an act to just be on the good side with his housemates? Though we haven't really been led to believe otherwise, it doesn't seem that people like Crabbe, Goyle, and Parkinsin could be "good" friends. On an intellectual level, they are no match for Draco. We've been told he's a good student, though to Lucius' dismay, he's not as good as Hermione. I see Draco as a spoiled little kid that loves his parents and tries to please them, though he never quite makes the mark of fulfilling his father's expectations. I do hope that taking the dark mark won't be the ultimate act Draco does to gain full acceptance from his father. Draco and Snape are among my favorite characters in the books. I stll have high expectations of them. We've been surprised by Snape numerous times when the Trio thought he was up to evil acts. I hope to see the same things from Draco as well. Assuming there may be 1200 or more pages to go between books six and seven, there's a lot of story left to tell. Joe From shalimar07 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 15:39:34 2004 From: shalimar07 at aol.com (mumweasley7) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:39:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's eye color and killing curse (was Re: Book Two Discoveries!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113859 > > > AmanitaMuscaria again: > > > Only problem is, Harry has Lily's eyes. Now, I read that as > saying > > > Lily had green eyes, too, so with your theory, Lily should also > > have > > > survived. But, who knows? Only JKR, and she's not telling us yet! > > > > Earendil: > > I think it will reveal very important in later books that Harry has > > *Lily*'s eyes, but is the colour in itself important? > > Earendil. I would like to respond to the mystery of 'Lily's Eyes'. I'm not sure that the color itself is that important. Howevery, how many times has Harry done things without the use of a Wand or casting a spell. ie...He didn't like the way his hair was cut and it grew back, Dudley and his friends were agravating him at the zoo and the snakes glass disappeared....I believe Harry is more powerful than he realizes. How many times have we heard the phrase "If looks could kill?" MumWeasley7 - Mary From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 18:53:57 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:53:57 -0000 Subject: Where Crouch Jr. erred (was: Re: Fake!Moody's attack on Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113860 > DuffyPoo: > snip > DD and Snape may have known that Mad-Eye didn't resort to killing > unless he had no other choice but it's doubtful any of the rest of > the teachers knew that. Why would they? IMO I think Moody's 'but I > thought a good sharp shock -- ' line was perfect. Keep in mind that > what Moody AND Crouch, Jr hate more than anything is a DE who walked > free. > Potioncat: > But I don't think the real Moody would have done it. Draco, > afterall, isn't a DE who walked free. (At least not yet.) Finwitch: Well - Fake!Moody also said something like 'I don't like people who attack when their opponent's back is turned' - suits well for a supposedly paranoid Moody, huh? I think the real Moody might have transfigured Draco into a ferret (to save Harry! Paranoid as he is!), but not resorted to kicking the ferret afterwards! Then again, who knows? But two things that, to my mind, could bring out doubts: 1) The first lesson! Sure, we can believe that Auror knows how to cast the unforgivables (besides, Crouch Sr. authorised them to do so!) in the first place. We can believe that Moody shows them in class on Spiders. BUT, I do NOT think that Moody would have needed Hermione to tell him when to stop that Cruciatus for Neville's sake! It seems Crouch Jr. has this fault: he can't stop hurting people (or poor little spiders) unless he's stopped. Particularly with Cruciatus! Same for just about any DE holds true; Voldemort, how ever, CAN and DOES stop it himself. 2) The stuck-in-the-staircase incident. Crouch Jr. did not, IMO, behave like Moody would have. Real Moody would have *at least* scolded Harry for getting stuck in a stair out of carelessness, with several mentions about people trying to kill him! (and about elementary wand-safety, but none of us could know that until OotP) Finwitch From steve51445 at adelphia.net Sat Sep 25 18:24:41 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:24:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925182438.RYKN27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 113861 >Kneasy >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. > >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. Either this is a major Flint, or the >spell was cast with a different wand. Steve now: I never heard Spock say it, but I don't remember all the old episodes. But it is also from William of Occam. William was a Franciscan friar and logician from 14 century England. Strangely enough Ockham, the village he was from and named after, was in Surrey. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Little Winging in Surrey? Occam's Razor, as the principle is called, states: "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Or "all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one." I think the simplest answer based on the evidence from the books is that LV used the AK on Lily, but not on Harry, because HP remembers the green light after his mother's screams, but not another green light after that. I guess we don't know for sure if there was or wasn't another AK after the one that killed Lily. HP might not have remembered a second one yet. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 25 19:00:07 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:00:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (LV's Wand in the Malfoy Residence)Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) References: <1096056364.31674.15689.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000d01c4a331$e05f8d60$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 113862 Carolyn wrote: > I think Lucius is the last person that Peter would approach to hide > the wand, and there is no canon to suggest that Lucius has any > knowledge of Ron's pet. If he did know anything about the MWPP > > Pettigrew must know a lot more about what happened at GH than has > been revealed so far. First and foremost whether Voldie left a body > behind, for a start. And if the failed attack on Harry was enough to > destroy Voldie absolutely so there was nothing left, not even his > underpants, why didn't it destroy the wand as well? Quite so. And logically (not a feature of wizardry I know), if Peter had gone to Lucius, he would certainly have had to answer a lot of searching questions about exactly what had happened to the Dark Lord. Very painful questions. Down in the dark room under the manor that no sounds come out of even though very painful questions are being asked inside. Questions like "You planned for this to happen, didn't you, you dirty little traitor?" And all that would remain would be for a dead rat with certain curious injuries to be observed floating down the local river afterwards. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:16:18 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:16:18 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040925182438.RYKN27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113863 > > > >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. Either this is a major Flint, or the > >spell was cast with a different wand. > Finwitch: Sherlock Holmes (fictional private detective by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who uses means of logic to conclude amazing things out of slightest clues...) has said something to that - except that he only had ONE remaining, which then had to be the truth. Anyway, it's one of the basic principles of logic, (honest, for something to be true, it MUST be *possible* first. It's OBVIOUS.) so it wouldn't be out of place in Mr Spock's mouth either. (Those Vulcans have made logic into a religion!) However, in a world of magic, where it IS possible to be in several places at once (an impossibility in the Muggle world, but Hermione was in 3 places during the same hour to take her classes), conjure things out of thin air etc. we have to be very careful what we decide to eliminate as impossible! When it comes to Voldemort/Harry surviving AK that dreadful night: Most of the curse was reflected back to the source, therefore turning Voldemort into this thing, which was lesser than a ghost, but could possess people. Harry got a little part (enough to make him bleed and get a scar, anyway). What happened to Voldemort's body? well... Harry's 'the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord', so I presume Harry's magic did something to explode Voldemort AND the house (what else could have happened to it!). It left the bodies of Harry's parents intact (or fixed them later. Magic can't bring the dead back to life, but it CAN restore a body.) Baby Harry didn't know any of this, of course... Finwitch From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:18:25 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:18:25 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <00b801c49d99$a94c6610$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113864 Feklar wrote: RL answersBy the same token Severus should have learned the same thinkg. He was at Hogwarts as a student for as long as Sirius was, he's been a teacher there for 15 years, he's seen McGonagall and Dumbledore and all the others. He should know abusing his students is wrong. Strangely enough most Sirius basher(don't mean you specifically, this is a general observation) are ready to excuse any action from Snape because he was abused by his peers and ignore the abuse he visits on his charges while hating and condemning Sirius for what he did to someone his own age. That sounds rather unfair to me, to say the least. Feklar wrote RL answers: Strictly speaking, the only student that was accused of hexing everybody was James, not Sirius (actually I always thought Lily was exaggerationg when she said that, same as MM saying she was never so ashamed of her students or RH saying all bad wizards were Slytherins, but that's another post). What proof do you have that Sirius was abusing anyone (let not forget that hexing isn't considered abuse in the WW). And I may be partial to Sirius (if you didn't notice :-), but what do we really know about the prank? All we know for sure is that only SS thinks it was an attempted murder. AD seems to have a different opinion (he didn't expel SB, did he?). MM, RH and the others talk about SB and JP fondly during the 3 broomstick meeting. And they thought SB was a DE. I'll reserve judgement about that episode until we have more information. Feklar wrote <1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there were innocent bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't in the "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and waited, but chose to attck without regard to the safety of others.> RL answers: Are we sure SB attacked first? Strangely enough PP had the time to accuse him of killing J&LP and then blew up a whole street, while SB did nothing. For all we know he just wanted some explanation and PP took advantage of his presence to escape (no, I don't really think that's what happened, I'm just saying it's too early to accuse SB of irresponsibly attacking anyone) Feklar wrote: Treatment of Kreacher, as with Snape, he prefers to be abusive and attack first with things he doesn't like. It's possible it's standard in dark households to treat house elves like that, but again, he had 7 years of Hogwarts (and sneaking into the kitchens there) to learn there was a different way. RL answers: I don't get it. Why does everybody think SB was abusive of Kreatcher? He obviously disliked the elf, but he wasn't exacting punishment for hil laziness or for his disrespect to his master, he wasn't forcing the elf to do anything, apart from putting up with mudbloods and blood traitors, but that seems more AD's doing than Sirius. Feklar: I specified he was unreliable about Sanpe's character. We don't know about the facts, but I do think he immediately saw Snape as a stand-in for his family and was probably incapable of seeing the reality of Snape's personality and character. Indeed, Sirius seems so eager to attack and express his hatred of his family that Snape's real character was probably irrelevant. In other words, I think Snape would have been his target no matter what. RL: As far as we're told, the feud was between SS and JP, not between SS and SB. what makes you so sure Sirius was transferring his hatred of his family over to Snape? Romulus Lupin, who's awfully behind in reading posts, as usual From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Sep 25 19:22:37 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:22:37 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why buy Ron Maroon? References: <1096084347.9852.21882.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002c01c4a335$05357480$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 113865 Angie wrote: >Even if Maroon was all she could get, couldn't they have dyed it? >Surely, they know about dyes! I think they'd use charms rather than dyes, which makes it even more odd. Would it not make sense for Ron to go into the library, look up a colour-changing charm, and transfigure his jumper to whatever colour he wants? But maybe I'm thinking like Hermione on that? Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:36:36 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:36:36 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? In-Reply-To: <002c01c4a335$05357480$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113866 Ffred: > > Would it not make sense for Ron to go into the library, look up a > colour-changing charm, and transfigure his jumper to whatever colour he > wants? > > But maybe I'm thinking like Hermione on that? Finwitch: Good point. At least I think that Molly thinks that "If Ron really hates Maroon so much, he's welcome to change it himself, or Percy could do it once they get to Hogwarts. Or even the twins, though I don't think he'd like that either. Anyway, that boy sure can't expect me to do everything for him now that he's old enough to go to Hogwarts..." In short, if Mommy does everything, how are the kids ever going to learn how to take care of themselves? And as Ron has five older brothers, surely if Ron can't change the colour of his ropes, one of *them* could do it for him! Of course, Ron's just the sort who complains about things he cares. Finwitch From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:41:16 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:41:16 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113867 > Finwitch: > > The answer is simple. He didn't. I doubt Sirius considered that > 'Snivellus' would DIE in there. I think he planned for Snape to be > bitten, but not dead! > > In the pensieve scene we hear the "discussion" over question ten (five > ways to recognise a werewolf). Sirius is teasing Moony about it, and > Moony jokes with him. Then Pettigrew comes up with his moaning of > difficulty and Sirius loses his temper at that thickness (Which I > believe was total FAKE on Peter's part, bedding his betrayal later...) > Snape *heard* them - or at least the latter part of it. He may well > have heard the "You're hanging out with one". > > Then he's reading the exam paper over and over, trying, perhaps, to > figure out what 'one' Peter was hanging out with? I think Snape > discovered Lupin's secret that day, there and then! The conflict with > James&saved by Lily, as well as calling her a mudblood is obvious - > too obvious. > > Finwitch RL replies: I agree with you, but if we're right, then the prank is entirely SS's fault. He knew Remus was a werewolf and he still went to the Shrieking Shack on a full-moon night? God, you made my day. Not only is Snape evil, he's also dumb! Romlulus Lupin, who would like a link to Steve's open letter to JKR, since he couldn't find it on his own. Any good Samaritans out there? From ryokas at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 19:44:25 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:44:25 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040925182438.RYKN27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113868 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Occam's Razor, as the principle is called, states: "when you have two > competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is > simpler is the better." Or "all things being equal, the simplest answer > tends to be the right one." The trouble with Occam's Razor is what I none-too-humbly call Kizor's Rake: "Probabilities cannot be used to make definitive statements about reality." This is especially true with a convoluted narrative that likes to throw things on their head. Anything too far-fetched will likely come under ANTITHESIS (All Nice Theories, I Think; However, Each Supposition Is Strained) but Harry and the gang have failed to see what's in front of themselves several times throughout the series by failing to thing topsy-turvily *enough*. - Kizor From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:52:33 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:52:33 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113869 > RL replies: snip. > I agree with you, but if we're right, then the prank is entirely > SS's fault. He knew Remus was a werewolf and he still went to the > Shrieking Shack on a full-moon night? Alla: Eh, I will be the first one to say that we don't know much about Prank yet, but Snape knew that Remus is a werewolf and still went there? I doubt it. Kneasy once wrote a very funny imaginary conversation between Snape and Sirius prior to Prank. It is very hard to determine WHY Snape actually listened to Sirius, if they were not on the best terms, to put it mildly, but I am having a hard time believing yours. Sorry. Whoever Snape is, he is not stupid. I remember someone once claimed that Snape is stupid, but never actually presented canon supporting such statement, while other people presented plenty of canon to show that Snape is actually very smart. So, I choose to think that Snape was smart enough not to go and meet a nice werewolf without Wolfsbane being invented yet. :o) I DO NOT think that Sirius planned to kill Snape. There are plenty of other choices for me to pick from. I do believe though that Snape honestly thinks that. If I take Sirius' words about Snape past on full faith and credit , I have to be consistent and give the same courtesy to Snape. :) Romulus Lupin: > God, you made my day. Not only is Snape evil, he's also dumb! Alla: Oh, maybe you will be the one who finally gives us some canon about Snape being dumb? Please, pretty please? :) > Romlulus Lupin, who would like a link to Steve's open letter to JKR, > since he couldn't find it on his own. Any good Samaritans out there? Alla: There is a link to Lexicon on the home page of this group. The letter is on the Lexicon home page. Here is the link. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/jkr-letter.html From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 19:55:40 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:55:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Crouch Jr. (Was: Trelawney, Polyjuice Potion, house elves and Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113870 > So, as intelligent and shrewd as Snape is (he knew perfectly well who > was standing on top of the stairs in his invisibility cloak, for > example), Crouch's choice of people to impersonate (or his luck in the > victim chosen for him) combined with Snape's belief that Harry put his > own name in the cup prevented Snape, IMO, from figuring out that Moody > was an imposter with a sinister ulterior motive. RL answers: AD said only a trained powerful wizard could hoodwink the GOF. Do you think SS disbelieved AD? Why does he think HP is a dunderhead, then, if he's so powerful to do it? I can understand that his first reaction was to accuse HP, but he had a lot of time to think about it. One more thing, unless boomstrang (sp?)is used for other things than polyjuice potion, how come SS suspected HP? C!M must have stolen quite a lot of it, wouldn't SS suspect that the polyjuiced guy was staying in someone else's shoes for a long while (as opposed to the trio who only polyjuiced for an hour)? HP was always there as himself (at lessons, in the Hall, etc). BTW, doesn't SS think HP below average in potions? how oculd he be making PP? Romulus Lupin, who thinks SS isn't as logical as some would make him out to be and is sure he wants to believe the worst about Harry for his own nefarious reasons From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:04:01 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:04:01 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113871 > Pat here: > > First of all, I think it's brilliant of pippin to point out the > similarities between Harry and Snape in this particular situation-- > Dudley Demented. I hadn't really put those two together, but the > thing I did notice was that Harry had taken on the role of the bully- > -a reversal of his previous relationship with Dudley. If there's a parallel between Dudley Demented and Snape's worst memory as Pippin says, and there's a role reversal between Harry and Dudley as you say, then it follows that ther's also a reversal of roles in the Pensieve scene. Maybe this is Snape's worst menory because for the first time ever Sirius and James bested him at his favorite sport. MMm I like this Romulus Lupin, who doesn't believe being abused ever justifies being abusive, no matter what psychologists say and is sure Snape is mean because he enjoys it and he chooses to be From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Sep 25 20:12:20 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:12:20 EDT Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Re:=20Why=20buy=20Ron=20M?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?aroon=3F=20=A0(Was:=20=A0Why=20buy=205=20sets=20of=20Lock?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?har...?= Message-ID: <96.162305b0.2e872b24@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113872 In a message dated 9/25/2004 2:38:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fuzzlebub85 at aol.com writes: Maybe Ron has never told her that he hates that color. ------------------ Sherrie here: Ron and maroon has always reminded me of me and pink. (It's one of the few sympathies I have with Ron, actually - on the whole, I dislike him immensely.) When I was growing up, my mother had this "you're a girl, you'll wear pink, sleep in a pink room, &c." thing - despite the fact that I was a pale-skinned towhead, who looked TERRIBLE in pink. Didn't matter - I got pink. Didn't matter how much I complained - I got pink. It took my mom nearly forty years to figure out that I never WORE any of the pink clothes she bought me... Had she paid attention to what I actually DID wear (and what I bought for myself with my allowance), she'd have KNOWN my favorite color was black - she just didn't pay attention. As for the dress robes scene, I think both of them were at fault. Ron is whiny - but Molly COULD have taken five minutes to say, "Look, this is the best I could do - let's see what WE can do to fix it", rather than tap-dancing around it. (And yes, I'm from a family of five - the eldest.) Sherrie (not a big fan of Molly, either) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:15:27 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:15:27 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > Well, I don't agree with your entire post: I don't think our > favorite Rat-man was in Hogsmeade with Ron. If he had been, he would > have certainly heard about the Map, and surely would have > disappeared over the holidays. Not waiting until February, for sure. > He would have been concerned with exactly what Carol was thinking > earlier: someone would have seen the name "Peter Pettigrew" and > started wondering. (snip) > And as for why the twins never noticed a Peter Pettigrew? Well, > there are several reasons: > 1) As someone pointed out a few posts ago, when canon says the print > on the MM is miniscule, it means /miniscule/. (snip)> > 2) It's pretty clear that students (Gryffindors, at least) don't > associate with other students outside their house and/or year. In > the off chance that the twins noticed a Peter Pettigrew, they may > have written it off as a student they don't know. (snip)> > 3) Gred and Forge's main concerns were finding hiding places, secret > tunnels, secret rooms, and in general doing things they shouldn't > have been doing, most likely out of bed after hours. Thus their main > concern would have been who was in the hall they were in, who was > close enough to hear them, and perhaps which professors were where. > (If they saw Snape coming, they'd probably run and hide, whereas > Trelawny on patrol might buy some wild story about why they were out > of bed at night.) They wouldn't need to look at the dorm rooms > (where Rat-man usually hung out), because, aside from Poindexter > Percy, no one in the dorm rooms would give them any trouble. > > I think that's enough reasons... what do you think? > > ~Yb RL here: I agree with your post. I have one point to make. I think the Marauders never appear on the map by their full names, but only by their nicknames. I doubt F&G or HP ever noticed a tiny dot in the dorms saying Wormtail and they'd never connect it with Peter Pettigrew. Remus, OTOH, knew pwefwctly well who Wormtail was and that he was supposed to be dead. Plus he was looking at the exact spot where he happened to be, oming out of Hagrid's hut. Romulus Lupin, slowly catching up with past posts From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:31:12 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:31:12 -0000 Subject: Wizarding health and hospitals (was: Re: Source of LV's evil nature) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113874 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > I always assumed TR was born in a Muggle hospital. I mean, if he was > born in a Wizarding hospital (where Healers could possibly have > saved his mother), why would he have been put in a Muggle orphanage? > But Angie does make a good point, that it reiterates the fact that > magic can't fix everything. RL here: While I agree with your point, I've always thought (well, ever since the Vauxhall Orphanage debate between Geoff and Shaun) that TR's mom died near the orphanage. The way I see it, when she was 7 or so months pregnant, her husband insisted she go to the nearest hospital for the delivery. This is when she told him she was a witch and was going to St Mungo's, of course. I guess they had a screaming match, he laid hands on her and sent her packing (I bet she cursed him good. After all he went back to Mommy and Daddy and never remarried, did he. I bet he couldn't perform his husbandly duties anymore, when Mrs Riddle finished with him ;o). Anyway, she apparated, flew, whatever to London. Maybe she miscalculated, or she had friends/family in the area, whatever, the combination of stress, abuse, fatigue sent her into early labor before she got to her destination. When she broke her waters, some good Samaritan took her to the nearest Muggle hospital where she died. The rest is history, more or less. Romulus Lupin, who should be working right now, but is reading posts instead. From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:39:29 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:39:29 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113875 wrote: > Alla: > > Eh, I will be the first one to say that we don't know much about > Prank yet, but Snape knew that Remus is a werewolf and still went > there? > > I doubt it. RL now I was answering someone who thought Snape discovered Remus's condition by listening to the Marauders' post exam conversation, and I went from there. I don't really think Snape's stupid, I only dislike him very much and I thought if the poster was right then he must be dumb. Sorry my meaning got across the wrong way. Things seem so much clearer when I think them than when I write them... Romulus Lupin, who thanks Alla for the link to the letter From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:41:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:41:29 -0000 Subject: The Key to Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "romuluslupin1" wrote: >> If there's a parallel between Dudley Demented and Snape's worst > memory as Pippin says, and there's a role reversal between Harry and > Dudley as you say, then it follows that ther's also a reversal of > roles in the Pensieve scene. Maybe this is Snape's worst menory > because for the first time ever Sirius and James bested him at his > favorite sport. MMm I like this > > Romulus Lupin, who doesn't believe being abused ever justifies being > abusive, no matter what psychologists say and is sure Snape is mean > because he enjoys it and he chooses to be Alla: I don't think Pippin was originally arguing any roles reversal, just similarities between Harry/Snape and Dudley/Harry. Even if you don't think that it provides ANY justification for what Snape does (it is my position anyway), surely you may notice those similarities on the subconscious level. About Pensieve scene ... Well, it is entirely possible too I grant you that. Yes, I concur. Being abusive does not ever justifies being abusive, in fact it made Snape for me much less sympathetic figure, but it does provide some useful possible explanations for his behaviour, even if such behaviour is very very wrong. Alla, who does not believe in ESE!Snape and Dumb!Snape, but who will never be tired to call Snape a sadist. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 19:06:56 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:06:56 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113877 > 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. I believe it was Holmes, actually, though Spock may have said it too. While I'm ordinarilly loathe to rely on authorial error as an explanatory force for anything, I do think that JKR has a little trouble wrapping her head around *priori incantatem*, and maybe we shouldn't be too fussed about what did and didn't happen, and in what order. BTW, speaking of PI, there was a thread a week or so ago about why Priori Incantatem wasn't used to clear Sirius of the Pettigrew murder. (I don't *think* it was ever resolved, but please forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has already said.) The answer is that it wouldn't have been possible. Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. We're told in GoF (US hardback p. 697, the chapter "The parting of the ways), that Priori Incantatem is a "Very rare effect" that happens when two "brother" wands are forced to do battle. It is, apparently, totally involuntary, and since it only works between "brother" wands, in order to use it as an investigational tool the Department of Magical Law Enforecement would have to keep on hand a brother wand to every wand in use (or, I suppose, specially commissioning a brother wand to the wand of the accused, which might not always be possible. If the feather or hair came from a wild phoenix or unicorn, it might be impossible to find that particular one again, and I would *assume* that to get a dragon's heartstring you have to kill the dragon, so no more heartstrings would be available). Alex From senderellabrat at aol.com Sat Sep 25 20:54:52 2004 From: senderellabrat at aol.com (Sen J) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:54:52 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113878 > > Sen: > > > IMO, Molly & Arthur do without (unless it's a diehard > > > necessity) so they can make sure their kids have what they need. > > > With that many children at home, I'm sure Molly has gotten used > to > > > doing for her kids first & foremost (Snip> > > ------ > > Except that by the beginning of GOF, there are only four kids to > buy for. (snip) If anything, splurging a little so that Ron can > have a set of dress robes should have been possible. > > > > I think it's more likely that Molly is just an ingrained scrimper > by this point. Buying second-hand and making do has become her > > automatic response to the need for "new" items. > > > > Why she didn't ask Bill or Charley to buy the robes for their kid > > brother suprises me. (snip) > > Magda > > > Tonks now: > > I agree with Sen, the Weasley parents dress poorly because they put > themselves last. I disagree with Magda. They have 4 children in a > private school. That is not cheap!! And they had to buy all of those > books because Lockhart is such an egotist. Of course there is no > money for a fancy robe that he is only going to wear one time. He is > a boy. It will be dark. They are not a bright color.. he will blend > it. Give Molly a break!! He is just being a teenager. No parent can > please their teenager. (and no I have never had children, but I > know.) > > And in Molly's mind, it is not Bill or Charley's place to help their > parents. She would see it as her place to care for her children. Now > it would have been nice if Bill and Charley would send money home > from time to time. Maybe they have tired to, and it would be an > insult to their father, so Molly won't let them. If Molly was a > widow, yes her older sons would help. They would be the "men" of the > family in Arthur's absence. But Arthur is there. Can you imagine the > feeling of shame that would put on him? They are doing the best they > can. And Molly was upset like many parents are when they do their > best, wishing they could do better, and their child rubs it in their > face that it is not good enough. Ron will get over it. In a 100 > years it won't matter. ;-) Sen Again: I do agree Magda that she's probably an ingrained scrimper. When you go that long taking care of such a large family, some habits are hard to break. However, some parents just will not take from their children no matter how well off or poor either party is. Some parents believe that their children's hard earned money is their own and they've got their own bills & expenses to deal with. Example: My husband and I are a young couple a few yrs into the marriage game. My parents are well off. We tried to take my mom & dad out for father's day dinner at his favorite buffet restaurant. We get there and Dad sneak-paid!!! DH & I looked at each other like "What just happened?" Mom told me "Did you really think Dad was going to let you pay? You know he wont take anything from you kids. He wants you to keep your money and pay for the things you need." Some parents are just like that. Not to mention, remember when Harry gives the twins his winnings from the TWC? He doesn't want Molly to find out. Besides the fact she doesn't approve of their chosen profession, I'm sure she has taught her kids not to accept hand outs. Fred & George did protest before finally accepting. IIRC, Harry threatened to just toss out the winnings if they didn't take it and that's probably what made them take it after all. Better take it and put it to good use rather than just let it go to waste. At least... all of this.. IMHO! =o) Sen From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 20:55:50 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:55:50 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113879 > Carol: > If Lucius tried to bring Voldemort back via diary!Tom and failed > spectacularly, why would he tell Voldemort? And in any case, he hadn't > had a chance to communicate with him and didn't know he was restored > to his physical form until he was summoned to the graveyard. > > I'm not saying that you're wrong, SSS, only that I don't think we can > rule out the restoration of Voldemort as a possible Malfoy motive > based on LV's not knowing about it in GoF. RL now: I think LM wanted to bring back a young TMR, not LV, he wanted someone he thought he could manipulate from behind the scene, someone who would take the fall for all the necessary bad deeds and to take over from when the time was ripe. If LM told LV he tried to bring back his 16 yo self instead of looking for him in Albania, LV would have caught wind of LM's plan and he was toast. >> Carol My question, which another poster has also raised, is what would have > happened if Diary!Tom had been restored? Would he have found his older > self in Albania and allowed his body to be possessed--the great and > terrible Lord Voldemort in the form of a sixteen-year-old boy? Or > would we have had two Voldemorts, restored!Tom and restored!LV > confronting each other to see which had the mastery? (I can just see > slippery Lucius playing them against each other.) RL now: It all depends on JKR's view, of course. She did say that restored! Tom would have made LV stronger so the first possibility is probably the more likely. OTOH, I read a book once where a guy found a way to duplicate himself and went on holidays with his family while his duplicate slaved away at work. The duplicate had a mind of his own, though, and he married a colleague, so when the guy came back he found himself a bigamous husband. What I mean is that restored!Tom may have started off for Albania to find spirit!LV and then refure to be possessed and wandre off on his own Romulus Lupin who can also envision Lucius playing LV1 and LV2 against each other From eloiseherisson at aol.com Sat Sep 25 21:10:59 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:10:59 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113880 Alex: > > BTW, speaking of PI, there was a thread a week or so ago about why > Priori Incantatem wasn't used to clear Sirius of the Pettigrew murder. The answer is that it > wouldn't have been possible. Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. We're > told in GoF (US hardback p. 697, the chapter "The parting of the > ways), that Priori Incantatem is a "Very rare effect" that happens > when two "brother" wands are forced to do battle. It is, apparently, > totally involuntary, and since it only works between "brother" wands Eloise: 'Twas I. You're quite correct, Priori Incantatem is just as you describe, but *Prior Incantato* *is* a spell. It is used in Ch.9 of GoF to establish that Harry's wand had been responsible for conjuring the Dark Mark at the QWC. They are evidently related effects as reflected in the similar names and therefore confusing abbreviations. ~Eloise From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 21:14:17 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:14:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113881 Carol: >In any case, despite the Pensieve incident, Snape still does everything > he can to save Harry from Voldemort by alerting both Dumbledore and > the Order to his peril. IMO, Harry and his friends owe their lives to > Snape as much as to the Order members who actually fought in the MoM > (and to DD himself, who arrived because Snape alerted him). I completely disagree. Harry doesn't owe Snape. If anything Snape could have saved him and didn't. He could have let Harry know he'd gotten his message. A simple "I've told you repeatedly I don't need you to talk like your stupid Zonko's parchment" would have been enough. Did he really think Harry wouldn't take matter into his own hands if he thought the adults weren't doing anything to solve the problem? After 5 years of Harry's acting first and thinking later? As usual, Snape wanted to put Harry in his place and was too eager to hinder Potter to think it through to its most dire consequences. Snape wants Harry to be grateful to him (remember his "you should be thanking me on bended knees") and refuses to acknowledge Harry's hero complex. And Sirius died because of this. No wander Harry lays Sirius' death at his doorstep. Romulus Lupin, who really doesn't like Snape and thinks he's evil From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 21:23:40 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:23:40 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > macfotuk wrote: > >>Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! > M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > several times if LV was really back.<< RL replies While I wouldn't put using C!M as a sacrificial lamb past LV, he had Moody's body at the time, so he didn't have his dark mark. And besides, if the antiapparation charms protecting Hogwarts are enough to excuse Snape, they must be enough to excuse C!M. > HunterGreen: asked > Can dementors appaperate? ROTFL. In Italian papera is either a duck or a blatant (usually funny) mistake. Romulus Lupin, who isn't picking at Huntersgreen, and from now on will always see duck-footed dementors while reading the books From tim at marvinhold.com Sat Sep 25 21:24:00 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:24:00 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113883 > 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. Tim now: Perhaps it was left behind in the same manner as the Maraders Map. Handed down from one student to another. From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 21:36:58 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:36:58 -0000 Subject: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > > romuluslupin1: > > *snip* Why did the Weasleys, who are reputedly so poor, spend so > much > > money on 5 sets of Lockhart's books. > > > > Amy here: > > I guess after the trip to Egypt, my thoughts on the Weasley's are > > that they are not-so-poor, ...they don't have all the gold that > > traditional "pure-blood" families are "supposed" to have, but they > > still have enough to live on... kinda like America's middle > > class... > Frugalarugala: > I agree with Amy C., I just wanted to suggest that this might have > something to do with Molly's background. Remember the thread about > Molly being from a slightly lower social class than Arthur? I think > this might be further evidence. What I mean is, she doesn't seem to > hesitate to get the kids what they NEED for school (the books...) but > non-necessities (like new dress-robes and hand-me-down wands) are > places to scrimp. Then there are the unexpected expenses like Ron's > broken wand... I could buy this, but when the Weasley's went to the bank with Harry (in COS, I think) they had to scrap up their last remaining knuts from the corners of their empty vault. I still think that 5 sets of books were a foolish expense. Romulus Lupin who'd rather spend money on books, DVD and travels rather than clothes and such From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Sep 25 21:58:00 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:58:00 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: <20040925125620.6024.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Mac: > > 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. > Magda: > I agree with Mac. The plan from the inception (wherever or whenever > that occurred) was for Tom Riddle to step out of the diary reanimated > by the life force of another person - and who better than Harry, > who'd shown his power to defeat the Dark Lord as a baby? Ginny was a > sideline only, a stepping stone. > > Dobby wouldn't have been in such a panic or gone to such lengths if > it had been Harry who was the target in the first place. Geoff: I think there is something wrong with the wording of your last sentence if you are agreeing with Mac. It implies that Harry was /not/ the original target. Should you have written "hadn't" instead of "had"? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From tim at marvinhold.com Sat Sep 25 22:23:57 2004 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:23:57 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113886 > On the whole blood protection issue, I find the whole thing very > messy and some days I think I have a handle on how it may work only > to wake up the next morning wondering what I was thinking. What I > do know is that nowhere in Dumbledore's explanation to Harry at the > end of OoP does he say Petunia's constant presence is necessary. > What he does say is, "While you still call home the *place* where > your mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be touched or harmed > by Voldemort." (Ch 37, US ed. pg 836) *emphasis* mine > > To me that means Voldemort can't hurt Harry at Number 4. Period. > Because that is where Petunia and he both live. > KathyK, For Petunia the Muggle with Minimum Wizarding World Contact Strange. Didn't LV touch Harry in the graveyard at the end of GOF just to prove he could? Does this mean Harry is no longer protected at Dursley's inspite of what Dumbledore says? Tim From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 23:01:08 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:01:08 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron maroon? (Was: why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113887 Magda wrote: So first she tries to tell him that everyone wears them, then that > he's being silly, then that they're just like Harry's, before she > finally admits that he'll have to settle for this dress-thing because > its the best they can afford - supposedly. But Harry gets robes that > match his eyes. > Leah: We were scrimping and saving at the time our first was born, so she had a lot of handmedowns from cousins, for which I was very grateful, but they were sometimes not what I'd have chosen. And I remember the pleasure, when finances improved, of going out and buying what I (and perhaps daughter!) wanted. So, I think there's a subconscious pleasure for Molly in being able to indulge herself with Harry's dress robes and not worry about what the family will have to go without to afford them. So Ron's entitled to some feeling of being miffed- but not much. Are we meant to read anything into maroon? It's a sort of purplish colour isn't it- does it go with Ron and Hermione crowned, Weasley is our King and so forth? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 23:09:39 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:09:39 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <001701c4a2be$d86aa450$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113888 > > > feklar: > > > > > no, that's the standard American figurative understanding > > of "lapdog" as well. Same for "snivel" and "snivelling," tho' I > > think the term might be considered a bit archaic here. > > > > > > > Valky, > > Thankyou Feklar, I find the word archaic a bit amusing, though. I am only 30 and "Lapdog" has been in common use, > feklar > Feklar: > the archaic comment was part of the snivelling sentence, not the lapdog one. Valky: Ahh I see, but for snivelling it is much the same for me anyway, although it is generally people a little older that use it this way. To be honest with you I didn't actually realise that snivel's literal meaning was remote from the definition I had been so used to all this time. Initially in HPFGU discussion about the pensieve it took for someone to point out that there *was* a literal meaning to me. As I said, I am only 30 and I was more accustomed to this word being used figuratively as well. So for me its the same story with snivelling, AFAIK snivelling as a figurative dissaproving adjective is not before the time of Sirius as a 15 yr old. Feklar: > OTOH, "snivelling" seems kind of old-fashioned, possibly even > overwrought. Ironically, in ref. to the other def. potioncat produced, "snivelling child" does immediately produce the image of a snot-faced, sniffling kid to me. I expect sniffling and sniveling are closely related, but snivel has a derogatory import that sniffle doesn't...Ironic that Padfoot's alternate name is Snuffles, eh? > Valky: On the Irony, I did notice, and I find it quite amusing. 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. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Sep 25 23:16:59 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040925231659.18622.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113889 --- Geoff Bannister wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich >> Dobby wouldn't have been in such a panic or gone to such lengths >> if it had been Harry who was the target in the first place. > > Geoff: > I think there is something wrong with the wording of your last > sentence if you are agreeing with Mac. It implies that Harry > was /not/ the original target. Should you have written "hadn't" > instead of "had"? Yes, you're right; I dropped an important word. Everyone: what Geoff said. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Sep 25 23:25:12 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:25:12 -0000 Subject: FILK: Maim Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113890 Maim (QTA, Chaps. 6-7) To the title tune of Jerry Herman's musical Mame The year 1473 saw the first ever World Quidditch Cup the final between Transylvania and Flanders has gone down in history as the most violent of all time and many of the fouls then recorded had never been seen before ? for instance, the transfiguration of a Chaser into a polecat, the attempted decapitation of a Keeper with a broadsword, and the release, from under the robes of the Transylvanian Captain, of a hundred blood-sucking vampire bats. - Kennilworthy Whisp, Quidditch Through the Ages, Chapter 7 THE TIME: The Year 1473. THE SCENE: The first World Quidditch Cup game. The Flanders and Transylvania Quidditch Teams trash-talk their way to 700 fouls. ALL: We meet at the first World Quidditch Cup game We from Flanders and Transylvania came We say of our opponents That they are not guys of whom we're overfond Therefore a key component Of our strategy will be to use our wands FLANDERS QT: We think the Transylvanians are quite lame TRANSYLVANIA QT: We cry those folks from Flanders are no-name ALL: Rules are made to be broken and to Break them all has now become our aim Send forth the news by owl again, We're going to disembowel again Our team is going to foul and then maim. FLANDERS BEATER I made their Seeker's broom burst into flame TRANSYLVANIAN KEEPER Right at their Chasers I with an axe came ALL: The action's hot and heavy, The referees are fleeing for their lives As we unleash a bevy Of nifty tricks involving clubs and knives FLANDERS QT: This makes the boulder games of old seem tame We may play dirty but we're not to blame We made that Keeper feller turn purple, then we turned him to a dame TRANSYLVANIA QT: You see what they are mucking at Chasers changed to unlucky cats So let's loose the blood-sucking bats Maim! A squad of Wizards from the Wizards Council fly in to interrupt the action CHORUS OF WIZARDS COUNCIL WIZARDS: Well, stop the game, dismount your brooms, there's been some brawling here, we assume With battery, bludgering, stabbing and strikes ? shame! Thanks to your rude and rowdy pact, we're going to read you the riot act You're in hotter water than any would like, shame! So now you'll avail yourselves of our jail Where criminal felons are flung Quite loud you'll be pleading when we start the bleeding And having you hostages hung Your soaring and zooming, your warring and brooming have put you in the frying pan When both your teams are sent to Azkaban! BOTH QUIDDITCH TEAMS: Our contest no one ever will defame The Quidditch world will never be the same We'll curse, we'll swear, we'll bonk `em And we'll smash `em on the head with picture frames Our nostrils throb and palpitate Our foes we shall decapitate Our fans are in a happy state, Maim! Instrumental bridge, as the two Quidditch teams unite to drive off the governmental interlopers with an increasingly formidable array of deadly medieval weaponry. After the last agent is dispatched, they unite in song. BOTH QUIDDITCH TEAMS: We will be asking to axe Azkaban, Azkaban, Azkaban .. (different vocal ranges repeat) We've just held the first World Quidditch Cup game, Flanders and Transylvania proclaim! We had our wands a-wavin' and hexin' ev'ry person we opposed There's so mis-behavin' that which team caught the Snitch is undisclosed. This match will bring us glory and great fame Luster will be attached to every name Whoever thought that seven hundred fouls could be committed in one game? Not since the days of Camelot Has magic mayhem been so hot Now, is this one great game or what? Maim! Maim! Maim! Maim! Maim! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Sep 25 23:38:26 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:38:26 +0100 Subject: Survival of AK Message-ID: <025301c4a358$dbd9a560$232f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113891 ARGH! That's it; I'm buying an English version of GoF! I've been following this thread and a theory started forming in my head, but I can't make it clear without the exact words in the graveyard. I have the Portuguese version and some posts suggest that there might be some translation issues - the last time I suggested something of the sort, someone thought I was saying the translator was a lousy one. That's not it. The English words are flexible, they can have several meanings. When translating to Portuguese one has to choose one of that meanings (Portuguese words don't usually have several) and sometimes change the phrasing a bit to sound 'normal'. So I'm screaming HELP here. What exactly does Voldemort say? The passage I'm interested in is something like: "You all know the night I lost my powers and my body I tried to kill him. His mother died trying to save him and unconsciously granted him a protection that, I confess, I did not predict... I couldn't hit the boy. [...] His mother left on him the signs of her sacrifice... it's an old magic, I should have remembered, I was a fool to ignore it... but it doesn't matter. I can hit him now. [...] I miscalculated, my friends, I confess. My curse was deflected by that silly woman's sacrifice, and it bounced on me." Can someone give me the exact words on this? Please, pretty please, please, please? Susana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Sep 25 21:25:01 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:25:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What are the WW rules? Message-ID: <20040925.194701.2680.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113892 James said: >I'm thinking that > when we see someone "conjuring" something, that they're not > actually making the item out of thin air, but are transporting it from > another location. For example, in CoS when McGonagall conjured a plate of > sandwiches for Harry and Ron, she was moving the sandwiches from > somewhere in the kitchens This is a serious fanwank, but maybe it has to do with laws of nature, ie energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, only changed. You can rearrange a rat's atoms (or the magical equivalent thereof) into a teapot, but you can't draw the atoms out of nothing and put them together into a teapot. Or maybe you can, but only if you're a very powerful wizard. >(This would assume that Dumbledore "conjuring" > chairs is something different from McGonagall "conjuring" plates of > sandwiches - if they are the same it means that "conjuring" and > "vanishing" is (I suppose) just moving things around ). Or maybe DD is a good enough wizard to reliably conjur chairs. (Or maybe, in that instance, he only conjured them from the storage closet.) For most adverage, run-of-the-mill wizards, attempting to conjur things out of nothing is too difficult and too unreliable to be bothered with. Best to just buy them. We were talking about magic and the economy, and I wonder how the "accio" charm affects shoplifting! You could stand behind a shop and "accio" anything you wanted. If the clerk's back was turned, he wouldn't notice it fly out of his shop. Maybe stores have anti-theft wards put around them. Maybe you can't do magic at all in a shop, lest someone transfigure a Nimbus 2001 into, say, a knut and simply carry it out in their pocket. >but few people have the skill to wave their >wand and have a meal turn out exactly like they want it. But I rather >doubt that myself. Why doubt it? If magic were easy, they wouldn't need a school for it. Aura ~*~ "Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns, it calls me on and on across the universe." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 00:08:59 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:08:59 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <001101c4a2e2$ded6e370$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113893 > > Feklar: > > After reading your post a couple of times, I think you are saying James and Sirus dislike Snape because of a moral decision on their part? And that the evidence of this moral decision is the fact that they use derogatory terms implying Snape has a weak character? > Aside from the fact that that is rather circular logic, > > > > Valky: > > it's circular reduced to those two terms but I think we are able to know a little more about what James and Sirius might choose > > *morally* in some respects than you are letting on. That is all > > assumed by my logic here. > > feklar: > > What other terms would you use? Ultimately, words are symbols and arguments are equations. If they don't work at their most simple iteration, they won't work at a more complex iteration, they'll just be obfuscated by the extra words. > 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: > Actually, I don't know that we know anything about them morally. If anything, their teenage selves come across as very amoral to me. Again, to me this is a characterization choice JKR made: they are typical of children in that their cruelty comes of amorality rather than evilness. Though I do think by 5th year they were hitting an age where they should have been developing a sense of morality, Lilly and Remus seem to be, but James, Sirius and Peter haven't -- at least with regard to Snape. > Valky: To here I have been talking about Sirius mostly. Because we have the most canon on him it is easier to know his ways. Peter, he never developed any moral backbone even as an adult, so thats a no brainer. 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. Back to Sirius, by now we already know that Sirius is/was a rebel with a poor attitude to a lot of things, however he was essentially liked, and trusted by people who knew him. We know that he was courageous and adventurous, frustrated, tending to act impusively and without forethought, very strong against adversity and a survivor of great tribulation. He believed deeply in courage, loyalty, and friendship. He tried to oppose purebloodism but he wasn't all that good at realising his own prejudice. James was a different person altogether. All we really know is that Lily loved him, and from Sirius he "always hated Dark Arts" and then we know the pensieve scene. About James morally we know he always hated Dark Arts, I can't dismiss it. Sirius is honest. The line paraphrased is Snape was into Dark Arts, James always hated Dark Arts. This is evidence of a moral judgement. How can it not be? That is all I know about James and it is enough for me to reserve judgement on his inner self in the pensieve. I judge his actions to be, although a little amusing and impressive in terms of skill, stupid, cruel and inexcusable. To me there is hope that all that was wrong with James is how he expressed himself. We do know that Snape cursed James fairly frequently, too, so I don't think the question of James' moral fibre hovers so ominously as has been claimed. Perhaps Snape was *expecting* an attack because he had snuck one in on James recently and expected James to react. Feklar: > By moral choices, do you mean we know they wouldn't choose to be be > cry-babies and tattle-tales? Well, I guess, but what little boy would if he could help it? But honestly, I can't see Snape in those roles either--after all, his first response to attack was to go for his wand and when Lily tried to help him, he not only refused help but drove her off with insults. So he showed himself to be slow on the draw and an ingrate, but not a sniveller in the one scene we have of him and the marauders. > 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: > 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 and Sirius truly ever saw this side of Snape. I agree that he *chooses* to be amoral, moreso I think he chooses to put on an amoral front. His belief that Virtues are weaknesses is his downfall. To me, he seems to have adopted the poor behaviour of James, at 15, as his front in adult life. Dumbedore must be an enigma to Snape given that his virtues are his power, but I suppose that Snape puts this aside and just accepts that DD is very powerful which is a good thing. > > > Feklar: > > > ......why whouldn't they use those derogatory terms simply because they don't like him? Do you really think they would like him if he was an undeniably good guy? What if he was a good little > Gryffindor like Neville and turned them in for something, isn't it > > as likely they would call him a snivelling brat? The point is we > > don't know why they call Snape those things other than that they > > clearly don't like him. > > > > > > > Valky: > > We know that they dissapprove of prejudice, even as youngsters, so I seriously doubt that they would not have gotten to know a little > > about Snape before they decided that they did not like him. > > feklar: > > Do we know that? I can't really think of any evidence that they even know what prejudice is much less disapprove of it. Granted, they accepted Remus, but maybe that was simply because he was a Gryffindor. Maybe they just thought it was a great adventure to know a werewolf? Maybe if they had known what he was from the beginning, they would have shunned him, but since they didn't they were able to overcome that particular prejudice? Maybe if > he'd been a Slytherin, they would have felt it just confirmed their belief that Slytherin is full of dark wizards and dark creatures? > 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: That they were still keen on Remus because of the adventure potential. and that if he was slytherin..... I think it may have implied to them that Werewolves were dark creatures but I don't think they had previous prejudice against werewolves. 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 little indication that they were tolerant. Hagrid loved them, Remus loved them, they were in Gryffindor the *most* tolerant house. > 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. That will have to do for now I have other things I must do. Best to You Valky From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 00:29:50 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:29:50 -0000 Subject: FILK: Time To Play Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113894 Time To Play (QTA, Chap. 2) To the tune of It's Today, from Jerry Herman's Mame MIDI at: http://www.hamienet.com/cat379.html THE TIME: Early 12th-Century or so. A CHORUS OF EARLY MEDIEVAL WITCHES & WIZARDS celebrate some of the predecessors of the Noble Sport of Wizards CHORUS OF WITCHES & WIZARDS Burn the barrels Swell the bladder Raise the pole up, Time to play! Let us look back to the very first day When we needed something we could fly You know that it was a broomstick that all of us soon picked, here's why! CHORUS OF WIZARDS It's a time for deeds of daring As we climb towards solar rays CHORUS OF WITCHES Send the brooms up Bring our fans in Now we'll zoom up, Time to play! CHORUS OF WITCHES & WIZARDS So we started Some brand-new games With some odd names We'll survey CHORUS OF WITCHES When it's Stichstock, Make your broom sharp See each witch rock When it's Stichstock, Time to play CHORUS OF WIZARDS Don the cauldrons Bang the slow drum Blow the horn loud Time to play. Here's the game that is played by us Scotsman We place cauldrons atop every head As we collect falling boulders To make us all bolder ? or dead Doo doo doo doo dah CHORUS OF WITCHES There's a meet in snowy Sweden We compete in to this day >From Kopparberg To Arjeplog Past the iceberg Time to play. CHORUS OF WITCHES & WIZARDS It's a time for deeds of daring As we climb towards solar rays Send the brooms up, Drop the rocks down, Raise the pole up, Flee the Short-Snout, Hallelujah! Time to play! Hey! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 26 00:31:14 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:31:14 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas Background Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113895 We know that Dean Thomas's father witheld his magical background from his family and J.K.R has hinted it might not be revealed,although she has quite a bit written about him that has not been included in the storyline as of yet. We also know that J.K.R. said the director of the Azkaban movie instinctively put something in the movie that wasn't in the book but was related to upcoming events (possibly the shrunken heads). Next we know that Voldemort travelled widely and underwent many dangerous changes to prevent his death. Putting all this together, I'm wondering if it has occurred to anyone that Voldemort could have practiced magic with Witch doctor's or Shaman's of some sort invoking very old African magic or voodoo. This could tie in Dean's father's fatal interaction with the deatheaters if he was an African prince or son of a tribal chief or witchdoctor who refused to join Voldemort; it could also tie in the shrunken heads from the Azkaban movie and possibly the half blood prince storyline. Although Jo's statement about Dean's storyline being cut for Neville gives me second thoughts on this idea I just can't get these niggling ideas out of my mind. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? From siskiou at vcem.com Sun Sep 26 00:49:01 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:49:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why buy Ron Maroon? In-Reply-To: <002c01c4a335$05357480$704b6d51@f3b7j4> References: <1096084347.9852.21882.m3@yahoogroups.com> <002c01c4a335$05357480$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: <496030726.20040925174901@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113896 Hi, Saturday, September 25, 2004, 12:22:37 PM, manawydan wrote: > Would it not make sense for Ron to go into the library, look up a > colour-changing charm, and transfigure his jumper to whatever colour he > wants? > But maybe I'm thinking like Hermione on that? Maybe . As a mother, I do think Molly should have at least not tried to sneak the robe in, knowing perfectly well it was not what most others would be wearing. And then talk about how she bought nice ones matching Harry's eyes. It's almost a little cruel, grinding it in like that. And it wouldn't have hurt to offer some advice as to what could be done with it. Yes, it's great when your kids are self sufficient, and take care of many things themselves, but it also feels nice to a teen to get some unasked help, sometimes. Molly and Hermione seem to treat Ron and Harry in similar ways, in a way. Harry gets coddled a lot (yes, he needs and deserves this, and it's great), and Ron gets criticized, and only rarely complimented Did anyone here ever look at all of Molly's interactions with her kids? I'll have to pay more in depth attention to how she relates with all her kids during the next re-read. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 01:03:37 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:03:37 -0000 Subject: The Diary, LV and the circle of DEs (Re: A tunnel, a diary and a memory.....) In-Reply-To: <20040922175913.44655.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Post number 113675 22/09/04 kim reynolds wrote: > Did anyone else notice or wonder why, during the scene where Lord Voldemort is telling his circle of followers and Harry the story of his previous attempts at coming back to life, that he doesn't mention Lucius and the diary? Actually yes they did, just a few hundred posts earlier (113307 18/09/04 - Lo! *only* 4 days earlier) - How uncanny. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Sep 26 01:23:00 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:23:00 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4156A694.29346.4182255@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 113898 On 25 Sep 2004 at 20:54, Sen J wrote: > Fred & George did protest before finally accepting. IIRC, Harry > threatened to just toss out the winnings if they didn't take it and > that's probably what made them take it after all. Better take it and > put it to good use rather than just let it go to waste. At least... > all of this.. IMHO! =o) I don't have my books with me, but I seem to recall in Order of the Phoenix, Fred and George make it clear that they view Harry as an investor - ie, they are treating his money not as a gift or a hand out, but as him investing in their business for a return. As Harry made no such conditions, I think this fits in quite well with the idea that Fred and George are not the type to take a handout. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 01:47:58 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:47:58 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Borgin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113899 Gregory Lynn said: >I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr >Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. *snips intriguing theory* Mind you, I don't believe it. But I do think it's intriguing, and while we're playing with it, here's another piece of information to add to it. Hagrid was in Knockturn Alley at the same time as the Malfoys; he encounters Harry there. When asked, he gives a somewhat unsatisfactory excuse. It's always been my theory that he was on some errand for Dumbledore -- Dumbledore has sent Hagrid on high-profile missions before, such as bringing Harry from Godric's Hollow or bringing the Sorcerer's Stone from Gringott's to Hogwarts. Hagrid really does "hide in plain sight," because the worst of the Bad Guys, such as Voldemort, Malfoy, or Umbridge, don't take him seriously. So if Borgin really were Snape, then Hagrid might have been there to give or receive a message to him to or from Dumbledore. I don't think Hagrid would know that Snape and Borgin were the same person -- fond though I am of Hagrid, everyone knows he can't keep a secret very well. By the way, after hearing the Malfoys' conversation, Harry knows that they have a secret chamber under their floor. Did he pass this on to anyone? If nothing else, a search of that place would probably reveal even more reasons to keep Lucius Malfoy in Azkaban for the rest of his life. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 02:08:36 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:08:36 +0000 Subject: Fates worse than death (was Re: "Why didn't Dumbledore try ...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113900 Carol said: >(And it's probably true that there >are fates worse than death, including, just possibly, the inability to >die--a nice little lesson for "Tom" to think about if he will, though >he probably won't.) Oh, definitely. On the one hand, we have Dumbledore explaining to Harry, who voices concern about Flamel and his wife, that dying at an appropriate time is not to be feared or avoided. We have Sirius Black telling Peter Pettigrew that if necessary he should have died rather than betray his friends. We have Nearly Headless Nick saying that being a ghost is, in some ways, evidence of a final failure -- being too much afraid of death to completely go through with it. And finally, we have Quirrel/Voldemort keeping himself alive by drinking unicorn blood, an action which will maintain physical life but leave the drinker cursed. In *The Magician's Nephew* by C. S. Lewis, the protagonist is tempted to steal one of the apples that provide eternal life, to give to his ailing mother. He does not, but Jadis the witch does steal one and eats it, and according to Aslan she regrets it, even though she got what she wanted. And Aslan tells the protagonist that if he had given the apple to his mother after stealing it, there would have come a time when they would both have wished she had died instead of recovering. And one of my favorite sad poems is "Tithonus," by Tennyson, which retells the myth of Tithonus, whose lover was the goddess of the dawn. She asked the other gods for the gift of eternal life for Tithonus, but forgot to also specify eternal youth, so Tithonus couldn't die, but got older and older and older until he was so shrunken and mindless that the goddess turned him into a grasshopper. A more sinister story by Lord Dunsany tells of someone who angered the god of Death, and was therefore left alive ... forever. He didn't even get to be a grasshopper; he became a mouldering pile of bones ... but still alive and praying for Death to forgive him. Hmm. All this doesn't bode well for Voldemort and his quest for eternal life, does it? Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From senderellabrat at aol.com Sun Sep 26 02:45:16 2004 From: senderellabrat at aol.com (Sen J) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:45:16 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: <4156A694.29346.4182255@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113901 Shaun: > > Fred & George did protest before finally accepting. IIRC, Harry > > threatened to just toss out the winnings if they didn't take it and > > that's probably what made them take it after all. Better take it and > > put it to good use rather than just let it go to waste. At least... > > all of this.. IMHO! =o) > > I don't have my books with me, but I seem to recall in Order of the > Phoenix, Fred and George make it clear that they view Harry as an > investor - ie, they are treating his money not as a gift or a hand > out, but as him investing in their business for a return. As Harry > made no such conditions, I think this fits in quite well with the > idea that Fred and George are not the type to take a handout. Sen: Exactly my point! =o) They view him as an investor. Well, in a way I sort of read the "buy Ron some dress robes" as a sort of condition. Nothing serious or contractual (is that a word?) I'm willing to bet when they can afford to, they'd either pay him back or give Harry freebies (for the upcoming war?) like I've seen others post about. I don't see the any of the Weasley's as takers or moochers. Ya Ron may complain & groan, but 2 things here.. #1- I don't know of any teen boy who doesn't complain & groan when their mother tries to pick out their clothes and #2- It's going to drive him to succeed in life to be able to afford the things he couldn't afford growing up. Sen From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 02:46:37 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:46:37 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: snip > Crouch!Moodys actual words:- > > "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no counter- > curse. There's no blocking it." > > So it can't be blocked either, snip And yet ... we've seen it blocked several times now - gravestone in GoF, when fired by LV at HP, priori incantatem when wands 'lock' (yes, a sepecial case) and in the MoM (OotP) by a statue, the scurity guard's desk and Fawkes the pheonix. Just as LV is the 'worst ever' wizard, but in fact keeps bungling his attempts to 'get' Harry, AK seems to be worse than pathetic when it comes to trying to use it against HP (at least when LV casts it). Hmmmm. As so often, I am left wondering when it is, in fact, the case that JKR's narrative doesn't bear as close scrutiny as we nit- picking readers try to exert (because it's about 'impression' more than 'cool, rational facts' - e.g. it always being the day before term starts, i.e. Sunday, on platform 9 & 3/4 outbound), as opposed to when it is, in fact, meaningful that things don't quite add up (e.g. scabbers the rat being >12 years old). From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 26 03:59:48 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 03:59:48 -0000 Subject: LV lack of power? (was Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113903 > SSSusan: > Fair enough assessment, I'd say,a Colin. All of these incidents, > combined, have a lot to do with why it's hard for readers to see > Voldy as this super-scary, most-powerful-of-all-time, can't-bear-to- > speak-his-name, badassss kind of evil overlord. So far he's seemed > almost laughable. And I don't mean that as a put-down of wizards > who do tremble--there MUST have been reason to tremble--but other > than their *talk* of how horrible it used to be, we just haven't > seen it. > kmc: I've been trying to catch up but really need to comment on the above sstatement concerning LV's image (or lack of image). I agree with SSSusan's assessment that we have not see the Evil LV that was present at during the first war. But have we seen the "real" LV? PS/SS - LV was a parasite living in Quirrel. COS - TR a memory in a diary POA - LV did not make an appearance - he is hiding in Albania In GOF & OotP, LV becomes obsessed with killing Harry. All other matters, including immortality, punishing the DEs who did not show up, and gaining more power, are moved to lower importance. Remember the prophesy - LV marked Harry as his equal. LV is a bully and bullies do not know how to deal with equals. Since we see LV only through his encounters with Harry, we see an evil Lord who is equal to a teenage wizard not the "He Who Must Not Be Named" of the first war. - kmc From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 26 04:37:49 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:37:49 -0000 Subject: Lucius & Love ? (was ESE!Fudge) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113904 Carol wrote in the ESE!Fudge thread: and Lucius Malfoy (though I don't think Lucius is *quite* as evil as Voldemort since he seems capable of some sort of love for his wife and son. kmc: I need to disagree here and say that I do not think cannon supports the statement that Lucius has some sort of love for his wife and son. I see Lucius as an very EVIL person. He exposes his son to Knockturn Alley while he is selling "illegal" items. He insults his son in front of a shop keeper COS, Chapter 4, pg 64 US Paperback edition) 'Though if his grades don't pick up,' said Mr. Malfoy, more coldly still, 'that may indeed be all he is fit for--'" ... "'I would have thought you'd be ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam,' snapped Mr. Malfoy." Did he marry Narcissa because he loved her or because she was a pure- blood? OotP, Chapter 6, pg 113 US Hardback edition) "'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.'" My money is on Narcissa being a trophy wife and Draco being the required heir. I don't think love is in Lucius vocabulary. I will go further out on the limb and state that IMO Lucius has a grudging respect for Harry. This is revealed in the OotP during the conversation that takes place in the Prophesy Chamber. Although Lucius sneers and is "malliciously delighted", the fact that Lucius takes the time to converse with Harry is very telling. Finally - I do think Lucius is as evil as LV. IMO Lucius is the power behind the throne. -kmc From karen at dacafe.com Sun Sep 26 05:03:47 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 05:03:47 -0000 Subject: Molly's interaction with her kids (was Why buy Ron Maroon?) In-Reply-To: <496030726.20040925174901@vcem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113905 Susanne wrote: > > Did anyone here ever look at all of Molly's interactions with her > kids? > > I'll have to pay more in depth attention to how she relates > with all her kids during the next re-read. > kmc adds: See message #113351 for additional information(my posting on "Arthur and Molly's Powers") In COS we learn that Ginny did not like coming to school in second hand robes. So it is not just Ron that is singled out for second hand items. Ron did get a new wand and the Cleensweep 7 when he became a perfect. IMO the only Weasly child who may have gotten new items was Bill. Even those may have been bought at the second hand store. I can see Molly assigning her kids "colors" for the items she knits. As a person who used to make a lot of gifts. A personal example is that my son loved green when he was small, today I almost bought green towels for his new apartment until I looked at my shopping list and realized his bathroom is blue, grey & purple. I can give many examples of gravitating toward a certain color for the members of my family. Does Ron really hate Maroon or is he just tired of it? Molly does remember Ron does not like corned beef sandwiches in POA. -kmc From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 06:44:26 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:44:26 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > > > 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. > > I believe it was Holmes, actually, though Spock may have said it too. Geoff: I immediately thought of Holmes - "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" (Sign of the Four) Alex: > BTW, speaking of PI, there was a thread a week or so ago about why > Priori Incantatem wasn't used to clear Sirius of the Pettigrew murder. > (I don't *think* it was ever resolved, but please forgive me if I'm > repeating what someone else has already said.) The answer is that it > wouldn't have been possible. Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. We're > told in GoF (US hardback p. 697, the chapter "The parting of the > ways), that Priori Incantatem is a "Very rare effect" that happens > when two "brother" wands are forced to do battle. It is, apparently, > totally involuntary, and since it only works between "brother" wands, Geoff: I don't read it this way. In GOF "The Parting of the Ways", Dumbledore mentions Priori Incantatem which Sirius recognises as a reverse spell. It has been pointed out that a form of this (Prior Incantato) was used by Amos Diggory but I interpret the graveyard result as being an unusual side effect of this spell when brother wands meet but that the the spell is also known for its wider use. If only the former occurred, how would it be known - the probability of brother wands meeting like that must be pretty long? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 22:08:14 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:08:14 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113907 --- > > > RL now: > I think LM wanted to bring back a young TMR, not LV, he wanted > someone he thought he could manipulate from behind the scene, > . If LM told LV he tried to > bring back his 16 yo self instead of looking for him in Albania, LV > would have caught wind of LM's plan and he was toast. > > >> Carol > My question, which another poster has also raised, is what would have > > happened if Diary!Tom had been restored? > > RL now: > It all depends on JKR's view, of course. She did say that restored! > Tom would have made LV stronger so the first possibility is probably > the more likely. . What I mean is that restored!Tom > may have started off for Albania to find spirit!LV and then refure > to be possessed and wandre off on his own > > Romulus Lupin who can also envision Lucius playing LV1 and LV2 > against each other Karen L, trying to get into this conversation, IMO, Lucius Malfoy knew about LV's attempt to return to the land and the living via Draco. Remember what DD told Harry while he was recovering in the hospital wing. "...What happened down in the dungeons between you and Professor Quirrell is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole school knows" (PS, uk ed. pg 436-437) To me that says that everyone must have known that Quirrell was being "possessed" by LV, and Draco had to have told his dad...no canon to support that, but anyway. With the knowledge that LV was trying to return to power, Lucius thought he'd help out a bit by getting the diary back to Hogwarts. I believe LM meant for Harry to get the diary, (thus Dobby's warning) but gave it to GInny Weasley out of spite, after the fight with Arthur Weasley. Mr. Malfoy , IMHO thought that if TMR returned to "life" then LV could possess that body, his young body, with all his powers and memories intact. That would be a much stronger LV. I believe that this would bring Malfoy up a few notches in Voldy's beady little eyes. This is under the assumption that TMR would allow spirit LV to possess him, although we do know that LV can be very persuasive.-especially if the combination of TMR and spirit LV make a stonger "creation". Karen , who thinks the idea of an LV1 and an LV2 going at it, is an intriquing one! From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 21:22:36 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:22:36 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113908 wrote: > Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. We're told in GoF (US hardback > p. 697, the chapter "The parting of the ways), that Priori > Incantatem is a "Very rare effect" that happens when two "brother" > wands are forced to do battle. It is, apparently, totally > involuntary, and since it only works between "brother" wands, > in order to use it as an investigational tool the Department of > Magical Law Enforecement would have to keep on hand a brother wand > to every wand in use Karen L., If the Prior Incantantem is such a rare effect, how is it that Mr. Diggory was able to bring out the shadow of the dark mark from Harry's wand in GoF? "...Mr. Diggory raised his own wand again, and placed it tip to tip with Harry's. 'Prior Incantato!' roared Mr. Diggory. Harry heard Hermione gasp, horrified, as a gigantic serpent-tongued skil erupted from the point where the two wands met, but it was a mere shadow of the green skill high above them, it looked as though it was made of thick grey smoke; the ghost of a spell." (GoF, Uk ed. pg 121) If what you are saying is true, then Mr. Diggory either has LV's wand (the 'brother' to Harry's wand) and since we know or are told that only one other wand has that type of core, maybe prior incantantem is not as rare as we are being lead to believe. Karen From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sun Sep 26 01:28:47 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:28:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <00ab01c4a368$2d816ec0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113909 >>Romulus Lupin: >>I completely disagree. Harry doesn't owe Snape. If anything Snape >>could have saved him and didn't. He could have let Harry know he'd >>gotten his message. A simple "I've told you repeatedly I don't need >>you to talk like your stupid Zonko's parchment" would have been >>enough. Did he really think Harry wouldn't take matter into his own >>hands if he thought the adults weren't doing anything to solve the >>problem? After 5 years of Harry's acting first and thinking later? >>As usual, Snape wanted to put Harry in his place and was too eager >>to hinder Potter to think it through to its most dire consequences. >>Snape wants Harry to be grateful to him (remember his "you should be >>thanking me on bended knees") and refuses to acknowledge Harry's >>hero complex. And Sirius died because of this. No wander Harry lays >>Sirius' death at his doorstep. >>Romulus Lupin, who really doesn't like Snape and thinks he's evil With all due respect, I think it's my turn to disagree with you on this (and I'm a new person so be gentle ). I don't think that when Harry told him that Padfoot was in trouble, Snape had any options or any time to think of other options. I mean, if Umbridge (who, IMO, is the only truly sadistic person who is not also a DE) was in the room with me and threatening my job in her high handed and over the top manner, while I would be thinking hard about thwarting her desires, I would not be prepared to learn that the rest of the world was crashing down my ears. Or, in other words, Snape had no choice because he had no time to prepare a ready comeback. Although why on earth the OotP did not have a set of prearranged signals worked out is totally beyond me...the key to winning any war or confrontation is communication after all...and even DD admits, in the end, that by keeping Harry in the dark, he essentially caused Sirius' death. Even though Snape loathes Sirius (although that may be too strong a word), I don't think that he would want to see him dead. Snape is smart enough to guess what that would do to Harry and Snape bloody well knows how important Harry is to the Order and to the rest of the wizarding world. He is a teacher after all. No one can be a teacher and do the job for as long as he has without truly loving his work and that includes at least being able to tolerate your students, not hate them. Now, on a slightly different angle, I think the reason Snape is so hard on Harry is two seperate issues. 1. He really wants Harry to be James so that he could exact some sort of revenge against his boyhood nemisis. However, he can't do that, it would be totally wrong and he knows it. So, instead, while wrestling with his own feelings, he rides Harry harder than anyone else. But I also think that part of that (riding Harry hard) is actually good for Harry which brings me to point 2. I think that slapping people's ego's down when they deserve it is a good thing. Think about it, why did DD insist that Harry be brought up away from all of the WW...to keep his ego at a managable level. Snape is there to keep Harry from getting a huge head and to keep him from getting killed because of egotism. And, let's face it, Harry was getting rather swelled in the head at the beginning of OotP, all those thoughts about how he triumphed over Voldemort all those times with no help at all. I don't think Snape wants Harry to owe him anything. I think Snape wants him to graduate and get the heck out of Snape's life as quickly as possible (all the better if Harry fails his potions OWL so that Snape won't have to teach him anymore). And we don't know how Snape feels about Sirius being dead yet, I am assuming JKR will bring that out in the Half Blood Prince. Just my two cents, Kethryn, who sees the good in all people and thinks that Snape has the hardest road to hoe out of all the characters. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Sep 25 22:54:15 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:54:15 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113910 - > Sen: > IMO, Molly & Arthur do without (unless it's a diehard > necessity) so they can make sure their kids have what > they need. With that many children at home, I'm sure > Molly has gotten used to doing for her kids first & > foremost (Snip) > Magda: > I think it's more likely that Molly is just an ingrained > scrimper by this point. Buying second-hand and making do > has become her automatic response to the need for "new" > items. > Tonks now: > Of course there is no money for a fancy robe that he is only > going to wear one time. He is a boy. It will be dark. They are > not a bright color.. he will blend in. Give Molly a break!! He > is just being a teenager. No parent can please their teenager. Karen L, I am wondering why Molly doesn't magically sew some of her children's clothes, especially the robes? The robes it seems would be fairly simple, especially if done magically. Hermione learned how to knit magically, when she was making hats and such for the house elves. I realize that it is hard to please a teenager (having one myself), but to put him in a second hand robe that looked second hand and very old/out of date, seems a bit much. I would think she might make more of an effort when there is a special event that requires special clothing! From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 00:13:53 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:13:53 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <025301c4a358$dbd9a560$232f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > So I'm screaming HELP here. What exactly does Voldemort say? The > passage I'm interested in is something like: > > "You all know the night I lost my powers and my body I tried to > kill him. His mother died trying to save him and unconsciously > granted him a protection that, I confess, I did not predict... I couldn't hit the boy. [...] His mother left on him the signs of her > sacrifice... it's an old magic, I should have remembered, I was a fool to ignore it... but it doesn't matter. I can hit him now. [...] > I miscalculated, my friends, I confess. My curse was deflected by > that silly woman's sacrifice, and it bounced on me." > > Can someone give me the exact words on this? Please, pretty please, > please, please? The U.S. version says: "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." "His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice... This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it... but no matter, I can touch him now." "I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself." (All the elipses appear in the original, but I cut out the narrative, non-quoted material, since it appears you just want Voldy's comments.) Sandy From steve51445 at adelphia.net Sun Sep 26 01:56:35 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:56:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040926015629.EQL9978.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 113912 >Kizor: >The trouble with Occam's Razor is what I none-too-humbly call Kizor's >Rake: "Probabilities cannot be used to make definitive statements >about reality." > >This is especially true with a convoluted narrative that likes to >throw things on their head. Anything too far-fetched will likely come >under ANTITHESIS (All Nice Theories, I Think; However, Each >Supposition Is Strained) but Harry and the gang have failed to see >what's in front of themselves several times throughout the series by >failing to thing topsy-turvily *enough*. Steve now: I'd agree completely with Kizor's Rake, except that Occam's Razor already says the same thing. All things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one. If it didn't say 'tends to be the right one' but instead said 'must be the right one', it would be useless as a scientific principle. Anyway, neither applies to these books, or any books for that matter. JK can write any answer to be the right one she chooses, no matter if it is the simplest or not. Steve From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 02:40:09 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:40:09 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113913 Eloise wrote: > You're quite correct, Priori Incantatem is just as you describe, but > *Prior Incantato* *is* a spell. It is used in Ch.9 of GoF to > establish that Harry's wand had been responsible for conjuring the > Dark Mark at the QWC. They are evidently related effects as reflected > in the similar names and therefore confusing abbreviations. Oh, rats! I forgot all about this use of a previous-spell-detecting-spell. I *wondered* why I seemed to be the only one who noticed that Priori Incantatem didn't work the way everyone else thought it did. 'Cause I was the one who was wrong! Oh well. Alex From u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au Sun Sep 26 04:54:57 2004 From: u3232865 at student.anu.edu.au (colbernays) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:54:57 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113914 > Alex: > > BTW, speaking of PI, there was a thread a week or so ago about > > why Priori Incantatem wasn't used to clear Sirius of the Pettigrew > > murder. Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. > > Eloise: > *Prior Incantato* *is* a spell. It is used in Ch.9 of GoF to > establish that Harry's wand had been responsible for conjuring the > Dark Mark at the QWC. They are evidently related effects as reflected > in the similar names and therefore confusing abbreviations. But how does 'Prior Incantato' work? Mr Diggory(?) used it on Harry's wand and it showed the dark mark. Could Diggory have gone further back through Harry's spells if he had needed, or is the last spell cast the only one available? If only the last spell is available than 'Prior Incantato' can only confirm someone's guilt, not their innocence. Consider this, Sirius Black kills Peter Pettigrew and 12 muggles, he than casts a simple 'lumos'. Fudge et al turn up to arrest him, Sirius declares "I'm innocent, check my wand". Fudge does the PI and a shadow of a light comes out the end of the wand, if Fudge can't go back up the list of spells any further, would he declare our friend Sirius innocent or send him to Azkaban with out a trial? Colin - who likes the look of the new HP editions in Australia that have pictures of their namesakes on them, eg door to the CoS and a goblet with blue flames. From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 04:16:31 2004 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:16:31 -0000 Subject: Can't buy esteem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113915 About Molly and Harry - Molly bought Harry attractive dress robes because she knows he has never had anything nice like that before and will not let them go to his head. And yes, she knows Harry can afford it. Molly is attempting to make up for 11 years of physical and emotional neglect. It doesn't occur to her to make that kind of magnaminous gesture for Ron, because she knows he has had her unwavering love and attention his entire life. I doubt that Molly cared that the dress robe she bought for Ron was old fashioned. Molly is a practical witch and she wants all her children to focus beyond their external embellishments. I also think Molly is wise enough to know that Ron cannot buy esteem. She doesn't want her kids to stand out for fancy clothing...she wants them to stand out as hard working, down to earth, wizards and witches...(as opposite from the Malfoys as you can get!!!) Molly knows what is best for Ron, even though it causes her some anxiety not to be able to spoil him - but she knows he doesn't benefit when something comes too easy to him. Ron always has his heart set on something material...candy, brooms, touristy knick- knacks, other peoples stuff, and on..and on. I think his mother deliberately resists reinforcing his focus on external prizes. Also, sometimes Ron seems to expect his parents to just buy him everything without him having to work for it. The twins had the same clothing issues that Ron does, but they figured out ingenious (albeit questionable, heh, heh) ways to get spending money on their own. Ron is too young yet to understand that a person who can buy anything they want doesn't necessarily benefit from that experience. If he did understand this, Draco wouldn't be able to get his dander up so easy by calling his family "poor"... Remember Lucius buying Quidditch uniforms in exchange for getting his son on the team? Can you imagine what this really did to Draco Malfoy's esteem? Even his own father didn't think he was good enough to make it on the team on his own. Overall, the contrast between rich and poor wizarding families is one of the many fine undercurrents in the story - I think JKR is drawing some insight from her own life experiences. Imagine her own rags to riches story. So tell me - are there some "wealthy" wizarding families against the dark arts? And another weird observation that is rumbling around in my head... By having the Sorting Hat divide some young kids into Slytherin in the first place, isn't Hogwarts essentially guaranteeing the molding and shaping of dark wizards? Why? Why put young wizards and witches who are already pre-disposed to have ethically-challenged ideas, into a group where their anti-societal traits are reinforced? Why not expose them to different types of thinking? From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 26 10:19:01 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:19:01 -0400 Subject: Why buy Ron maroon? Message-ID: <004001c4a3b2$409e5140$bfc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113916 Leah: "So, I think there's a subconscious pleasure for Molly in being able to indulge herself with Harry's dress robes and not worry about what the family will have to go without to afford them. So Ron's entitled to some feeling of being miffed- but not much." DuffyPoo: Are you saying that Molly used Weasley family money to buy Harry's robes? I never got that impression at all. I imagined she went to Gringotts and got money from Harry's vault to buy his things (or maybe he had enough left in his moneybag from last year). If she indulged Harry, then bought second hand for Ron, Ron has every reason to be miffed and it would totally change my impression of Molly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 26 10:19:12 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 06:19:12 -0400 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia Message-ID: <004401c4a3b2$45c98f40$bfc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 113917 Tim :Strange. Didn't LV touch Harry in the graveyard at the end of GOF just to prove he could? Does this mean Harry is no longer protected at Dursley's inspite of what Dumbledore says?" DuffyPoo: No, it is a different protection. LV got past the Lily's sacrifice protection by using HP's blood in his rebirthing potion. That initial sacrificial protection is gone. There is, however, still DD's charm placed upon HP and Petunia and sealed when Petunia agreed to take HP into her home. This is a blood protection as well, but different, IMO. It protects HP by the connection of Petunia having the same blood in her veins as Lily and thus HP. Harry is still protected at four Privet Drive as long as he can call that residence home (or, I presume, anywhere else the Dursley's may move). JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Sep 26 10:57:03 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:57:03 +0100 Subject: TBAY: GASP! MIDAS! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113918 "Hooo!" *Scrabble* "Rowwwwlll!" *Crash* A few feathers drifted down. The Daily Prophet was being delivered to Madam Whiplash's establishment and Crankshaft had missed that damn owl - again. "I'll get him; he can't be lucky for ever," he thought as he grasped the paper in his snaggle teeth and slid through the cat-flap. "Now if I could just get my claws on an Invisibility Cloak...." He padded across Reception and into the parlour where he deposited the paper in Madam W's lap as she was issuing orders to the staff. "Droopy, you clean the windows, the kitchen, wash the floor, beat the carpets, polish the furniture - oh, and sweep the chimneys - clients arriving by Floo are tracking soot everywhere. Then prepare a Buffet Lunch for twenty. I'll decide later what I want you to do this afternoon. And before you do anything else get that Kneasy out of the wine cellar." "Yes, Mistress," quavered Droopy the freed House Elf, reflecting that having to work for your living was no fun. How he longed for the old days back with his family - playing catch the furniture as they threw everything at him for forgetting to polish a teaspoon. Happy days! There was a faint vibration - another, getting stronger - then a picture of Medusa fell off the wall, prompting an angry protest - "Oi! watch it! My snakes'll get tangled!" The tremors strengthened until- "HERMY! WANT HERMY!" "Merlins teeth!" muttered Madam W, striding to the door, "it's that Carpathian clod again. Just won't take no for an answer; even worse than Ron." Wrenching open the door with one hand and with the other drawing her wand from the top of her thigh-length black patent leather boot, she confronted Grawp just as he was about to hammer on the door with a fist the size of Flitwick. "Back off, you!" Her wand (the Pacifier) twitched, lengthened and began to throb menacingly. "What do you want now?" An expression of delight suffused Grawps face, slightly marred by the small animal bones lodged between his broken teeth. "WANT HERMY!" came the reply as a dirt-encrusted hand, replete with fingernails like broken slates reached forward. "Gerroff! This PVC's just been oiled; don't want your grubby fingermarks on it." "UH?" Madam W sighed. "Listen, sunshine. Your place is in the Forest, right? Not here. You frighten the customers. Last time you turned up - you do remember the last time, don't you? The Dragon Fanciers Bachelor Night Out? - when we were presenting that tasteful and artistic re-enactment of St George saving the dragon from the maiden? Well his lance has never been the same, the stains are still in the carpet *and* they demanded their money back. Talk about panic; three of them were jammed in the fireplace for hours. Could have been very nasty, got very threatening, they did." Madam started to pace angrily, the Pacifier vibrating ominously, "Not the first time either; there was that disaster with that crowd from Alchemists Anonymous, some of them still have flashbacks despite the memory modifications. Not forgetting when you burst in on the girls brewing that love philtre. One of 'em turned up in a nunnery in Mexico; sworn off it for life, she has. You've cost me a fortune! Well, I've had enough!" Her wand whipped up and a stream of coloured beams flashed at Grawp - red, yellow, blue and a Whiplash Special; heliotrope with a pink candy stripe. "URGH?" They bounced. Madam goggled. "*GASP!* "MIDAS!" "Giants Are Spell Proofed! Magical Immunity'll Defeat Attacking Sorcerers!" She called back over her shoulder into the house, "Kneasy, get this lump scrubbed up and looking smart." She turned to Grawp. "There're people who don't like me and my friends. They're dangerous. I can see you're going to be very useful. Fancy a career in Security?" From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 11:58:43 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:58:43 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "stbjohn2" wrote> Sandy: > The U.S. version says: > "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." > "His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice... This is old > magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it... > but no matter, I can touch him now." > "I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by > the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself." > Geoff: The Bloomsbury UK edition is the same, except that the final phrase, more grammatically correct (at least for UK English), is rendered as "rebounded on me". From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 12:04:54 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 05:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040926120454.20975.qmail@web52707.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113920 macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: Good point Hannah since I think that JKR *does* demand enough control that anything significant in the films that will *matter* in the books is faithful. I didn't know Dan Radcliffe had blue, not green, eyes but I'm sure JKR took a question on eyes at some interview or another realtibely recently to which her answer suggested they were impostant in magic: see: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/JKRWorldBookDay2004.html (link from lexicon on sources of info - world book day interview 2004) "" ... Sussie: Does Harry's eyecolour become important in the future books, like we've heard? JK Rowling replies -> No comment! ... " Certainly, in the books it is stated (several times IIRC) and seems highly significant that Harry looks exactly like his father EXCEPTING Lily's green eyes. Griffin782002 now: Are you sure that the eye colour will b important. I thought it had to do with his glasses. I remember, if I am not wrong, that she complained to the Italian editors because they had missed to add the glasses on the cover, saying that they are his weakness. About her in the webchat, is it possible that she wanted to say: 'Oh dear, what they are asking me?' Reply: 'No comment'. It reminds what some people who supported the idea of Snape!Vampire said about her reply whether Snape has anythng to do with Vampires. Just wondering. Griffin782002 who salutes fellow members from The University of Wales in Aberystwyth. Wish me good luck. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 12:09:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:09:16 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040925182438.RYKN27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > I never heard Spock say it, but I don't remember all the old episodes. But > it is also from William of Occam. William was a Franciscan friar and > logician from 14 century England. Strangely enough Ockham, the village he > was from and named after, was in Surrey. Now correct me if I'm wrong but > isn't Little Winging in Surrey? Geoff: I doubt if there is any particular value in this link. Surrey is a pretty big county. Ockham is well to the south of the county, near Guildford and is what might be called "traditional" Surrey. Discussions on Little Whinging in the group have suggested that it is to the north of the river, out towards Heathrow airport. This area was the county of Middlesex and only became Surrey when Greater London was set up in 1965 and Middlesex ceased to exist administratively (although it survives on postal addresses!). Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From ryokas at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 12:35:59 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:35:59 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113922 Hi. This can't be the first time this subject is discussed but the search tool of dubious usefulness came up with no other instances. In "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" chapter six of OotP (page 103 English hardback), the Black family tree features the words 'Toujours pur'. What on Earth does that mean? The words sound like French, though with my patchy knowledge of the languages of the region they could just as well be Belgian or something (there isn't even any such thing, is there?). Internet searches turned up very little I could comprehend. Babelfish translates "Toujours" as "always" but "pur" as nothing. "Pour", on the other hand, comes up as "for". It could be that "pur" has a meaning but nothing that Babelfish can decipher, or that this is Ye Olde French, or we might be dealing with a Clue here. And to keep up with my habit of derailing my own questions, another thing: With Pottermania constantly building, how's book 6 coming out going to be handled here on HPfGU? I gather there was a spoiler-ban for a set amount of time when Order of the Phoenix arrived. Making it mandatory to mark all books containing spoilers in the subject line? Creating a small side-list for discussion of the book while the spoiler-ban expires? - Kizor From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 12:37:45 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:37:45 -0000 Subject: Why buy maroon dress robes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113923 >Leah: "So, I think there's a subconscious >pleasure for Molly in being able to indulge herself with Harry's >dress robes and not worry about what the family will have to go >without to afford them. So Ron's entitled to some feeling of being >miffed- but not much." DuffyPoo: >"Are you saying that Molly used Weasley family money to buy Harry's >robes? I never got that impression at all. I imagined she went to >Gringotts and gotmoney from Harry's vault to buy his things (or maybe he had enough left in his >moneybag from last year). If she indulged Harry, then bought second >hand for Ron, Ron has every reason to be miffed and it would totally >change my impression of Molly " Leah again No, sorry if I gave that impression. I meant exactly the opposite. Because Molly is using Harry's copious supply of money to buy his dress robes, she is able to indulge herself in buying nice things, in a way in which, sadly, she is financially unable to do with her own children. Someone also asked why Molly didn't just sew the dress robes. It does appear that some talent is needed to perform certain spells, eg. Tonks is useless at cleaning and can't manage 'scourgify', which Ginny has no trouble with. So perhaps, while Molly is an excellent cook and cleaner, she is not a needlewoman. Leah (who doubts if she could sew even if gifted with the combined magical talents of Voldemort and Dumbledore) From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 12:48:46 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:48:46 -0000 Subject: Toujours pur- Black family motto Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113924 Kizor wrote: >In "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" chapter six of OotP >(page 103 English hardback), the Black family tree features the words >'Toujours pur'. What on Earth does that mean? It means 'always pure'. Collins French dictionary defines pur as 'pure, undiluted, neat'(neat as in whisky!). It has therefore to be a reference to the Black's pureblood ancestory. In fact a pur-sang (pure blood) in French is a thorough- bred. The French motto hints presumably at the ancient lineage of the Black family. No doubt there's also a joke by JKR re the rather unpure conduct of some family members. Leah (who hopes she's not posting immediately after herself) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 13:39:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:39:20 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <00ab01c4a368$2d816ec0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > With all due respect, I think it's my turn to disagree with you on this (and I'm > a new person so be gentle ). I don't think that when Harry told him that Padfoot > was in trouble, Snape had any options or any time to think of other options. snip. > 2. I think that slapping people's ego's down when they deserve it is a good thing. Think about it, > why did DD insist that Harry be brought up away from all of the WW...to keep his ego at a > managable level. Alla: Welcome, Kethryn! Yes, I think I agree with you that Snape could not let Harry know that he got his message, although he is a smart man, maybe he could have come up with something. I don't hold that against him though, I realise that he was in a very tough spot with Umbridge. In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I am picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you can, but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head against the wall. :o) Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down,when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when in GOF he tried to find Dumbledore to tell him about Moody and Snape kept mocking him instead, etc.,etc. Harry is being angry in OOP (and often undeservingly) was so not the equivalent of swallen ego, but normal adolescent reaction at being fed up of people keeping him in the dark, IMO. I am also wondering why Dumbledore's decision to keep Harry with Dursleys is cited as the example to "slap Harry's ego down" . True, In PS/SS Dumbledore says that he wants Harry to grew up away from all the publicity, but I don't think that this is the direct equivalent of "slapping his ego down" In his speech in OOP Dumbledore cites as a main reason of leaving Harry with Dursleys desire to keep him safe "My priority was to keep you alive" - OOP, p.835, paperback. I dislike that decision immensely, but what if indeed that was the safest place for Harry? You know, picking the lesser evil? Dumbledore says "You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under circumstances."-OOP, p.837, Have you ever read this quote as a support that Dumbledore was afraid that Harry would grow up a pampered little prince? Because I always read it as Dumbledore regret' that Harry did NOT grew up a pampered little prince, but at least was as normal as possible under bad circumstances. So, I am afraid I fail to see the parallels between Dumbledore's and Snape's actions. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 13:45:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:45:59 -0000 Subject: Can't buy esteem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" wrote: snip. > By having the Sorting Hat divide some young kids into Slytherin in > the first place, isn't Hogwarts essentially guaranteeing the molding > and shaping of dark wizards? Why? Why put young wizards and > witches who are already pre-disposed to have ethically-challenged > ideas, into a group where their anti-societal traits are > reinforced? Why not expose them to different types of thinking? Alla: Yes, yes, yes. Slytherin ideology is absolutely horrible, but why Sorting Hat specificlaly and Hogwarts as a magical being (I always imagine the castle being alive in its own right as some kind of magical being) does not put up a fight for its new students and let them go to Slytherin every year, I am not sure. Maybe at the end we will just learn that Houses' dissolution is the best idea to go with. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 13:57:36 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:57:36 -0000 Subject: JKRs comments on Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim" wrote: > > On the whole blood protection issue, I find the whole thing very > > messy and some days I think I have a handle on how it may work only > > to wake up the next morning wondering what I was thinking. What I > > do know is that nowhere in Dumbledore's explanation to Harry at the > > end of OoP does he say Petunia's constant presence is necessary. > > What he does say is, "While you still call home the *place* where > > your mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be touched or harmed > > by Voldemort." (Ch 37, US ed. pg 836) *emphasis* mine > > > > To me that means Voldemort can't hurt Harry at Number 4. Period. > > Because that is where Petunia and he both live. > > KathyK, For Petunia the Muggle with Minimum Wizarding World Contact > > > Strange. Didn't LV touch Harry in the graveyard at the end of GOF just to prove he could? > Does this mean Harry is no longer protected at Dursley's inspite of what Dumbledore says? > > Tim I don't think so. Because as you said that was in the graveyeard. LV also confirms in that scene that Privet Drive is still protecting Harry, telling his assembled DEs that "while he is in his relations care even I cannot touch him" which is a paraphrase because I don't have my book handy. But since Mrs. Figg left Harry there after the Dementor attack in OotP and Arthur and Sirius and practically everyone else who wrote to him told him to stay there, then I would assume it was still protected. Meri From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 13:59:45 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:59:45 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113928 > Valky wrote: > Ok to clarify completely, I guess that my post was fully intended to > address only those that aren't convinced. > Snivellus is not a mitigating circumstance. It is an implied > character judgement. > Snivelling is not a description of someone who cried, in "English" > english it is a > *Character Judgement* > Of someone who is weak. And, although, you learned it in English > class Alla, I learned it in real life used by those in command of > the language in which it was written. It implies a person is weak of > *virtue*. RL now: Thank you for clarifying the concept for us non-native English speakers. That was also my understanding of the word "snive" both from my readings and my English lessons, but since so many native speakers so strongly disagreed, I thought I'd gotten the meaning wrong. Romulus Lupin, who'll keep thinking Snape is ESE until he sees it's not so in black and white From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 14:15:31 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:15:31 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113929 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kizor0" wrote: Kizor: > Hi. This can't be the first time this subject is discussed but the > search tool of dubious usefulness came up with no other instances. > > In "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" chapter six of OotP > (page 103 English hardback), the Black family tree features the words > 'Toujours pur'. What on Earth does that mean? Geoff: Hmmm. Babelfish obviously needs his aquarium cleaned out. It's "always pure" (or unsullied or clean etc. etc.) My schoolboy French of X years ago suggested that before I attacked my Concise Oxford French dictionnaire for confirmation. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 14:16:11 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:11 -0000 Subject: Source of LV's evil nau In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > Duffypoo wrote: > >>I don't see that his father abandoned TR at all, except in TR's > mind. Divorce/separation isn't ususally about the kids but about the > adults in the situation. Did Riddle, Sr. even know his wife was > pregnant or had she just told him she was a witch? Did she even know > that she was pregnant, at the time of the magical revelation? > > Leah; > After COS, I wondered if we would learn more about both Harry's and LV's parents (snip)However, I have > also discounted my 'LV's bad mother' theory since reading > GOF: 'Nobody wasted their breath pretending to be 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'. It looks as if, with the Riddles, what you see > (and LV imagines) is what you get. Now RL: I could buy the "Mr Riddle didn't know of his wife pregnancy" theory, if it weren't for one tiny little detail: Tom knew who is father was. He didn't get that from his wizarding sources, so it stands to reason that info came from his muggle sources, that is from the orphanage. If they knew about Tom Sn, they must have informed him about his son, and he decided to ignore him (from what I've read, that was a common practice when the young bucks of the nobility/gentry/upper middle class married below their status and wanted to get rid of their "undeserving" family). Not conclusive proof, of course, but at least reasonable cause, don't you think? Romulus Lupin, who wonders who Mark Hacking is From romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 14:26:05 2004 From: romuluslupin1 at yahoo.com (romuluslupin1) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:26:05 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > >(snip) So, did Snivellus come from Severus in tears, Severus tattling or > Severus suffering allergies? RL here: Yuck, you just reminded me of a schoolmate of mine. He didn't suffer from allergies, he just didn't like to wipe his nose when he had a cold. Everybody made nasty remarks about him. Even is mom used to tell him that his fiancee would tell him "my dear, please, whipe your nose before we kiss? (actually, he got rid of this habit around 16-17, so his mom was probably right ;o). Anyway, if the Snivellus nickname comes from this, it does paint a very negative image of Snape (at least to me) Romulus Lupin, fondly remembering his school days, now From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 26 14:29:12 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:29:12 -0000 Subject: Hagrid in Knockturn Alley (was Re: Snape as Borgin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113932 Janet wrote: > Hagrid was in Knockturn Alley at the same time as the Malfoys; he encounters Harry there. When asked, he gives a somewhat unsatisfactory excuse. It's always been my theory that he was on some errand for Dumbledore -- Dumbledore has sent Hagrid on high- profile missions before, such as bringing > Harry from Godric's Hollow or bringing the Sorcerer's Stone from Gringott's to Hogwarts. Hagrid really does "hide in plain sight," because the worst of the Bad Guys, such as Voldemort, Malfoy, or Umbridge, don't take him seriously. So if Borgin really were Snape, then Hagrid might have been there to give or receive a message to him to or from Dumbledore. I don't think Hagrid would know that Snape and Borgin were the same person -- fond though I am of Hagrid, everyone knows he can't keep a secret very well. > Hannah: I like the idea that Hagrid was in Knockturn Alley to do some kind of job for DD, that would explain his rather weak excuse. I find that more plausible than any kind of ESE!Hagrid explanation. Reading this post got me thinking of another reason Hagrid could have been there (apologies to anyone who's already suggested this). What if Hagrid is there to find Harry? I mean, the 'Boy Who Lived' getting dumped in some unknown fireplace is probably a 'code red' situation for DD and co. I'd imagine that the Weasleys would have contacted DD immediately. I'm sure that he'd have instructed them on various measures to ensure Harry's safety while he stays with them, including contacting him at once in such a situation. DD could probably have worked out where Harry was, or used some way of locating him in an emergency, and then dispatched Hagrid by portkey to find Harry and return him to the Weasleys in Diagon Alley. I've always thought it was a bit convenient that Hagrid happened to be there at just the right time - perhaps it wasn't a lucky coincidence at all. Janet continued: > By the way, after hearing the Malfoys' conversation, Harry knows that they have a secret chamber under their floor. Did he pass this on to anyone? If nothing else, a search of that place would probably reveal even more reasons to keep Lucius Malfoy in Azkaban for the rest of his life. Hannah again: Harry and Ron hear this together from Draco while they are posing as Crabbe and Goyle. Ron says that he will tell his Dad. We never hear any more about it though. Maybe he never tells Arthur, or maybe Arthur is never able to act on the information. Hannah From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 26 14:29:36 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:29:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: <20040923223553.18166.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113933 Petra Pan: > Instead of wasting time on "trivial > hurts, tiny human accidents" that are > "of no more significance than the > scurryings of ants to the wide > universe," Firenze talks of watching > "the skies for the great tides of evil > or change that are sometimes marked > there" and of divining through the > "burning of certain herbs and leaves, > by the observation of fume and flame ." Jen: It occurred to me this might sum up Dumbledore's outlook on life as well. Not the burning of herbs and leaves exactly, but he does consult those mysterious silver instruments ;). It could explain some of his omissions with Harry and his belief that growing too close to Harry was the "flaw in his plan." In fact, along with the Phoenix imagery around him, I'd even say this isn't Dumbledore's first and only lifetime. I don't know if JKR wants to get into reincarnation exactly, but within the context of a fantasy world Dumbledore could be a 'being' who spans lifetimes. After living not only 150 years, but many thousands of years, it would make sense that Dumbledore is somewhat removed from individual suffering, just as the Centaurs are removed from "trivial hurts, tiny human accidents." Dumbledore personifies "community over the individual" as seen by the refuge he's created at Hogwarts and the creation of the Order Petra Pan: > I conceive arithmancy as a process in > which all the forces in play are > quantified as vectors, which then are > added up to figure out which way and > how strong the wind is blowing, so to > speak. An oversimplified example: if > the sum of the forces of the vectors > directed toward Good [i.e. members of > the OotP] are less than the sum of the > forces of the vectors directed toward > Evil [i.e. DEs] then it's a pretty good > bet that the Dark Lord is going to > prevail. > > If I've got this even close to being > right, then success of arithmancy > depends greatly on the accuracy of the > assessment of a force's magnitude and > direction. In terms of people, this > would be the person's ability to affect > events and the person's motivation. > Hmm is Hermione good at assessing these > qualities?) Jen: I like your metaphorical take on Arithmancy. Since Hermione approves of the study and it is 'logical' to her, there must be some type of measurement involved or some quantifiable data to refer to. It does seem conceivable in a world where Time, Death, and Love (?) are harnessed and examined, there would be a quantifiable way to discuss the "forces of nature" as well. Perhaps studying and understanding Arithmancy could improve a person's magical abilities as well? Or at least improve the understanding of magical principle. Jen Reese From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 14:39:49 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:39:49 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113934 Kizor wrote : "the Black family tree features the words 'Toujours pur'. What on Earth does that mean? " Geoff answered : "Hmmm. Babelfish obviously needs his aquarium cleaned out. It's "always pure" (or unsullied or clean etc. etc.)" Del comments : I don't know that Babelfish, but it must be quite sick if it can't translate something that simple... You're right, Geoff : always pure. Undoubtedbly a reference to their pure-blood obsession, though I wonder if it might have meant something else originally, something more along the lines of "always pure in heart" or "always virtuous" maybe ? Another question : why is the motto stated in French to start with ? Black is not, even remotely, a French name, so why use French ? Del, a French woman who was surprised to read French words, and even more surprised that they weren't translated. Understanding what the schoolkids looking for Madame Maxime during the QWC said wasn't important to the plot, but understanding the Black motto is indeed important to understand that family's ideology. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 14:51:09 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:51:09 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Another question : why is the motto stated in French to start with ? > Black is not, even remotely, a French name, so why use French ? > > Del, a French woman who was surprised to read French words, and even > more surprised that they weren't translated. Understanding what the > schoolkids looking for Madame Maxime during the QWC said wasn't > important to the plot, but understanding the Black motto is indeed > important to understand that family's ideology. Because French is the historical language of the English aristocracy, and having a motto like that points out both their age and their upper-class status. Remember that the motto of the royal family is 'Dieu et Mon Droit', after all. -Nora speaks a little French, but reads much better than she speaks From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 15:02:35 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:02:35 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113936 I, Del, asked : "Another question : why is the motto stated in French to start with ? Black is not, even remotely, a French name, so why use French ?" Nora answered : "Because French is the historical language of the English aristocracy, and having a motto like that points out both their age and their upper-class status. Remember that the motto of the royal family is 'Dieu et Mon Droit', after all." Del replies : Really ? I didn't know that. So technically, I couldn't *remember* it :-) You *do* realise, of course, that you've just made a direct connection between the Black family and the classic, *Muggle* aristocracy ? Smells of HBP. Or does it ? Del From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 26 15:03:09 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 26 Sep 2004 15:03:09 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1096210989.22.13007.m8@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113937 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, September 26, 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 26 15:08:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:08:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Dumbledore says "You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under circumstances."-OOP, p.837, > Have you ever read this quote as a support that Dumbledore was afraid that Harry would grow up a pampered little prince? > > > Because I always read it as Dumbledore regret' that Harry did NOT grew up a pampered little prince, but at least was as normal as possible under bad circumstances.< Wow! I certainly did read that as Dumbledore's relief that Harry, although "neither as happy nor as well-nourished" as Dumbledore would have liked, had not become, through over-pampering, a self-satisfied, over-privileged monster like Dudley or Draco or young James. We can see from the way that Mrs. Weasley treated Harry in CoS, not being cross with him for using the car, and cutting up his bread and buttering it for him, that it could have happened. I disagree that Snape has no reason for trying to slap Harry down. Harry did raise his eyebrows during that first class, he was in Hogsmeade without permission, etc. Snape goes too far in our eyes when he segues from righteous anger to venting--in our eyes children are a protected class and should be shielded from adult tempers--but the wizarding world doesn't see it that way. Snape was probably raised to think that what we now call 'verbal abuse' wasn't supposed to hurt you, and if it did, you were a weakling. Probably he isn't trying to damage Harry or Neville -- he's trying to change them. I think that what Snape is looking for, besides an outlet for his anger, is some indication of guilt on Harry's part, and what he doesn't understand is that Harry's conscience is wired differently than his. To judge by the way he treats Harry, Snape's conscience speaks to him as the fear of punishment. He can't grasp that Harry, like Dobby, has been punished unjustly so many times that there's no connection anymore. Harry is only afraid of letting people down, something that means very little to Snape. So Snape can say that nothing he says is making any impression on Harry because none of it changes Harry's behavior at all. Then there's the additional problem that Snape often expects Harry to understand what he's done wrong without being told. Perhaps Snape is unconsciously expecting Harry to be a legilmens? Of course Harry doesn't make the connection between his raised eyebrows and Snape's wrath, nor does he think that Snape might have misunderstood the pained glance that Harry gave him the night before. Snape was looking right at Harry when Harry winced and put his hand to his forehead, so what Snape saw in his class was Harry making faces at him for the second time. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 26 15:10:58 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:10:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Dumbledore says "You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under circumstances."-OOP, p.837, > Have you ever read this quote as a support that Dumbledore was afraid that Harry would grow up a pampered little prince? > > > Because I always read it as Dumbledore regret' that Harry did NOT grew up a pampered little prince, but at least was as normal as possible under bad circumstances.< Wow! I certainly did read that as Dumbledore's relief that Harry, although "neither as happy nor as well-nourished" as Dumbledore would have liked, had not become, through over-pampering, a self-satisfied, over-privileged monster like Dudley or Draco or young James. We can see from the way that Mrs. Weasley treated Harry in CoS, not being cross with him for using the car, and cutting up his bread and buttering it for him, that it could have happened. I disagree that Snape has no reason for trying to slap Harry down. Harry did raise his eyebrows during that first class, he was in Hogsmeade without permission, etc. Snape goes too far in our eyes when he segues from righteous anger to venting--in our eyes children are a protected class and should be shielded from adult tempers--but the wizarding world doesn't see it that way. Snape was probably raised to think that what we now call 'verbal abuse' wasn't supposed to hurt you, and if it did, you were a weakling. Probably he isn't trying to damage Harry or Neville -- he's trying to change them. I think that what Snape is looking for, besides an outlet for his anger, is some indication of guilt on Harry's part, and what he doesn't understand is that Harry's conscience is wired differently than his. To judge by the way he treats Harry, Snape's conscience speaks to him as the fear of punishment. He can't grasp that Harry, like Dobby, has been punished unjustly so many times that there's no connection anymore. Harry is only afraid of letting people down, something that means very little to Snape. So Snape can say that nothing he says is making any impression on Harry because none of it changes Harry's behavior at all. Then there's the additional problem that Snape often expects Harry to understand what he's done wrong without being told. Perhaps Snape is unconsciously expecting Harry to be a legilmens? Of course Harry doesn't make the connection between his raised eyebrows and Snape's wrath, nor does he think that Snape might have misunderstood the pained glance that Harry gave him the night before. Snape was looking right at Harry when Harry winced and put his hand to his forehead, so what Snape saw in his class was Harry making faces at him for the second time. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 15:50:05 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:50:05 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Del replies : > Really ? I didn't know that. So technically, I couldn't *remember* > it :-) In that case, I am happy to have been of assistance with my deep reserves of random knowledge. :) > You *do* realise, of course, that you've just made a direct > connection between the Black family and the classic, *Muggle* > aristocracy ? Smells of HBP. Or does it ? Eh, not for sure. The family motto and such likely date back to before the more strict separation (post-Statue of Secrecy) of the two worlds, so I don't think it's amiss to posit a greater cultural continuity between the two. [The question that that possible cultural continuity raises for me is more one of, natch, scholarship--how was all of this knowledge preserved, etc. For short example--I'm always more than a little wary (because of my own hangups, I know) when we get postulated extensive knowledge and traditions of Egyptian magic texts, because no text (in hieroglypics--Coptic is another story) was really readable to a modern reader until Champollion in the early 19th century...unless we want a wizarding philologist, and I don't see it. Or, to rephrase it, I'm wary of postulating wizards with wildly superior scholarly abilities to those of the poor hard-working Muggles. Urk. Let's end this rant now before it goes into completely speculative (ick) territory.] -Nora recovers from an operatic double feature From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 16:02:01 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:02:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK References: Message-ID: <003601c4a3e2$2949df20$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 113941 From: "Geoff Bannister" > Sandy: > > "I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by > > the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself." > > Geoff: > The Bloomsbury UK edition is the same, except that the final phrase, > more grammatically correct (at least for UK English), is rendered > as "rebounded on me". charme: "Rebounded on me" gives some credence to Occam's Razor comments made earlier in this thread, IMO. I think that while JKR is quite the author, I also believe that in attempting to theorize, some folks (even me) get carried away in making more complexities about HP situarions rather than focusing on something much more simplistic. If you look at the statements LV made in this paragraph, it seems simple he didn't take aim at Lily with the AK - she jumped in the way when LV cast the AK curse intended for Harry instead. Along the lines of using Occam's Razor as a method for theory, one can also apply this to the "why did LV live" question. Are we sure he was actually "alive" when he cast the curse? ;) charme From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 26 16:20:30 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:20:30 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113942 Nora: > > > JKR has however, perhaps, worked herself into a bit of a quandry with families and how they're written in the books. Traits run in families (Weasleys and Malfoys, etc., to take the more obvious examples), but one is not supposed to be *determined* by family in this world either, given the importance of choice. > Ah, but that's not what Dumbledore said. He said that Harry's choice to ask the Hat not to put him in Slytherin made Harry *very different* from Tom Riddle. Different, that is, than what one might have predicted from Harry's abilities and his circumstances, and different from what Harry might have become if he had chosen otherwise. Dumbledore did not say, however, that our choices determine what we are--he said they *show* what we are, far more than our abilities. Our traits can be determined by other things than our choices, but our choices affect what is determined for us, and it is by those choices that we should be judged. Draco and Sirius were both rebellious and that might be a Black family trait. But Draco's rebellion was against his father's sneaking ways-- unlike Lucius, Draco was openly anti-Potter and pro-Voldemort. Sirius rebelled against his family's philosophy but embraced a certain Slytherin sneakiness -- his life was full of secret plots. Regulus remained faithful to his family but rebelled against Voldemort--and did it openly enough to get himself killed. Their choice of how to express their rebelliousness shows us more than the rebelliousness itself. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 17:10:44 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:10:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I disagree that Snape has no reason for trying to slap Harry > down. Harry did raise his eyebrows during that first class, he > was in Hogsmeade without permission, etc. Alla: Harry raised his eyebrows AFTER Snape started attacking him. Snape says 'Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity", (yes, I consider that sentence to be the beginning of carefully prepared verbal attack) then delivers the speech, THEN "Harry and Ron exchanged looks with raised eyebrows". Harry did not even raise the eybrows at Snape and even if he did, I disagree that it would justify what Snape did to him. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Sep 26 18:11:46 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:11:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 5 sets of Lockhart's book? and WW economy References: <1096144796.22564.22769.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001c01c4a3f4$497700e0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 113945 Susana wrote: >In the WW people have professions just like in ours. Some people will be >writers and singers who live out of their creations. To buy one set of >Lockhart's books and duplicate it is probably as illegal as in MW. It >doesn't mean it can't be done, just that precautions would be taken to make >it difficult and that you don't want to be caught doing it. It would be rather handy if you were a WW librarian though, wouldn't it, especially given the the kind of attrition that popular books get in libraries. Or the fact that very ancient books would be long since out of print but might need a pristine copy producing. Maybe Irma Pince knows a "Librarian's Copy" spell that would allow her to make extra copies. Maybe (mind working even more wildly now) books have (or can have) protections built in against that sort of thing and attempts by the amateur bibliophile to copy them would lead to very unpleasant consequences! But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 26 19:20:47 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:20:47 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113946 Karen L, trying to get into this conversation, > IMO, Lucius Malfoy knew about LV's attempt to return to the land > and the living via Draco. Remember what DD told Harry while > he was recovering in the hospital wing. > "...What happened down in the dungeons between you and > Professor Quirrell is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole > school knows" (PS, uk ed. pg 436-437) > To me that says that everyone must have known that Quirrell > was being "possessed" by LV, and Draco had to have told his > dad...no canon to support that, but anyway. SSSusan: No canon to support my view either, but I don't think this was the case. I took "the whole school knows" comment as being about Harry STOPPING Professor Quirrell from stealing something, period. Whether they knew it was the Sorcerer's Stone or not, I couldn't say, but perhaps. Either way, I think they knew Quirrell was trying to do something "bad," something against the rules, and that Harry stopped him and, in the process, Quirrell was killed. If the whole school knew that Voldemort was a part of the story, then I don't think we'd have spent the next three school years with next to no discussion of Voldy by the students. When the Chamber was opened, the student body began whispering **about Harry.** There didn't seem to be discussion about Voldemort perhaps being behind it in any way, shape or form. IF everyone had known that Voldy was attached to Quirrell and had come close to returning, and had been at Hogwarts, I think they'd be looking for him to attempt a return again. Yet we hear precious little discussion about him at all until Cedric dies. Well, really, until Book 5. Until then, whenever something untoward happens, it seems all people talk about is whether Harry is a nutcase or not. If people really understood that a returned Voldy was a possibility, wouldn't they have been on the lookout for him? wouldn't the surprise over the Dark Mark in GoF have been less of a surprise? Just a knut or two. Siriusly Snapey Susan From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 19:27:45 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:27:45 -0000 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Kizor wrote : > "the Black family tree features the words 'Toujours pur'. What on > Earth does that mean? " > > Geoff answered : > "Hmmm. Babelfish obviously needs his aquarium cleaned out. > > It's "always pure" (or unsullied or clean etc. etc.)" > > Del comments : > I don't know that Babelfish, but it must be quite sick if it can't > translate something that simple... Geoff: Babelfish is a reasonably well-known computer translation program; it is however known for its tendency to translate literally and miss the nuances and idioms sometimes involved. Del: > Another question : why is the motto stated in French to start with ? > Black is not, even remotely, a French name, so why use French ? > > Del, a French woman who was surprised to read French words, and even > more surprised that they weren't translated. Understanding what the > schoolkids looking for Madame Maxime during the QWC said wasn't > important to the plot, but understanding the Black motto is indeed > important to understand that family's ideology. Geoff: If I may expand on one or two of the replies which followed your post: in the real world, many UK aristocratic families are descended from the Normans who came with William of Normandy in 1066 and so many family mottos are in French or old Norman French and, of course, many mottos are also in Latin - for example, "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" :-) Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 19:53:08 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040926195308.53474.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113948 Alla: > Dumbledore says "You were not a pampered little prince, but as > normal a boy as I could have hoped under circumstances."-OOP, > p.837, > Have you ever read this quote as a support that Dumbledore was > afraid that Harry would grow up a pampered little prince? > > Because I always read it as Dumbledore regret' that Harry did NOT > grew up a pampered little prince, but at least was as normal as > possible under bad circumstances. I'm sorry; I don't understand your comment. Of course Dumbledore didn't want Harry to be a pampered little prince, a sort of good-guy version of Draco or wizard-Dudley. The opposite of "pampered" is "not pampered" or "normal". Harry is as normal as it's possible to be under the circumstances. If Harry is going to fulfill his destiny, he'd have to be tough and god knows surviving the Dursleys qualifies a kid as tough. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 26 12:55:24 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:55:24 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map, A History; Wasn't Wormtail Worried? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113949 :, "Bex" wrote: > > > > And as for why the twins never noticed a Peter Pettigrew? Well, > > there are several reasons: (snip)> > > 2) It's pretty clear that students (Gryffindors, at least) don't > > associate with other students outside their house and/or year. In > > the off chance that the twins noticed a Peter Pettigrew, they may > > have written it off as a student they don't know. (snip)> > > 3) Thus their > main > > concern would have been who was in the hall they were in, who was > > close enough to hear them, and perhaps which professors were > where. > Romulus Lupin: > I agree with your post. I have one point to make. I think the > Marauders never appear on the map by their full names, but only by > their nicknames Karen L. When Fred and George first had the map, don't you think they would have stayed in their dorm room studying it before they went looking for secret passageways? They must have seen PP on the map, but blew it off as someone they didn't know, or just didn't care. If they would have seen the name "wormtail" walking around the castle, that may have sent them looking for "wormtail" because they would want to know who "wormtail" was and congratulate him on making such an extraordinary map! So I don't think that the Marauder's nicknames would have appeared on the map (sorry Lupin). From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 26 13:04:09 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:04:09 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas Background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > We know that Dean Thomas's father witheld his magical background > from his family and J.K.R has hinted it might not be > revealed,although she has quite a bit written about him that has not > been included in the storyline as of yet. > > Karen L. , Seamus Finnigan's mother also withheld her witch identity from her husband, so the same could be said about him. "I'm half and half,' said Seamus. 'Me dad's a muggle. Mam didn't tell him she was a witch 'til after they were married. Bit of a nasty shock for him" (PS. UK ed pgs 185-186-large print ed.) Although I am not up on everything that JKR has said regarding these two characters, I believe the HBP could be either one. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Sep 26 15:48:53 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:48:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113951 --- Pippin: > I disagree that Snape has no reason for trying to slap Harry > down. Harry did raise his eyebrows during that first class, he > was in Hogsmeade without permission, etc. > > I think that what Snape is looking for, besides an outlet for his > anger, is some indication of guilt on Harry's part, and what he > doesn't understand is that Harry's conscience is wired differently > than his. > > > Then there's the additional problem that Snape often expects > Harry to understand what he's done wrong without being told. > Perhaps Snape is unconsciously expecting Harry to be a > legilmens? > > Of course Harry doesn't make the connection between his raised > eyebrows and Snape's wrath, nor does he think that Snape > might have misunderstood the pained glance that Harry gave > him the night before. Snape was looking right at Harry when > Harry winced and put his hand to his forehead, so what Snape > saw in his class was Harry making faces at him for the second > time. Karen L. Pippin, I need to respectfully disagree with you regarding that Snape has a reason to "slap Harry down". What "guilt" is Snape looking for in Harry? There is no real, specific reason that he should target Harry! Harry is no more rude or disrespectful to Snape as are any of the other students. Snape specifically targets Harry in the first potions class; "Ah, yes,' he said softly, 'Harry Potter. Our new-"celebrity" (PS,UK ed. pg 203) then he goes on and asks Harry questions that he knows most of them don't know, and then takes off points for his "cheek" and and point for; "You Potter- why didn't you tell him (Neville) not to add the quills? Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, do you? That's another point you've lost for Gryffindor." (PS, UK ed pge 207) Neville wasn't even his lab partner! How unfair is that?! Both of these instances were completely out of nowhere, Harry did NOTHING to make Snape react this harshly. He was targeting Harry, because, I guess he feels it is his (Snape's) duty to bring HP, "our new celebrity", down a peg or two. Maybe he doesn't realize that Harry is not a "pampered prince", maybe he hates Harry because of James, maybe Snape is just an evil, mean, hateful person. What ever his reasons, no teacher should target any student, no matter how they are perceived, in the way that Snape has targeted Harry. It's inexcuseable! From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 20:14:52 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040926201452.31758.qmail@web52701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113952 Geoff Bannister wrote: Geoff: If I may expand on one or two of the replies which followed your post: in the real world, many UK aristocratic families are descended from the Normans who came with William of Normandy in 1066 and so many family mottos are in French or old Norman French and, of course, many mottos are also in Latin - for example, "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" :-) Geoff Griffin782002 now: Hmmm.. I think you are right. I just had a look in "The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter" by David Colbert, which I think is quite good to find out about the myths and facts behind Harry Potter. Well, it mentions that Malfoy derives from the Latin maleficus, which means evil-doer. And most importantly in French mal foi means bad faith.So, I think their ancestors might have arrived from France. Griffin782002 who started making silly thuoghts like: what would have happen in the second task if H.P. had come across not Moaning Myrtle but..... Dory (the abscent-minded fish from Finding Nemo) :-P --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 20:38:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:38:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040926195308.53474.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: >> I'm sorry; I don't understand your comment. Of course Dumbledore > didn't want Harry to be a pampered little prince, a sort of good- guy > version of Draco or wizard-Dudley. The opposite of "pampered" is > "not pampered" or "normal". Harry is as normal as it's possible to > be under the circumstances. If Harry is going to fulfill his > destiny, he'd have to be tough and god knows surviving the Dursleys > qualifies a kid as tough. Alla: I don't think that Dumbledore NOT wanting Harry to be a bit spoiled - is a given. As I said - I read this quote as Dumbledore feeling remorseful that Harry did not grew up experiencing love and yes, being a little spoiled (not TOO much). I DON'T think that dumbledore would be opposed to it, if he had a choice From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sun Sep 26 21:02:09 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:02:09 +0100 Subject: Survival of AK References: Message-ID: <002501c4a40c$32f498b0$6f280dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 113954 Sandy quoted from GoF for me. ---------------------- Thanks, Sandy. Unfortunately, it shoots down my theory. In Portuguese sounded a lot as if Lily had thrown herself in front of the AK the way Fawkes did for DD in the MoM. I was going to say Lily's death activated the protection and *that* destroyed the house and Voldy's body (and that's why there was nothing else to come out of the wand in prior incantatem), but now it seems farfetched. What do you lot think? My second guess is Voldemort's curse to baby Harry was not fulfilled - no one died (Voldy didn't die) - so there's nothing to come out of the wand, the same way the gravestone doesn't come out. Susana From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 26 22:19:14 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:19:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: <20040923223553.18166.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113955 Petra wrote: > [4] What does Dumbledore mean when he > says that he is not going into hiding > and that Fudge will soon wish he'd > never dislodged the headmaster from > Hogwarts? Hannah now: This comment of DD's has always interested me. It seems like the one time when he says something that isn't strictly true. He says he's not going into hiding - yet we see and hear no more of him until the night of the DoM. Umbridge has no idea where he is although she is trying quite determindly to find out, presumably Fudge doesn't either... so if they are trying to find him and can't, then he must be hiding. He's entitled to, since he's on the run from the law, but why say that he's not going into hiding? Is he just speaking figuratively, meaning that he's not going to sit and do nothing? What I don't like about this comment is what it says about his attitude to Sirius. When McGonagall asks if he's going to Grimmauld Place, he immediately brushes it aside with the rather scathing 'I'm not going into hiding' comment. He's now in a similar situation to Sirius - on the run from the law. Yet while it's OK to force Sirius to hide in Grimmauld Place - and the tone of his answer shows how little worth he considers that - he couldn't possibly do such a thing himself. I know that the situation isn't quite the same, but I think he shows remarkably little empathy for Sirius at this point. It does make me wonder what else there is going on behind the scenes/ has happened in the murky past, between DD and Sirius. The other thing that comes across in this scene is DD's arrogance (I bet a lot of people will disagree with me on this!). But DD really does think a lot of himself - his lofty assertion that he could escape Azkaban for example. He is probably justified in this comment, since he is the greatest wizard of the age or whatever, but I do think that over confidence is an error made by DD as well as by LV. In OotP, DD messes up big time IMO. And a lot of his problem comes from believing that he is all-powerful, and can somehow make everything work out all right without even explaining the situation properly to those it concerns (ie. Harry). He doesn't teach Harry occlumency himself in case LV uses it to attack him, but considers it OK to get his top spy to take that risk! I'm not trying to argue for an ESE!Dumbledore here, and I do think that DD is basically good. But I don't think that he's perfect, and I think he is prepared to do some pretty unpleasant things in the interest of the greater good, and this scene hints at that. But I have to agree with Phinease Nigellus, he does have style! Hannah, for whom 'DD resists arrest' is one of the best scenes in OotP. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Sep 26 22:55:29 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:55:29 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: ... snip ... > My thought is because it had Fawkes' feather for a core - it couldn't > act properly against Harry, in the same way that it failed to at the > graveyard; essentially whatever spell Voldie cast at Harry didn't > work as it was intended. Given Voldie's performance to date, it's not > hard to imagine he overlooked this tiresome detail, or more > interestingly, that he never knew which phoenix had supplied the core > to his wand. I've a feeling he'd destroy the wand immediately if he > had any idea. > > Carolyn Some really nice ideas in your last paragraph Carolyn. In SS/PS Ollivander knows that Harry's wand is the 'brother' of LV's but IIRC he doesn't state that *he* sold the wand to its present owner (remember, at this point Tom Riddle is yet to come, in CoS). We perhaps assume (ass of 'u' and 'me') this, because we haven't heard much about other ways for English wizards to get their wands. There have, however, been questions about why LV (as TMR) was given a wand with Fawkes' feather in the first place. Your post here suggests that perhaps DD knew TMR was gong to be VERY powerful, but that there was a chance he might go off the rails, so the feather is an 'insurance policy' (?). In which case: clever (as usual) DD. Alternatively, DD (or almost anyone else of 50ish years ago) acted on a prophecy and deliberately gave TMR (LV to come) a powerful, but compromised (or counterable) weapon in a Fawkes' feather wand. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 26 22:58:08 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:58:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113957 Hannah says: >Hannah now: This comment of DD's has always interested me. It seems >like the one time when he says something that isn't strictly true. >He says he's not going into hiding - yet we see and hear no more of >him until the night of the DoM. Umbridge has no idea where he is >although she is trying quite determindly to find out, presumably >Fudge doesn't either... so if they are trying to find him and can't, >then he must be hiding. Not necessarily. If they are trying to find him and can't, then they must not be looking in the right place. I personally think the person who suggested that he was at the Hog's Head -- whether or not his brother is in fact the bartender -- was probably right. (Umbridge: "Dumbledore won't be sitting in a tavern while the entire Ministry of Magic is looking for him!") He could, if it comes to that, have been somewhere in Hogwarts all the time; he may not know everything about Hogwarts but I'm perfectly certain he knows more about it than Fudge or Umbridge, and could hide from them without difficulty. All he'd have to do would be avoid being seen by Mrs. Norris or Filch -- the portraits and ghosts were all on his side. But wherever he was, I'm sure it was someplace "in plain sight," but somewhere he knew the MoM wouldn't think to look. And I agree that he didn't do very well by Sirius by leaving him cooped up in that horrible house. But I don't think it was arrogance -- Dumbledore has a lot on his mind, and probably just wanted Sirius someplace safe where he wouldn't get arrested, killed, sent to Azkaban, or kissed by Dementors. >Hannah, for whom 'DD resists arrest' is one of the best scenes in >OotP. Absolutely. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 26 23:58:28 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:58:28 EDT Subject: Snape and Harry again. Message-ID: <64.444a37e0.2e88b1a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113958 Alla wrote: > In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I am > picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you can, > but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as > justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head > against the wall. :o) > I don't think Snape "slapping Harry's ego down" justifies his abuse of Harry. But I think *Snape* may use it as a justification for his actions. Between that justification, and the fact that Harry is in some ways like James (not the arrogance, but the ability to regularly escape getting into serious trouble for his infractions-- whether those infractions are justified or not), Snape can tell himself he's doing it for the brat's own good, in a sense beating the bad behavior and arrogance out of Harry. This also allows Snape to avoid facing his inability to see Harry as his own person, rather than as a reincarnation of James sent to plague him again. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 00:31:52 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:31:52 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113959 Recently, some Posters have been discussing Snape's great speech from his first class in PS/SS. He promises to teach how to bottle fame, brew glory and stopper death. It's hard to believe that those words are not going to figure into the storyline by the end. I'll be really disappointed if they're not. But this brought up another question for me--what about the bezoar--the "stone"--more like a hairball--from a goat that can serve as an antidote to most poisons. Harry's 4th year Potions lessons in GoF seem to revolve around antidotes, and one calls for a bezoar (although I can't find the exact reference now). I don't find it anywhere else but then there are the strange reference to DD's brother performing an inappropriate charm on a goat, which one Poster (sorry can't find now either) cleverly thought was related to extracting a bezoar humanely rather than an inappropriate romantic attachment. There are a number of references--particularly in Gof--where Snape seems to want to poison Harry. And in OotP, Trelawney sees Harry's life--even when he's eating his porridge--threatened again. And then I thought about the talisman that is mentioned repeatedly in OotP. Is it possible--has it been theorized before--that the talisman is not a figure of speech but something real? And if it is real, might it be a bezoar? This implies that Harry's life is currently being threatened by poisons from unknown sources. Hard to believe as Dobby is working the kitchens... but am I way way way out on a limb to connect these dots in the most tentative way? mhbobbin From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 00:42:37 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:42:37 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040925182438.RYKN27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113960 >Kneasy >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. > >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. Either this is a major Flint, or the >spell was cast with a different wand. Steve now: I never heard Spock say it, but I don't remember all the old episodes. Bookworm: It was in one of the movies - Undiscovered Country, IIRC. I can picture the scene, but cannot remember exactly what they were discussing. Steve now: I think the simplest answer based on the evidence from the books is that LV used the AK on Lily, but not on Harry, because HP remembers the green light after his mother's screams, but not another green light after that. Bookworm: Are you saying that the AK bounced off Lily (due to the Ancient Magic?) then hit both Harry and Voldemort? If there was another spell, either AK or something else, after the one Voldemort cast at Lily, there should have been something to show for it from the Priori Incantatem. Ravenclaw Bookworm From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 27 01:10:19 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:10:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > I disagree that Snape has no reason for trying to slap Harry > > down. Harry did raise his eyebrows during that first class, he > > was in Hogsmeade without permission, etc. > > > Alla: > > Harry raised his eyebrows AFTER Snape started attacking him. Snape says 'Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity", (yes, I consider that sentence to be the beginning of carefully prepared verbal attack) < And was Professor Flitwick attacking Harry or making too much of his celebrity when he fell off his chair at reading Harry's name? The speech at which Harry raises his brows is about potion-making and comes after Snape has finished taking the roll, which means there were at least three names after Harry's: Weasley, Thomas and Zabini. Granted that Snape is very unfair to ignore Draco's sniggering and slap Harry down for eyebrow raising, but I am trying to understand Snape, not justify him. I do not see how somebody so committed to Our Side that he has Dumbledore's trust, and who could leave Voldemort's service when Voldemort was *winning,* can be motivated by sheer cruelty. Saying that Snape is just a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James doesn't explain things for me. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 01:22:53 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:22:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: snip. >> I do not see how somebody so committed to Our Side that he > has Dumbledore's trust, and who could leave Voldemort's > service when Voldemort was *winning,* can be motivated by > sheer cruelty. Saying that Snape is just a nasty man who hates > kids and can't tell Harry from James doesn't explain things for > me. > Alla: I DON'T think that Snape is motivated by sheer cruelty as to all his actions, or at least I HOPE he is NOT. I even hope that Snape had some noble (or at least close to noble) reasons for leaving Voldemort. But I definitely think that cruelty is one of his motivations in regard to Harry and I don't see how one contradicts another. I am not saying that Snape is JUST a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, but I am definitely saying that he IS a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, in addition to that character quality, he , IMO has many other qualities, some of which I like very much. Of course, he may turn out to be totally different kind of person at the end, you know, decent and noble, but he may also turn out to be worse than I imagine him to be - you know, traitor and ESE! after all. Too bad we don't know what Snape is thinking. :o) From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Mon Sep 27 01:44:19 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:44:19 -0000 Subject: C!M and Imperius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113963 I wrote: > ...and we know C!M is a VERY powerful wizard Bookworm asked: > 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 > Imperius Curse for 12 years. Yb's turn at bat: Well, we actually know a little bit about him. He can perform all the Unforgivable Curses. This isn't much of a comment on his talent, as his motives, but they (esp. AK) take a powerful bit of magic (plus intent) to cast these and make them work. C!M even says so regarding AK. He clears the obstacles in the maze for a good ways in. Since space matters in magic, it would take at least average talent to do that through the hedges. He kept Moody alive for nine months in a trunk, under the Imperius curse, (he admitted this, GoF, AmVer, p. 689). He transfigured his father's body into a bone. If tranfiguration class is any indication, that is a tough feat, tranfiguring an animate (sort-of) vertebrate. He made LOTS of Polyjuice Potion. It can't be simply throw things into the pot; it probably requires some talent, at least in the Potionmaking field. Granted, three second years made it too, but one of them was Hermione, who we all know is an above average witch. Last but not least and most damning of all: We know from Transfiguration Class that transfiguring is difficult. And, it gets harder as the complexity of the target increases. So tranfiguring a human would probably be the most difficult transfiguration of all. But C!M does it to Draco /instantly/. Just a loud "BANG" and he's a ferret. McGonagall transfigures him back, with a loud "snap." If we take the sound as a quiet sound (like when transforming from Animagus to human, or disapparating) implies it wasn't hard for the wizard to do it (transfiguring the target or whatever), then this implies that the quieter the sound, the more powerful the wizard. Thus, C!M is nearly as powerful as McGonagall, but not nearly as old. Wow... We also know (from somewhere in canon) that Azkaban saps away at a wizard's powers. (I think there is canon support somewhere for this, and I'm sure it's in PoA. I just can't find it. Could someone do that for me?) If that's true, and Crouch Jr. was put under submission curses/spells pretty much immediately after being sprung from Azkaban, then he had very little time to recover his powers, just the time between being "rescued" from his father by Voldy and Rat-man and going to Moody's. One could argue that the PP means you take on the person's magical capabilities, but I think that's a little cheap. I don't think the potion could give you their magical talents anymore than it can give you their personality. If it did, then anyone could transform into DD and have powers of his magnitude... yikes... scary thoughts. > And as you pointed out, it took him years to throw off the curse. Yes, but that is not necessarily an indication of "magical power," but more of personality or will or character. We don't know who else fought the IC, aside from Harry, Crouch Jr, and Crouch Sr. > 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. (See my post 113598 for thoughts on Bagman.) Again, adopting Moody's magical powers with the potion seems sort of cheap. And I doubt Bagman had the chance to touch the cup while the names were being placed in it. I'm betting C!M was the only wizard around who intended to mess with it. ~YB From ellydan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 01:49:21 2004 From: ellydan at yahoo.com (Melete) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040927014921.98369.qmail@web40802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113964 --- scoutmom21113 wrote: > >Kneasy > >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. > > > >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. Either this is a > major Flint, or the > >spell was cast with a different wand. > > Steve now: > I never heard Spock say it, but I don't remember all > the old > episodes. > Just had to mention that I'm fairly sure that the quote originally comes from Sherlock Holmes. Spock was paraphrasing the great detective at that moment. I wish I could recheck that reference but my old copy of Sherlock Holmes was water damaged. Realize that was a bit OT. Asrai _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 27 02:04:35 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:04:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113965 Pippin wrote: > > >> I do not see how somebody so committed to Our Side that he > > has Dumbledore's trust, and who could leave Voldemort's > > service when Voldemort was *winning,* can be motivated by > > sheer cruelty. Saying that Snape is just a nasty man who hates > > kids and can't tell Harry from James doesn't explain things for > > me. > > > > > Alla: > > I DON'T think that Snape is motivated by sheer cruelty as to all his actions, or at least I HOPE he is NOT. > I even hope that Snape had some noble (or at least close to noble) > reasons for leaving Voldemort. > > But I definitely think that cruelty is one of his motivations in > regard to Harry and I don't see how one contradicts another. Potioncat: There are some scenes in the book that I think can be explained, but certainly not all of them. Looking only at SS/PS up to the first lesson (but drawing on info from OoP) 1. We're told that students are whispering, pointing, backtracking, craning their necks to get a better look at the famous Harry Potter. 2. (and this will sound silly) Harry's hair looks just like James' hair. And we know James went to great length to make it look like that. We also know Harry has gone to great length to stop it from looking like that, but Snape doesn't know that. 3. Harry looked at Snape the first night and winced...which may be just to let us think Snape made it hurt...but did it make Snape think Harry was making faces? 4. (Here is the greatest longshot) Could Draco have complained loudly that Potter had rebuffed his gesture of friendship? Making Harry appear stuck up? 5. Everyone seems to expect Harry to be like Lily and James. It's just that everyone else remembers them walking on water. Later Sirius will be angry that Harry isn't more like James. I'm only saying for that first class, Snape may have entered upon it thinking, incorrectly that Potter was full of himself. Whether he just particularly enjoys bringing the mighty down, or whether he thinks it's important that Harry be grounded for the upcoming war...who knows? I'm interested in seeing what JKR does with Snape, particularly since he is based (to a degree) on a teacher she had. Something else that I find interesting, and it may just be for no reason at all. Snape taunts Harry with questions that very few students would know. Why are the Slytherins laughing? Why are they so sure Snape won't pick on them? After all, as far as we know, they don't know him any better than the Gryffindors know McGonagall. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 02:16:30 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:16:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113966 > Potioncat: > There are some scenes in the book that I think can be explained, but > certainly not all of them. Alla: Definitely, not all of them. snip. 4. (Here is the greatest longshot) Could Draco have complained > loudly that Potter had rebuffed his gesture of friendship? Making > Harry appear stuck up? Alla: All of your examples are great, which as I said already to me definitely explain a a lot, but just don't justify what Snape does. But I hope that Draco complaining if it is indeed true, did not influence Snape's thoughts on the subject of Harry (whathever these thoughts are), because that will mean to me that Snape INDEED cares about what Draco thinks and genuenely wants to favor him, not just for pretense purposes Potioncat: > I'm interested in seeing what JKR does with Snape, particularly > since he is based (to a degree) on a teacher she had. Alla: Do you think that it is possible whether Snape will survive or not, whether he is ESE! or not may depend in part how JKR really feels about this teacher. Her former teacher, I mean. I am not saying that her vision of the story will change significantly, but if she still dislikes her former teacher subconsciously, it may influence Snape's fate ijn a bad way. :o) Potioncat: > Something else that I find interesting, and it may just be for no > reason at all. Snape taunts Harry with questions that very few > students would know. Why are the Slytherins laughing? Why are they > so sure Snape won't pick on them? After all, as far as we know, > they don't know him any better than the Gryffindors know McGonagall. Alla: Do tell me, what are you getting at? :o) Do you think that Slytherins know that Snape was somehow forced to become their head of the house and therefore will not do anything which they will not like? As former Gryffindor, I mean? :o) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 27 02:19:22 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:19:22 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113967 "mhbobbin" wrote: > >snip> > Harry's 4th year Potions lessons in GoF seem to revolve around > antidotes, and one calls for a bezoar (although I can't find the > exact reference now). snip Potioncat: IIRC, in that class, Harry forgets to add the bezoar and his potion is useless. It seems to me that Snape goes out of his way to get things across with both Harry and Neville in some of these classes. It almost seems that he knows something that he won't or can't say. TT comes to mind, but I'm not sure how that could possibly be used in this case. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 27 02:27:06 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:27:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113968 > Alla: > > Do tell me, what are you getting at? :o) Do you think that > Slytherins know that Snape was somehow forced to become their head > of the house and therefore will not do anything which they will not > like? As former Gryffindor, I mean? :o) Potioncat: You agree, Snape was Gryffindor as a student and McGonagall was Slytherin? (She does wear green a lot!) No, I'm just wondering why they are so comfortable. I don't think Harry was particularly comfortable in McGonagall's class. It could be that the first year Slytherins have already heard from housemates that Snape favors them and picks on others. The Gryffindors have heard it. Oh, and back to your comment on Draco (which was snipped)... it was a wild shot, but it could be that Snape hears it and interprets it as "Potter is stuck up" rather than "Potter was picking on Draco." I don't think Snape cares about Draco at all. He hasn't done anything to help him grow. And that almost bothers me more than his treatment of Harry. He doesn't appear to have done much for the Slytherins at all. Has Snape written them off? Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 02:44:31 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:44:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113969 > Potioncat: > You agree, Snape was Gryffindor as a student and McGonagall was > Slytherin? (She does wear green a lot!) Alla: LOL! It sure is a possibility. Seriously though, if we were to look for "good " Slytherin among the adults, I would say Dumbledore is a strong enough possibility. Do we have any other confirmation of him being a Gryff, except Hermione's "she heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor" She haven't read about it in "Hogwarts, A History", hasn't she? Potioncat: > No, I'm just wondering why they are so comfortable. I don't think > Harry was particularly comfortable in McGonagall's class. It could > be that the first year Slytherins have already heard from housemates > that Snape favors them and picks on others. The Gryffindors have > heard it. > Alla: Possible, quite possible, or their parents filled them in on who the sympathetic teachers are. POtioncat: > Oh, and back to your comment on Draco (which was snipped)... it was > a wild shot, but it could be that Snape hears it and interprets it > as "Potter is stuck up" rather than "Potter was picking on Draco." Alla: I understand what you said earlier. I did not think that Snape would interpret Draco's complaint as Harry picking on him. I was just wondering why Snape would care about Draco's opinion in the first place, rather than form his own opinion. Potioncat: > I don't think Snape cares about Draco at all. He hasn't done > anything to help him grow. And that almost bothers me more than his > treatment of Harry. He doesn't appear to have done much for the > Slytherins at all. Has Snape written them off? Alla: I wish I knew the answer to that. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Mon Sep 27 02:46:56 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:46:56 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113970 Alex wrote: > > Priori Incantatem isn't a spell. We're told in GoF (US hardback > > p. 697, the chapter "The parting of the ways), that Priori > > Incantatem is a "Very rare effect" that happens when two brother > > wands are forced to do battle. Karen wondered: > If the Prior Incantantem is such a rare effect, how is it that Mr. > Diggory was able to bring out the shadow of the dark mark from > Harry's wand in GoF? > " 'Prior Incantato!' roared Mr. Diggory." (GoF, Uk ed. pg 121) > If what you are saying is true, then Mr. Diggory either has LV's > wand (the 'brother' to Harry's wand) and since we know or are > told that only one other wand has that type of core, maybe prior > incantantem is not as rare as we are being lead to believe. Yb's turn: Well, we know Amos doesn't have that particular wand, so it has to be the spell. But, Amos did *not* use "Priori Incatatem." He used a spell, "Priori Incantato." Amos' spell is used to discover "the last spell a wand performed" (GoF, AmVer, p. 135). Now Sirius knows what Priori Incatatem is. When DD makes the remark, Sirius says "the Reverse Spell effect?" (GoF, AmVer, p.697). But DD also calls the effect "very rare" (same page), saying it happens when "brother" wands duel each other. I think Priori Incantatem *is* very rare, and I agree with Alex that it is not a spell. Prior Incantato (what Amos used) is the only way to get a similar result, but nothing is as effective as the actual PI. ~Yb, thinkink this post would take much less time to type if she could just do it right. From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Sep 27 04:16:47 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:16:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040926195308.53474.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > > I'm sorry; I don't understand your comment. Of course Dumbledore > didn't want Harry to be a pampered little prince, a sort of good-guy > version of Draco or wizard-Dudley. The opposite of "pampered" is > "not pampered" or "normal". Harry is as normal as it's possible to > be under the circumstances. If Harry is going to fulfill his > destiny, he'd have to be tough and god knows surviving the Dursleys > qualifies a kid as tough. > > Magda Well, I think a lot of people have misconstrued Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys as in some way a plot to "toughen Harry up," although there is certainly not a shred of evidence for that in canon. Also, it flies straight in the face of JKR's own statment on this issue. To wit (paraphrase): Question: Is Harry related to Dumbledore? JKR: If he was, or if he had any other relatives, he wouldn't have had to live with the Dursleys. JKR seems to be saying straight out that the ONLY reason for Harry to live with the Dursleys was protection. Any idea that Dumbledore meant to "toughen Harry up" or thinks that the experience "prepared" him to meet Voldemort is horse manure. Dzeytoun From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Sep 27 01:09:21 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:09:21 -0400 Subject: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <009201c4a42e$a19405e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113972 Alla: Welcome, Kethryn! Yes, I think I agree with you that Snape could not let Harry know that he got his message, although he is a smart man, maybe he could have come up with something. I don't hold that against him though, I realise that he was in a very tough spot with Umbridge. In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I am picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you can, but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head against the wall. :o) I dislike that decision immensely, but what if indeed that was the safest place for Harry? You know, picking the lesser evil? Because I always read it as Dumbledore regret' that Harry did NOT grew up a pampered little prince, but at least was as normal as possible under bad circumstances. So, I am afraid I fail to see the parallels between Dumbledore's and Snape's actions. Kethryn's comments - Thanks for the welcome mat, Alla! As for my furthering comments on Snape (and no I won't ever take offense at someone who disagees with me), I did not mean to imply that there was a parallel between Snape and Dumbledore's actions. All I meant was that, in their own very different ways and styles, both of them were trying to protect Harry from becoming unmanagable due to ego. Different means, yes. Are either one of them the right course? Now that is debatable. Certainly, by the standards of which I was raised (southern girl here) Snape's actions border on abusive towards Harry in particular and the rest of the Griffindors in general. But we don't see how he treats Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws or even other Griffindors that are not in the same year as Harry. For all we know, Snape is a great teacher to the other houses (not that I particulary espouse this view). The more I think about it, the more Snape reminds me of a teacher that has been teaching way too long and is too burned out to be anything other than bitter and mean. When you add to that the stress of being a double agent, being the product of an abusive household, and having to teach a kid whose father he despised, I can see why he would act the way that he does. Again, I am not excusing this behavoir or condoning it but I do understand it. It has to be hard to be a double agent, all the more so when you know for a fact that if you are caught by the bad guys, you will face your worst nightmares before being allowed the release of death, assuming that you will be granted that death in the first place. Snape has to know that if Voldemort catches on to him that he will wish that he had never ever been born. Of course, he has probably wished that for most of his childhood (being raised in an abusive home is no fun for anyone and is bound to leave some serious scars) so it would be nothing new to him. But what if Voldemort could lock him into his childhood for eternity? That, to me, would be way worse than death and would take some serious courage to face that possibility. I don't think that Snape is a bad person. I do think he is redeemable, partially because of Dumbledor and partially because he continues to show massive amounts of courage in the face of very severe adversary. I do wish that we knew more about why James and Snape were such arch enemies...could it be as simple as what happens between Malfoy and Harry after all or is it something much deeper than that? I don't know about the rest of you but I felt like I had just found out that Santa Claus did not exist when I read that scene in the pensive in OotP...which is the effect I am sure JKR was going for. I want to know why the two of them were enemies, probably as much as Harry does, so that I can cement in my mind what Snape is and, to some extent, what James was. And, finally, I think there is some serious regret on Snape's part as to his and James' relationship. Not a regret so much that the two of them were enemies but that he was robbed of the chance to put a "the end" stamp on that part of his life. Honestly, if any literary character ever needed a psycologist as much as Snape does, I would be vastly surprised (I am an English major and I have read a ton so I can say that I have never met a more complex man than Snape...no, not even Hamlet). Again with my two cents, Kethryn who admits that she may be biased slightly towards Snape because Alan Rickman plays him in the movies but, at the same time, is having a hard time with the scene in the pensive still because she wants a reason why James acted like a jerk and a bully without making either Snape or James out to be the big bad monster. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 05:35:19 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:35:19 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113973 --- mhbobbin: > And then I thought about the talisman that is mentioned repeatedly > in OotP. Is it possible--has it been theorized before--that the > talisman is not a figure of speech but something real? And if it is > real, might it be a bezoar? This implies that Harry's life is > currently being threatened by poisons from unknown sources. Hard to > believe as Dobby is working the kitchens... but am I way way way out > on a limb to connect these dots in the most tentative way? Finwitch: One way for Harry to die that Dumbledore overlooked when he placed Harry at the Dursleys, I suppose. Sure, Dobby can and WILL see that no food coming out of Hogwarts kitchen is poisoned (and other house- elves, too - though not for Harry's sake alone). However, considering that as Vernon tried to strangle Harry after the Dementor incident, something (Dumbledore's protective magic?) made Harry impossible to hold. No one can *touch* Harry in attempt to kill him at the Dursleys. But it seems to me that lack of food & water - or indeed, poisoning, are ways Harry could die at Dursleys, protective spell or not! Now, with Moody and write every three days starvation seems unlikely. After all, even if Vernon dictated what Harry was to write, Harry's *handwriting* would tell Moody his true state. Poisoning, though... Yep. What if Harry IS poisoned? or attempts a suicide (to finally be with Sirius & his parents) by means of poison? or is falsely accused of doing so? But, the draught of Living Death - we're even told the two items that need to mixed for it in Book#1 - (don't recall them now... asphodel was the other, and other was some common weed...) that draught has never been used! Will Harry make it to get some sleep? (being as he doesn't know any other sleeping potion) or as a statement that he will NOT be safe at Dursleys? Finwitch From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Sep 27 01:22:42 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:22:42 -0400 Subject: Mistaking Harry for James / Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <00b201c4a430$7e5fa780$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113974 Pippin - >I do not see how somebody so committed to Our Side that he >has Dumbledore's trust, and who could leave Voldemort's >service when Voldemort was *winning,* can be motivated by >sheer cruelty. Saying that Snape is just a nasty man who hates >kids and can't tell Harry from James doesn't explain things for >me. Kethryn - And, if you want to go the route of Snape not being able to tell the difference between Harry and James, well, he isn't the only one that has made that mistake. Sirius has channeled James into Harry for a while which is understandable considering the way he lost his best friend but Harry is not James. Honestly, out of the group James' peers (Sirius, Remus, Peter, and Snape), excluding James, Remus is the most adult of the lot and, from the snip in the pensieve, was always the most adult of the lot of boys. Kethryn who is sorry if that is confusing to read...it made a heck of a lot more sense in my head before I tried to write it. From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 01:30:02 2004 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:30:02 -0000 Subject: ESE!Draco (was: Re: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: <20040925.013403.2992.3.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113975 > Alex said: > > it could be that [Draco] isn't *trying* to be cruel to Harry, > > Neville, etc., he's trying to be *funny* to his Housemates, > > and simply doesn't care (or notice) whether he's *also* being > > mean or not. > > I don't see Draco as having necessarily crossed the line between > > being an "arrogant berk" and being ESE! Now Kelly: I think Draco is ESE! I am rereading CoS, so this is fresh in my mind "But I know one thing - last time the Chamber of Secrets was opened, a Mudblood *died*. So I bet it's a matter of time before one of them's killed this time . . . . I hope it's Granger, he said with relish." (US paperback edition Chapter 12 "The Polyjuice Potion," page 223) From steve51445 at adelphia.net Mon Sep 27 01:35:07 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:35:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040927013459.SRXB27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 113976 >Bookworm: >Are you saying that the AK bounced off Lily (due to the Ancient >Magic?) then hit both Harry and Voldemort? If there was another >spell, either AK or something else, after the one Voldemort cast at >Lily, there should have been something to show for it from the >Priori Incantatem. Steve now: Not necessarily. Right before the duel between LV and HP in the graveyard, LV cast both the imperius curse and the cruciatus curse on HP. But during the priori incantatem the first spell out was the AK that killed Cedric, not the imperius curse that should have been first. The only things that come out are 'people' killed by the AK. Where are those other 2 spells? So Lily was killed by the AK. After that green flash HP doesn't remember any more spells, not to say that there weren't more, just that he doesn't remember them. I think that in the case of these 2 wands PI only recalls successful AK's. If LV did use it on baby Harry, it rebounded due to the ancient magic onto LV. If LV hadn't taken the immortality precautions he would have been killed not just ripped from his body. As he wasn't killed, the AK was not successful and not recalled by PI. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Sep 27 02:35:50 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:35:50 -0400 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? References: Message-ID: <00c401c4a43a$b6273de0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113977 >>Potioncat: >>IIRC, in that class, Harry forgets to add the bezoar and his potion >>is useless. >>It seems to me that Snape goes out of his way to get things across >>with both Harry and Neville in some of these classes. It almost >>seems that he knows something that he won't or can't say. TT comes >>to mind, but I'm not sure how that could possibly be used in this >>case. Kethryn (who smacks herself in the forehead for not seeing this possibility), Of course! That sheds a whole new light on the situation, Potioncat. Other than being the same year and both of them are Griffindors, what do Harry and Neville have in common? They are both the possible candidates for the prophecy that Dumbledor tells Harry in the end of OotP. Well, except for the matter of the scar but do we know that Snape knows the prophecy in its entirety or does he know Voldemort's version? And, if he does know the whole version, does he accept that Harry is the one the prophecy is about or is he holding Neville in reserve? What about the scar, you ask? Well, theoretical time here, Neville is marked by the Dark Lord as much as Harry is only his scars are not visible. How about knowing your parents suffered horribly, they will never be normal again and you have to take care of them in their infantile state; don't you think that would leave a mark as well? Kethryn who thinks that is a rather neat theory in and of itself but does not expect anyone else to agree with her. From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 03:23:10 2004 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:23:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113978 Lately I've noted a disturbing tendency for some enthusiasts in other HP forums to discuss Petunia from the point of view that she secretly "loves" Harry and never meant to cause him serious harm. Hello people! You don't make a child you love sleep under the stairs. You don't ignore their physical, emotional and mental needs 24/7. Petunia was an abuser who made Harry pay for real and imaginary emotional slights inflicted upon her by other people. Both Pentunia and Snape seem to enjoy making young Harry, an innocent, pay for their past. It is sad to see adults growing older, but never wiser. Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. I have pondered quite sincerely what Dumbledore could have possibly meant by the note he sent to Pentunia saying "remember the last".....causing the neurotic minx to even defy her beloved Vernon, stating the boy would have to stay... Why would Petunia do this? Not because she cares about Harry, that's for sure... Why can't she throw Harry out? When she picked up the baby was there some kind of "binding" spell placed on her by the great D? That led me to thinking about what Petunia does care about....Why would she obey Dumbledore, a wizard of all people....? Petunia appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her muggle world to stay the same. She wants Dudley to grow up to be a big Vernon. She wants to pretend they are "normal" forever. Surely she knows that Voldemort was, and is, a threat to her world too. It is just a guess but I think "remember the last" refers to the last stand with Voldemort...perhaps the magic that protects Harry protects Petunia too. If so, she truly is an ungrateful wench! Tabekat the Geek May the verse be with you! =^..^= From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 06:01:59 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:01:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113979 Janet Anderson: I personally think the person who > suggested that he was at the Hog's Head -- whether or not his brother is in > fact the bartender -- was probably right. (Umbridge: "Dumbledore won't be > sitting in a tavern while the entire Ministry of Magic is looking for him!") > > He could, if it comes to that, have been somewhere in Hogwarts all the time; > he may not know everything about Hogwarts but I'm perfectly certain he knows > more about it than Fudge or Umbridge, and could hide from them without > difficulty. All he'd have to do would be avoid being seen by Mrs. Norris or > Filch -- the portraits and ghosts were all on his side. But wherever he > was, I'm sure it was someplace "in plain sight," but somewhere he knew the > MoM wouldn't think to look. Finwitch: Quite right, I think. Where ever Dumbledore was, I'm certain it was in plain sight. Still, the best way to hide a key is among other keys - so if Dumbledore's (elder?twin?little?) brother was at Hog's Head, he would have gone there. Anyway, I think that Albus Dumbledore went to see his brother. After all, visiting a relative can hardly count as "hiding", you know. I don't know how many Dumbledore brothers there were, but particularly if their mother gave birth to triplets, Albus could well go see Aberforth and not be found by the Ministry. Even if Ministry paid a visit, they'd think it was the *third* brother... Anyway, Dumbledore family is *curious*. One is the headmaster of wizarding school, and the other - whether he's tending a bar or nice, grey goats, he's NOT doing anything like schooling! (Considering Albus doubts his reading abilities!) We didn't hear a word of this mysterious brother until Albus mentions him in GoF as he and Harry are discussing unsavory relatives with Rubeus Hagrid. Next we hear of Aberforth Dumbledore is Alastor Moody's comment over a photograph: "Only time I ever saw him. Strange bloke". So - if Albus is visiting his brother (whom just about no one ever sees, who doesn't read things like Owl Post or the Daily Prophet...) Ministry won't likely be finding him! They'd have to pay a *personal* visit to Aberforth, and if he's put any protection on his house, Ministry cannot find Albus... Finwitch From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 01:47:13 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:47:13 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <003601c4a3e2$2949df20$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113980 --- from GOF: > > "I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was > > deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded > > upon myself." > charme wrote: > "Rebounded on me" gives some credence to Occam's Razor comments > made earlier in this thread, IMO. If you look at the > statements LV made in this paragraph, it seems simple he didn't > take aim at Lily with the AK - she jumped in the way when LV cast > the AK curse intended for Harry instead. Susana wrote: > In Portuguese sounded a lot as if Lily had thrown herself in front > of the AK the way Fawkes did for DD in the MoM. I was going to say > Lily's death activated the protection and *that* destroyed the house > and Voldy's body (and that's why there was nothing else to come out > of the wand in prior incantatem), but now it seems farfetched. What > do you lot think? Steve wrote: > I think the simplest answer based on the evidence from the books is > that LV used the AK on Lily, but not on Harry, because HP remembers > the green light after his mother's screams, but not another green > light after that. Sandy now: Before I began lurking around HP discussion boards, I figured, as Susana and Charme suggest, that LV cast the AK at Harry, and Lily literally threw herself in front of it to block it. A small part of it ricocheted towards Harry, the rest back to LV. (I love Susana's comparison to Fawkes' action, a comparison I hadn't drawn myself). That wasn't based on deep study of canon, it just seemed the most likely way for the scene to play out (even if it might remind some people of the "super bullet" theory from the JFK assasination). It's interesting, Charme and Susana seem to have have come to opposite conclusions about that scenario, based on the same quote. It's true "the woman's foolish sacrifice" could refer to some other action on Lily's part, but to me it seems to indicate she died shielding her son, thereby causing the curse to rebound on Voldy. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Sep 27 06:43:37 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:43:37 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: Yb: > Well, we know Amos doesn't have that particular wand, so it has to > be the spell. But, Amos did *not* use "Priori Incatatem." He used a > spell, "Priori Incantato." Amos' spell is used to discover "the last > spell a wand performed" (GoF, AmVer, p. 135). > > Now Sirius knows what Priori Incatatem is. When DD makes the remark, > Sirius says "the Reverse Spell effect?" (GoF, AmVer, p.697). But DD > also calls the effect "very rare" (same page), saying it happens > when "brother" wands duel each other. I think Priori Incantatem *is* > very rare, and I agree with Alex that it is not a spell. Prior > Incantato (what Amos used) is the only way to get a similar result, > but nothing is as effective as the actual PI. Geoff: I would suggest that it is, because it produces an end effect. The Latin also implies that. A loose translation of "Priori Incantatem" would be "the spell in front" or "the last spell" whereas I suggested months ago that "Prior Incantato" was possibly a Genetive case and would be "of the last spell" or "referring to the last spell". A subtle difference in words but the spell "request" is basically the same. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 06:47:21 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:47:21 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron maroon? In-Reply-To: <004001c4a3b2$409e5140$bfc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > Leah: > "So, I think there's a subconscious > pleasure for Molly in being able to indulge herself with Harry's > dress robes and not worry about what the family will have to go > without to afford them. So Ron's entitled to some feeling of being > miffed- but not much." > > DuffyPoo: > Are you saying that Molly used Weasley family money to buy Harry's robes? I never got that impression at all. I imagined she went to Gringotts and got money from Harry's vault to buy his things (or maybe he had enough left in his moneybag from last year). If she indulged Harry, then bought second hand for Ron, Ron has every reason to be miffed and it would totally change my impression of Molly. > Finwitch: No - she's just saying Molly liked shopping for Harry without worrying about money - because Harry was, of course, paying for himself and is RICH due inheritance. (Either Harry had all that money already or he gave Molly a note and his key for Gringotts). When it's her *own* family in GoF, she needs to buy two sets of sixth- year-things for Fred & George (or do they share? Did Fred&George ALSO need dress-robes or did they already have them from Bill&Charlie, perhaps?) one set of fourth year things(including dress-robes for Ron), one set of third year things for Ginny. AND all the food&Floo powder& whatever else their common household needs! At least some thread to knit her famous sweaters of (for 7 kids of her own, Harry, Arthur - probably herself and Hermione, too - that requires a LOT of thread! AND time, too-- she must spend nearly all her time knitting...) candy, allowance for 4 kids... (Bill, Charlie & Percy earn their own money now). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 06:54:30 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:54:30 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem, was: surviving AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113983 > Geoff: > A loose translation of "Priori Incantatem" > would be "the spell in front" or "the last spell" whereas I suggested > months ago that "Prior Incantato" was possibly a Genetive case and > would be "of the last spell" or "referring to the last spell". A > subtle difference in words but the spell "request" is basically the > same. > Finwitch: One difference in their appearance: Priori Incantatem splurts out spell after spell until the connection is ended. Prior Incantato splurts out ONLY the last spell. (like that recall button on phone, instead of a list of latest calls made) It also seems like only successful spells come out (as there's no appearance referring to the *failed* AK-curse. (then again, what WOULD it splurt out? No one died!) Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 06:59:10 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:59:10 -0000 Subject: ESE!Draco (was: Re: Sirius and Draco; was James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "witchypooh67" wrote: > > Alex said: > > > it could be that [Draco] isn't *trying* to be cruel to Harry, > > > Neville, etc., he's trying to be *funny* to his Housemates, > > > and simply doesn't care (or notice) whether he's *also* being > > > mean or not. > > > > I don't see Draco as having necessarily crossed the line between > > > being an "arrogant berk" and being ESE! > > > Now Kelly: > > I think Draco is ESE! I am rereading CoS, so this is fresh in my > mind "But I know one thing - last time the Chamber of Secrets was > opened, a Mudblood *died*. So I bet it's a matter of time before > one of them's killed this time . . . . I hope it's Granger, he said > with relish." (US paperback edition Chapter 12 "The Polyjuice > Potion," page 223) Hello all, I shouldn't be here, I should be writing my thesis, but in the name of a short break, I will put forward a suggestion. I have always equated Draco malfoy with Regulus Black. A goody- little two-shoes from a good pure-blood family, who is all mouth, but has very little between the ears, and when it really comes down to it, is a complete coward. I doubt that Draco will be redeemed, but I can envisage a situation where - after years of spouting pure-blood ideology (but actually *doing* nothing), watching daddy being ever so brave and mysterious and sinister and going back to the DE ranks, hating Potter et al., and being absolutely *thrilled* to know that You Know Who is back - I think that he'll try to take the next step, in becoming a DE himself; but, arrogant little shit that he is, he's not going to like being treated like a nothing by You Know Who, and frankly, I can't imagine You Know Who having a very high opinion of him, even if he is favoured-Lucius' son. And... I get the impression that our Draco's a bit squeamish. I don't think he'd like getting his hands dirty, I don't think he'd deal with the horrible things he'd be forced to witness very well at all. In short, I'm imagining that Draco's going to offer his services to Voldemort, (see footnote) and then panic, and try to run away, but Voldie doesn't allow that sort of behaviour, does he? I suspect that Harry will end up saving Draco from You Know Who (and possibly Lucius - Lucius might be furious enough with Draco for embarassing him in front of the other DEs by being so cowardly that he offers to kill him himself); though whether Draco will then feel forced to join Harry against Voldemort, or whether he runs away into the sunset, his soiled undergarments flapping in the breeze, is anyone's guess. Footnote: Though actually, it's not entirely necessary (and I suspect that Lucius would forbid it, at least until Draco's finished school), all that's necessary is that he secretly watches a DE meeting that he finds ... distasteful. Harry is *never* going to like Draco, and vice versa; but there is the possibility that, like Snape and Sirius, they may find themselves on the same side in the war, though I think that the hatred between Snape and Sirius was a hell of a lot more profound than that between Harry and Draco. And Draco is not Snape. (He's not a *patch* on Snape!). Draco's not even evil yet; he's playing at it, because he thinks his Dad's kinda cool, but he doesn't have the guts to commit any of these crimes, too squeamish to enjoy torture, and too afraid of getting caught to enjoy murder, I think Draco would make a lousy DE. Back to the thesis, Dungrollin. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 07:35:41 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:35:41 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113985 > > Alla: > > > > Eh, I will be the first one to say that we don't know much about > > Prank yet, but Snape knew that Remus is a werewolf and still went > > there? > > > > I doubt it. > > RL now > I was answering someone who thought Snape discovered Remus's > condition by listening to the Marauders' post exam conversation, and > I went from there. I don't really think Snape's stupid, I only > dislike him very much and I thought if the poster was right then he > must be dumb. Sorry my meaning got across the wrong way. Things seem > so much clearer when I think them than when I write them... Finwitch: Actually - I think Snape making the discovery was clever. Then he wants to avenge them all by proving it to the public... It is unclear how Sirius 'told him how to get past the Whomping Willow' - was Sirius conversing with i.e. Peter, who asked how Sirius would go there if he wasn't there (wishing for recognisition of his importance)... Nowadays, Snape may think that both conversations were *staged* to trap him - but if they were, the person doing that was Peter Pettigrew, not Sirius (as Snape mistakenly thinks. A trait of his in the detective work, isn't it? Always mistaking the WHO if he manages to get everything else right!). and poor Sirius got all the blame for evil deeds of Peter Pettigrew... BTW, it's unclear whether Snape thought Black was the werewolf, or Potter, or (correctly) Remus Lupin? So he figured out that one of the three was a werewolf - but not WHO (unless he had noticed Remus' continued absences, BUT if all Marauders were absent too - keeping company, as they used to do (or study animagi before that) - that's not much of a clue, is it?) Finwitch From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Sep 27 10:43:02 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:43:02 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > In SS/PS Ollivander knows that Harry's wand is the 'brother' of LV's > but IIRC he doesn't state that *he* sold the wand to its present > owner (remember, at this point Tom Riddle is yet to come, in CoS). > We perhaps assume (ass of 'u' and 'me') this, because we haven't > heard much about other ways for English wizards to get their wands. > There have, however, been questions about why LV (as TMR) was given > a wand with Fawkes' feather in the first place. Your post here > suggests that perhaps DD knew TMR was gong to be VERY powerful, but > that there was a chance he might go off the rails, so the feather is > an 'insurance policy' (?). In which case: clever (as usual) DD. > Alternatively, DD (or almost anyone else of 50ish years ago) acted > on a prophecy and deliberately gave TMR (LV to come) a powerful, but > compromised (or counterable) weapon in a Fawkes' feather wand. Sorry, but he does: Mr Ollivander touched the lightening scar on Harry's forehead with a long white finger. "I'm sorry to say I sold the wand that did it," he said softly. "Thirteen and a half inches. Yew. Powerful wand, very powerful, and in the wrong hands... Well, if I'd known what that wand was going out into the world to do...." What is intriguing is that he identifies the wand as Voldy's. This is odd, because in CoS DD informs us that very few people know that Tom became Voldy. So who told Ollivander? I'm with Carolyn on this; DD kept a very close eye on the wands made with Fawkes's feathers, much more than just casual interest. One thing I want to know is *when* the feathers were given. Were they random events or was the second wand deliberately constructed as a corrective to the first and intended specifically for Harry or Neville - the putative Voldy destroyers? Note that Neville never bought a wand on entering Hogwarts; he was using his father's. Be interesting to see how he'd perform with Harry's wand. If DD intended the wands to go to specific individuals (based on their magical abilities, their place in his 'plan', etc) then Ollivanders words have an added impact - "..and in the wrong hands.." Was the wand not intended for Tom/Voldy in the first place? Or was it just ill chance that Tom turned bad and the hands 'became' wrong? Since there is never any indication that Tom was ever anything except bitter and twisted (inside at least), it does give cause for thought. "Well, if I'd known what that wand was going out into the world to do...." he'd have done what? Broken it? Conned Tom into accepting a different wand? Sawn two inches off the end so all AKs stopped short of the target? Ollivander might have more influence over which wand a wizard gets than is apparent at first sight. He decides which wands you try. And since there are instances were wizards have bought second wands when the first still works, it's not a case of only one wand works best per wizard. Of course, we're making an assumption - that Voldy's wand is the same one that he bought as Tom. Probably yes, but is there firm evidence? It's easy to jump to conclusions about wands, but they do seem to get swapped around more than one would expect for such 'personal' items- Neville's, Ron had Charlie's old one and those posters who consider that Lily was well equipped for charms should remember that it was her *first* wand that was "a nice wand for charm work" - the implication from Ollivander being that there was at least one other with unknown (to us) properties and no indication of why she changed. Hmm. We need to get Ollivander in the back room with a bright light and a bottle of veritaserum. We could get some key gen from him IMO. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Sep 27 10:58:50 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:58:50 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040927013459.SRXB27370.mta9.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113987 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Not necessarily. Right before the duel between LV and HP in the graveyard, > LV cast both the imperius curse and the cruciatus curse on HP. But during > the priori incantatem the first spell out was the AK that killed Cedric, not > the imperius curse that should have been first. The only things that come > out are 'people' killed by the AK. Where are those other 2 spells? > Sorry, you're mistaken. The first replay was screams of pain (Cruciatus - Harry's, Avery's) then Peter's hand, then Cedric. The wand replays *every* spell that has an observable physical effect. The Imperio! wouldn't show because it has no *physical* effect. At GH the last spell used (according to the wand and JKR's corrections) was the AK that killed Lily. And if you accept Harry's 'visions' Voldy was still laughing after that one. But then something marked Harry, dis-embodied Voldy and wrecked the house - all physical effects. 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? Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 27 11:43:59 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:43:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <009201c4a42e$a19405e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113988 Kethryn wrote: snip Honestly, if any literary character ever needed a psycologist as much as Snape does, I would be vastly surprised (I am an English major and I have read a ton so I can say that I have never met a more complex man than Snape...no, not even Hamlet). Potioncat: Welcome to the group. JKR has made Snape and set him up so that whatever she does with him, half of us will be surprised. Or maybe everyone will. As much as I defend Snape, I can see the possibility that he'll betray the Order. Or that he will do something unexpected. I am, of course, hoping for a pleasant surprise. Kethryn: >> Kethryn who admits that she may be biased slightly towards Snape because Alan Rickman plays him in the movies but, at the same time, is having a hard time with the scene in the pensive still because she wants a reason why James acted like a jerk and a bully without making either Snape or James out to be the big bad monster. Potioncat: I agree (with both parts) Lots of us get caught up in the bad!James- -good!James vrs Good!Snape--bad!Snape discussions. The thing to keep in mind is that in the end, both were fighting LV. From greatraven at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 13:09:43 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 -0000 Subject: 5 sets of Lockhart's book? and WW economy In-Reply-To: <001c01c4a3f4$497700e0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: >(Snip) > It would be rather handy if you were a WW librarian though, wouldn't it, > especially given the the kind of attrition that popular books get in > libraries. Or the fact that very ancient books would be long since out of > print but might need a pristine copy producing. > > Maybe Irma Pince knows a "Librarian's Copy" spell that would allow her to > make extra copies. Sue: Hmm, seems to me that what the WW needs is access to the Internet and Project Gutenberg... ;-) > > Maybe (mind working even more wildly now) books have (or can have) > protections built in against that sort of thing and attempts by the amateur > bibliophile to copy them would lead to very unpleasant consequences! > Sue: Chuckle! The mind boggles ... as a writer AND a librarian, I can't help thinking of the possibilities involved in having copy protection spells. I keep a copy of the Copyright Act over the photocopier in my library and explain about it and students STILL try photocopying entire books. What bliss it would be not having to bother because they physically couldn't photocopy more than 10% ! From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 27 13:20:04 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:20:04 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: <00c401c4a43a$b6273de0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113990 Kethryn wrote: snip And, if he does know the whole version, does he accept that Harry is the one the prophecy is about or is he holding Neville in reserve? What about the scar, you ask? Well, theoretical time here, Neville is marked by the Dark Lord as much as Harry is only his scars are not visible. How about knowing your parents suffered horribly, they will never be normal again and you have to take care of them in their infantile state; don't you think that would leave a mark as well? > > Kethryn who thinks that is a rather neat theory in and of itself but does not expect anyone else to agree with her. Potioncat: There have been, and will be again, discussions about Neville's role in all this. Certain clues pop up from time to time. Harry dreams that he missed a quidditch game and was replaced by Neville. Harry gives Neville's name when he gets on the Night Bus. In two books it is said, "Harry was surprised to see Neville..." one is the "4 students out of bed in the middle of the night episode" with McGonagall and the other is in OoP when Harry and the other DA members are captured trying to talk to Serius. Neville breaks the prophecy orb... Now, as to what the clues mean, I cannot say. Potioncat From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Mon Sep 27 14:49:57 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:49:57 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113991 Kethryn wrote: > > And, if he does know the whole version, does he accept that > > Harry is the one the prophecy is about or is he holding Neville > > in reserve? What about the scar, you ask? Well, theoretical > > time here, Neville is marked by the Dark Lord as much as Harry > > is only his scars are not visible. How about knowing your > > parents suffered horribly, they will never be normal again and > > you have to take care of them in their infantile state; don't > > you think that would leave a mark as well? Potioncat: > Certain clues pop up from time to time. Harry dreams that he > missed a quidditch game and was replaced by Neville. Harry gives > Neville's name when he gets on the Knight Bus. In two books it is > said, "Harry was surprised to see Neville..." one is the "4 > students out of bed in the middle of the night episode" with > McGonagall and the other is in OoP when Harry and the other DA > members are captured trying to talk to Sirius. Neville breaks the > prophecy orb... > > Now, as to what the clues mean, I cannot say. Yb: Ahhh, yes, Neville has scars, but they are from the Death Eaters, *not* from Voldy. Voldemort did not torture the Longbottoms, Trixie and co did. That's one of my main arguments against Neville. As for those clues, well, some of us aren't really brave enough to speculate... It could be Jo setting us up for something. As much as I love Neville, as much as he needs a big moment, I still hold that Harry is "The One." Perhaps Neville will fill in for Harry at a big confrontation with Voldy, maybe to confuse the bad guy? (Think an attack on Sauron's main gates while Frodo take scare of the ring, LOTR style.) ~Yb From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 27 15:04:36 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:04:36 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113992 > Yb wrote: > Ahhh, yes, Neville has scars, but they are from the Death Eaters, > *not* from Voldy. Voldemort did not torture the Longbottoms, Trixie and co did. That's one of my main arguments against Neville. As for those clues, well, some of us aren't really brave enough to >speculate... It could be Jo setting us up for something. As much as > I love Neville, as much as he needs a big moment, I still hold that Harry is "The One." Perhaps Neville will fill in for Harry at a big confrontation with Voldy, maybe to confuse the bad guy? (Think an attack on Sauron's main gates while Frodo take scare of the ring, LOTR style.) Hannah now: I agree with Yb here, and I do think Harry is 'the one' - or at least will be in these stories. However, since the prophecy never says what age the 'one with the power' will be when marked by the Dark Lord, perhaps Neville's 'marking' by LV himself is yet to come? I do think if Harry was killed, then DD would transfer his attention to Neville, as a replacement, and perhaps LV would too. We don't know that LV only intended to kill Harry, it may have been that he was the first one he had an opportunity to kill. I think Neville could still be at risk from LV, especially since he never heard the second half of the prophecy, including the bit about 'marking him'. Neville certainly has a big part to play in the future battles, whether it will be as a loyal friend or as someone else with a destiny. Hannah From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 27 15:09:59 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:09:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113993 Hannah: > The other thing that comes across in this scene is DD's arrogance (I > bet a lot of people will disagree with me on this!). But DD really > does think a lot of himself - his lofty assertion that he could > escape Azkaban for example. He is probably justified in this > comment, since he is the greatest wizard of the age or whatever, > but I do think that over confidence is an error made by DD as well > as by LV. > In OotP, DD messes up big time IMO. And a lot of his problem comes > from believing that he is all-powerful, and can somehow make > everything work out all right without even explaining the situation > properly to those it concerns (ie. Harry). He doesn't teach Harry > occlumency himself in case LV uses it to attack him, but considers > it OK to get his top spy to take that risk! Jen: This is an interesting point. One of Dumbledore's flaws in OOTP was keeping too many people in the dark in an attempt to safeguard the Order. Underlying that error may be this arrogance you mention, 'I must manage everything because I'm the only one who can do it right.' Unfortunately, when you don't have faith in others to be confident and capable, they often become what you believe them to be. Sirius did not obey orders. Snape obeyed but couldn't follow through. Harry couldn't follow orders, partially because the priorities weren't explained to him. The Order is a jumble of in- fighting and back-biting. So what's Dumbledore to do? Well, if unity really is his goal, then it's time to get everybody on board the same ship! Hannah: > I'm not trying to argue for an ESE!Dumbledore here, and I do think > that DD is basically good. But I don't think that he's perfect, and > I think he is prepared to do some pretty unpleasant things in the > interest of the greater good, and this scene hints at that. But I > have to agree with Phinease Nigellus, he does have style! Jen: Yes, Dumbledore states his goal clearly in OOTP, that the community must be prioritized over the individual. "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive well, and happy?" (US, chap. 37, p. 839) But of course he cares very much! Otherwise he wouldn't bother to safeguard the largest population of house elves under his roof; protect the centaurs, unicorns and other creatures in the Forbidden Forest; allow the 'outcasts' of wizard society to live, work and study at Hogwarts. This is his life's work! He must be prepared to sacrifice the individual over the community as a last resort, no question. But I don't think that makes him blood-thirsty or heartless. And I don't believe Harry is the sacrifical lamb in Dumbledore's manipulative schemes. Harry was born with both a burden and a gift, and Dumbledore is simply the only adult around now who fully understands the situation. Probably the only one who ever *did* fully understand what was in store for Harry. What parent, godparent, surrogate parent, etc. is able to truly contemplate losing a child for the 'greater good?' And here's the important part- -now that Harry knows who he IS, he probably wouldn't have it any other way. He'll be prepared for whatever Fate places before him. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 15:11:49 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040927151149.69501.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 113994 > Potioncat: > Certain clues pop up from time to time. Harry dreams that he > missed a quidditch game and was replaced by Neville. Harry gives > Neville's name when he gets on the Knight Bus. In two books it > is said, "Harry was surprised to see Neville..." one is the "4 > students out of bed in the middle of the night episode" with > McGonagall and the other is in OoP when Harry and the other DA > members are captured trying to talk to Sirius. Neville breaks the > prophecy orb... > > Now, as to what the clues mean, I cannot say. I don't think they're clues but rather strategic inserts of Neville's name so that we're not surprised when he becomes increasingly important throughout OOTP and is present at the climatic battle in the MoM. If the only times we ever "see" Neville are when he's melting another cauldron, then it wouldn't have quite the impact. This way, he pops up in Harry's mind a lot and we're used to his increased presence. Magda (who also thought that "Mark Evans" in OOTP was a subtle, humorous hint that we should mark (pay attention to) the name Evans when it popped up later in the book) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 15:45:24 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:45:24 -0000 Subject: Whither the Bezoar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > And then I thought about the talisman that is mentioned repeatedly > in OotP. Is it possible--has it been theorized before--that the > talisman is not a figure of speech but something real? And if it is real, might it be a bezoar? This implies that Harry's life is > currently being threatened by poisons from unknown sources. Hard to believe as Dobby is working the kitchens... but am I way way way out on a limb to connect these dots in the most tentative way? > > mhbobbin Tonks here: I don't think people wear bezoars. A talisman is like an amulet, but has a slightly different meaning or intent. It is a magical object that is worn. In a manner of speaking Harry's scar could be seen as an amulet I guess, but that is stretching it. But it is usually something with (to Muggles) strange markings that is worn. I have seen the time turner and there are strange inscriptions on it. If it has a purpose for more than turning time it could be a talisman. But I suspect that the inscription is for protection for the person using the time turner. I as remember, an amulet is used for protection, but a talisman is used to invoke as well as protect. Tonks_op From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 15:57:33 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:57:33 -0000 Subject: Reading Hieroglyphics (Was: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113996 Antosha: But.... The loss of the ability to read hieroglyphics was most strikingly a result of the burning of the Library of Alexandria by early Christians who didn't want.... Well, that's not to the point. What I guess I'm trying to say is that it might be possible for texts to have been protected within the WW that were snuffed out in the Muggle world. So it wouldn't necessarily be the result of better scholarship on the part of wizarding types--just better data. > > Del replies : > [The question that that possible cultural continuity raises for me is > more one of, natch, scholarship--how was all of this knowledge > preserved, etc. For short example--I'm always more than a little > wary (because of my own hangups, I know) when we get postulated > extensive knowledge and traditions of Egyptian magic texts, because > no text (in hieroglypics--Coptic is another story) was really > readable to a modern reader until Champollion in the early 19th > century...unless we want a wizarding philologist, and I don't see > it. Or, to rephrase it, I'm wary of postulating wizards with wildly > superior scholarly abilities to those of the poor hard-working > Muggles. Urk. Let's end this rant now before it goes into > completely speculative (ick) territory.] > > -Nora recovers from an operatic double feature From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 16:15:57 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:15:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Hannah now: He says he's not going into hiding - yet we see and hear no more of him until the night of the DoM. Umbridge has no idea where he is although she is trying quite determindly to find out, presumably Fudge doesn't either... so if they are trying to find him and can't, then he must be hiding. He's entitled to, since he's on the run from the law, but why say that he's not going into hiding? Is he just speaking figuratively, meaning that he's not going to sit and do nothing? > > I think he shows remarkably little empathy for Sirius at this point. > The other thing that comes across in this scene is DD's arrogance (I bet a lot of people will disagree with me on this!). But DD really does think a lot of himself - his lofty assertion that he could escape Azkaban for example. He is probably justified in this > comment, since he is the greatest wizard of the age or whatever, but I do think that over confidence is an error made by DD as well as by LV. > Tonks here: I don't see this the same way. DD is not going into hiding and he has not. He has left Hogwarts, but he is not in hiding. If someone needs him,(not just looking for him with the wrong intent) he is there.. wherever there is, even in the MOM. When he says "I will not be going into hiding" he is not belittling Sirius, just making a comment of fact. He will be doing other things, other places, but still working for the Order. He is not arrogant!! Again he is just simply and straightforwardly stating a fact. Why waste time, just tell it like it is. I see DD as a very humble man. That does not mean that he is not the most powerful Wizard in the world. Of course he is and he knows this, everyone knows this, even LV. So he has no need to glory in it. DD is too mature for that. What else would you have him say? We can't wait time and energy with going to prison just to get out again. Be practical.. just remind Fudge of what he already knows and be done with it. Time is wasting.. LV is out there... we don't have time for these petty things. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 27 16:34:51 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:34:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 113998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > In OotP, DD messes up big time IMO. And a lot of his problem comes from believing that he is all-powerful, and can somehow make everything work out all right without even explaining the situation properly to those it concerns (ie. Harry). He doesn't teach Harry occlumency himself in case LV uses it to attack him, but considers it OK to get his top spy to take that risk!< If Snape has indeed returned to Voldemort as Dumbledore's double agent, then Snape is the safest choice. Voldemort is not likely to attack his own spy, and won't need to use Harry to peer into Snape's mind, since he can do that himself, in person, when Snape reports. Dumbledore's calm certainty that he can get out of Azkaban may not be arrogance but simply another clue that he is an Animagus. Nor do I think it was arrogance that made him say that he was not going into hiding at Grimmauld Place and Fudge would soon be sorry that he had dislodged Dumbledore from Hogwarts. It could have been misdirection--let Voldemort, through Harry, think that Dumbledore is concentrating his efforts on Fudge. Dumbledore's goal, remember, is to lure Voldemort out of hiding so that the ministry will realize he has returned. Pippin who would also like to know where Dumbledore went -- how do we know he even left Hogwarts at all? He can make himself invisible. From nineve_laguna at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 18:05:34 2004 From: nineve_laguna at hotmail.com (nineve_laguna) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:05:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's tips on Book6 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114000 Does anybody have any ideas about JKR tips about clues for book 6? Clue 1: She mentions we should ask about why Voldemort didn't die when the AK rebounded and which precautions did he take to prevent his death. Clue 2: is why Dumbledore didn't kill Voldy at the MoM, she said that what Dumbledore said (there are worst things than death) wasn't the true reason. Just thought it would be interesting to hear theories about these clues. N_L From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 18:39:18 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040927183918.3616.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114001 > Pippin > who would also like to know where Dumbledore went -- how do > we know he even left Hogwarts at all? He can make himself > invisible. I'm sure he went to Hogsmeade and impersonated his brother at the Hogshead Pub. If there was even the slightest similarity in appearance, Albus could walk around quite openly as long as he took pains to dress like his brother. After all, when we "know" that we're looking at a particular person, do we really see them? It would also be a good place to pick up local gossip, and the teachers could go to Hogsmeade without arousing Umbridge's suspicions - she'd be more focused on preventing them from using communications networks like owls and floos. And come on - Umbridge's comment about how Dumbledore isn't sitting in some pub while the whole MoM is looking for him - isn't that a perfect giveaway that that's exactly what he's doing? And where did Aberforth go? He was upstairs in a spare room flipping through old issues of Playgoat for the pictures. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 18:39:21 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (Haggridd) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:39:21 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114002 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: And we know there are no wizarding universities. Was this a > tradition largely lost when the split from the Muggle world was made > for good? Only JKR knows, and I do wonder how deeply she's thought > all of that out. :) > > -Nora never got up the time or effort to take Egyptian, alas Pardon me, but do we really know that there are no Wizarding Universities? I am not speaking of other fandoms, such as Unseen University in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, but in JKR's Wizarding World? In England in the last century (excuse me, in the nineteenth century) young men went straight on to positions of responsibility in government, in commerce, in the militry, without attending univerity, which was a far more rearefied academic realm than is our current crop of glorified trade schools. (I am not arguing with the wisdom of this evoluton, only that it has indeed taken place.) It is in this earlier tradition that most young wizards and witches can face the world after attending what is the equivalent of a nineteenth-century English "public" school, a la Tom Brown's School Days (There is even a Draco-like student there named Harry Flashman). But universities existed then, and I contend they exist in the WW, only they are not necessary for the average wizard in his career. All those investigations and lore-reading you posit could well be done at such a Wizarding Univrsity. Haggridd Bugarup University Class of '74 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 27 18:52:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:52:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114003 > Something else that I find interesting, and it may just be for no reason at all. Snape taunts Harry with questions that very few students would know. Why are the Slytherins laughing? Why are they so sure Snape won't pick on them? After all, as far as we know, they don't know him any better than the Gryffindors know McGonagall.< All the Slytherins aren't laughing, only three of them. "Draco Malfoy and his friends Crabbe and Goyle sniggered behind their hands." "He tried not to look at Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, who were shaking with laughter." The only time there is more general laughter it is (suprise!) at Snape's expense or possibly Hermione's. ---- "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. ---- According to JKR's website, the Death Eater children have grown up telling each other stories about how Harry might have defeated Voldemort. Snape, come to think of it, has surely heard these too. Draco's laughter may come from realizing that this godlike hero whom he's heard discussed in hushed whispers all his life is after all merely human. I don't think Snape has written off the Slytherins. Draco and his gang confine themselves to sneering at Harry and spreading gossip about him. Draco, unlike Snape in his youth, is not firing curses at Harry every chance he gets, though we saw in GoF that he would like to. Somebody is keeping him in line, and since besides Dumbledore, nobody has the authority to expel him except his head of house, there's only one person it could be. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 19:16:25 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:16:25 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Haggridd" wrote: > Pardon me, but do we really know that there are no Wizarding > Universities? I am not speaking of other fandoms, such as Unseen > University in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, but in JKR's Wizarding > World? http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0200-scholastic- chat.htm "Do you think that you will write about Harry after he graduates from Hogwarts? Isn't there a University of Wizardry? A. No, there's no University for Wizards." > But universities existed then, and I contend they exist in the WW, > only they are not necessary for the average wizard in his career. > All those investigations and lore-reading you posit could well be > done at such a Wizarding Univrsity. Then why isn't Hermione all aglow at the idea of going on to study further in university? She's not--she's all thinking about what she's going to do after finishing school, and what career she's going into. The lack of wizarding university strikes me as interesting, in line with the postulated and discussed intellectual lacks of the WW. -Nora sits in her comfy library and ponders further From terpnurse at qwest.net Mon Sep 27 19:29:50 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:29:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99D01CA2-10BB-11D9-8BC6-0003930C168E@qwest.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114005 Nora wrote: > Then why isn't Hermione all aglow at the idea of going on to study > further in university? She's not--she's all thinking about what > she's going to do after finishing school, and what career she's going > into. > > The lack of wizarding university strikes me as interesting, in line > with the postulated and discussed intellectual lacks of the WW. > > -Nora sits in her comfy library and ponders further > > Now Terpnurse: Don't aurors have to take specialized courses for several years beyond normal schooling in order to become aurors? Surely there are other wizarding professions that require additional training. Did Bill learn everything he needed at HW to become a curse-breaker? Or Charlie to study dragons? What about the Unspeakables who work in the DoM? Perhaps there's not a wizarding university, per se, but wizarding advanced trade schools? From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 19:40:03 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:40:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Petra Pan: > > Instead of wasting time on "trivial > > hurts, tiny human accidents" that are > > "of no more significance than the > > scurryings of ants to the wide > > universe," Firenze talks of watching > > "the skies for the great tides of evil > > or change that are sometimes marked > > there" and of divining through the > > "burning of certain herbs and leaves, > > by the observation of fume and flame ." > > Jen: It occurred to me this might sum up Dumbledore's outlook on > life as well. Not the burning of herbs and leaves exactly, but he > does consult those mysterious silver instruments ;). It could > explain some of his omissions with Harry and his belief that growing > too close to Harry was the "flaw in his plan." > > In fact, along with the Phoenix imagery around him, I'd even say > this isn't Dumbledore's first and only lifetime. I don't know if JKR > wants to get into reincarnation exactly, but within the context of a > fantasy world Dumbledore could be a 'being' who spans lifetimes. > After living not only 150 years, but many thousands of years, it > would make sense that Dumbledore is somewhat removed from individual > suffering, just as the Centaurs are removed from "trivial hurts, > tiny human accidents." Dumbledore personifies "community over the > individual" as seen by the refuge he's created at Hogwarts and the > creation of the Order > But wouldn't that make all his pronouncements about death hypocritical? If = he reincarnates, how is it fair for him to tell Voldemort that death isn't the worst thing? = Or telling Harry that "to the well regulated mind, death is but the next great adventure"? A= nd more importantly, how will it reflect on JKR's message regarding life, death and= morality? I think (and in fact JKR has said as much in interviews) that in the Potter= verse, death is irrevocable. Although I agree that the Phoenix is an important imagery, and= DD *is* a Phoenix (it's his Patronus), I understand it under a general Christian syst= em of belief. So that the Phoenix represents Christian immortality, which is *true death* (t= he Phoenix burns to ashes), and the faith in true resurrection coming after it. In a recent = post, I pointed out the difference between the true life that is associated with true death= and represented by the Phoenix, and the false immortality associated with the snake. DD represents the true and full acceptance of death, and this does agrees w= ith what he has said. To me that means he must be fully human, fully mortal. It would cheap= en him and the morality he stands for if it turns out he's immortal in some physical, eart= hy way. Any immortatliy that is hinted at, is achieved (again, think Christianity) thro= ugh and beyond true death. Naama From garybec101 at comcast.net Mon Sep 27 19:41:25 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:41:25 -0000 Subject: Can't buy esteem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114007 Freud said; About Molly and Harry - Molly bought Harry attractive dress robes because she knows he has never had anything nice like that before and will not let them go to his head. And yes, she knows Harry can afford it. Molly is attempting to make up for 11 years of physical and emotional neglect. It doesn't occur to her to make that kind of magnaminous gesture for Ron, because she knows he has had her unwavering love and attention his entire life. I doubt that Molly cared that the dress robe she bought for Ron was old fashioned. Molly is a practical witch and she wants all her children to focus beyond their external embellishments. I also think Molly is wise enough to know that Ron cannot buy esteem. She doesn't want her kids to stand out for fancy clothing...she wants them to stand out as hard working, down to earth, wizards and witches...(as opposite from the Malfoys as you can get!!!) Molly knows what is best for Ron, even though it causes her some anxiety not to be able to spoil him - but she knows he doesn't benefit when something comes too easy to him. Ron always has his heart set on something material...candy, brooms, touristy knick- knacks, other peoples stuff, and on..and on. I think his mother deliberately resists reinforcing his focus on external prizes. Also, sometimes Ron seems to expect his parents to just buy him everything without him having to work for it. The twins had the same clothing issues that Ron does, but they figured out ingenious (albeit questionable, heh, heh) ways to get spending money on their own. Ron is too young yet to understand that a person who can buy anything they want doesn't necessarily benefit from that experience. If he did understand this, Draco wouldn't be able to get his dander up so easy by calling his family "poor"... Now Becki; Sorry Freud, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I can't believe for a minute that Molly would intentionally dress her children in "poor" clothes just to make sure that they didn't get a big head about it or because she wanted to instill some warped value system. She bought Harry's dress robes with his own money. I don't think she should have bought him second hand stuff when he could afford the new ones. And she didn't pick out some superrich fancy ones, they were conservative. He said (paraphrasing here) that they were just like his school robes, except they were green. I am certain that if Molly had the money, Ron would have gotten new dress robes too. By buying the robes that she did, however, she made him stand out even more. I think that sometimes, Mothers forget what it is like to be a teen. I am like a lot of posters and wonder why Molly didn't do a bit of alteration to at least make Ron's robes a bit more conservative. Perhaps she was comparing them to the rest of the crap that was on the rack at the secondhand shop and figured that they weren't all that bad. I also don't think that Ron needs lessons on the difference between poor people's attitudes and those of the rich. Malfoy is a git. He is not a git just because he is rich, (although I think it is a contributor), he just think he is better than everyone else. Harry is basiclly rich, he can buy pretty much anything he wants, and he doesn't think he is better than anyone else. I grew up extremely poor. I, like Ron, wore "poor" clothes. It was humiliating. I always felt like I stuck out. I just wanted to be "normal", not rich. But it was the best we could do at the time. I understood that, even though I didn't like it. Becki (who feels Ron's pain) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Sep 27 19:47:50 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:47:50 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > Then why isn't Hermione all aglow at the idea of going on to study > further in university? She's not--she's all thinking about what > she's going to do after finishing school, and what career she's going > into. > > The lack of wizarding university strikes me as interesting, in line > with the postulated and discussed intellectual lacks of the WW. > > -Nora sits in her comfy library and ponders further There was a thread way, way back pointing out that it's stated that NEWTS were the highest qualification *offered by Hogwarts*. The implication being that other places offered higher qualifications. In Cos it mentions "venerable-looking wizards arguing over the latest article in Transfiguration Today.." - they sound like academics to me. No, I suspect that there are opportunities to go further than NEWT level; not that Hermione needs them - in her career choices she wouldn't even need that. Kneasy From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 19:47:44 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:47:44 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: <99D01CA2-10BB-11D9-8BC6-0003930C168E@qwest.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steven Spencer" wrote: > Now Terpnurse: > Don't aurors have to take specialized courses for several years > beyond normal schooling in order to become aurors? Surely there are > other wizarding professions that require additional training. Did > Bill learn everything he needed at HW to become a curse-breaker? Or > Charlie to study dragons? What about the Unspeakables who work in > the DoM? > > Perhaps there's not a wizarding university, per se, but wizarding > advanced trade schools? That's a possibility...this is how I understand Aurors. There's a requirement in OWLS to become an Auror (and presumably a NEWT requirement as well)--and this is all only for admission. Once accepted into the program, then you get trained there by the senior staff, all with an eye to developing the practical skills you need on the job. This is, however, rather different than the structure of something like a full-blown university. There's certainly some degree of scholarship and R&D going on in the WW. It doesn't seem to be institutionalized, with the resulting bonuses (and minuses) that come from that, however. But this is all speculative, unless she wants to tell us more. -Nora escapes from the freezing cold into the sun again From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 20:19:37 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040927201937.9249.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114010 --- dzeytoun wrote: > JKR seems to be saying straight out that the ONLY reason for Harry > to > live with the Dursleys was protection. Any idea that Dumbledore > meant to "toughen Harry up" or thinks that the experience > "prepared" him to meet Voldemort is horse manure. > > Dzeytoun The "toughening up" is a result of the situtation, not a cause; as JKR said, the prime motive was magical protection. THere's a fairy-tale quality to the HP series (and is particular apparent in the first part of the first book) where Harry - like Cinderella - undergoes tribulation and personal degradation at the hands of near-relatives only to be given the opportunity to take his rightful place in the world with the assistance of a magical stranger - like a fairy godmother. Harry is rendered deserving of a chance at a golden future because of his earlier trials. This is the context in which the Dursleys treatment of Harry is best understood. Magda (who doesn't think that references to organic fertilizer are helpful to an open and free-ranging discussion) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 27 20:28:58 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:28:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114011 > > Jen: In fact, along with the Phoenix imagery around him, I'd even say > > this isn't Dumbledore's first and only lifetime. I don't know if > > JKR > > wants to get into reincarnation exactly, but within the context > > of a fantasy world Dumbledore could be a 'being' who spans > > lifetimes. Naama: > But wouldn't that make all his pronouncements about death > hypocritical? If he reincarnates, how is it fair for him to tell > Voldemort that death isn't the worst thing? Or telling Harry > that "to the well regulated mind, death is but the next great > adventure"? And more importantly, how will it reflect on JKR's > message regarding life, death and morality? > DD represents the true and full acceptance of death, and this does > agrees with what he has said. To me that means he must be fully > human, fully mortal. It would cheapen him and the morality he > stands for if it turns out he's immortal in some physical, earthy > way. Any immortatliy that is hinted at, is achieved (again, think > Christianity) through and beyond true death. Jen: Ah well, all you say is true! And truthfully, Dumbledore's thoughts on death in Book 1 contributed to my reading the whole series, because I took what he said to heart. I was musing aloud in my previous post, trying to understand the symbolism in the story, but took it too far. Your imagery of DD representing "true and full acceptance of death" is actually a really beautiful thought, and more in line with how JKR appears to be depicting the character. Part of what fuels my speculation on Dumbledore is his story seems incomplete to me. I keep thinking, "what information is missing here?" The answer may be nothing's missing, that "what you see is what you get." Meaning Dumbledore truly is just a wise old man, who happened to be at the Hog's Head that fateful night and attempted to act on the information he received there. And within the context of the story Dumbledore is simply the mentor to Harry's student, the one who ties up all the loose ends and makes sense of complex events. That just seems unsatisfying! I want there to be a twist here, some reason in particular DD is involved in this story besides the information we have so far. Jen Reese From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 20:59:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:59:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040927201937.9249.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114012 Magda: > The "toughening up" is a result of the situtation, not a cause; as > JKR said, the prime motive was magical protection. Alla: Yes, absolutely. As a result of the situation, Harry become tougher, but I (and I think Dzeytoun too) argued that Dumbledore did not MEAN to "slap Harry's ego down", when he left Harry with Dursleys. That his only reason for doing so was keeping Harry safe, that if he had a choice , he would not have done so. Magda: > THere's a fairy-tale quality to the HP series (and is particular > apparent in the first part of the first book) where Harry - like > Cinderella - undergoes tribulation and personal degradation at the > hands of near-relatives only to be given the opportunity to take his > rightful place in the world with the assistance of a magical stranger > - like a fairy godmother. Alla: Cinderella - component was INCREDIBLY strong in the first book, it gets weaker and weaker with every book, IMO and becomes VERY weak in OOP, although it is still there. Nevertheless, after OOP I don't think it is fair to evaluate the treatment of the main character in the Cinderella context only. From karen at dacafe.com Mon Sep 27 21:42:57 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:42:57 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. /prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Eh, I will be the first one to say that we don't know much about > > > Prank yet, but Snape knew that Remus is a werewolf and still went > > > there? > > > > > > I doubt it. > > > > RL now > > I was answering someone who thought Snape discovered Remus's > > condition by listening to the Marauders' post exam conversation, > and > > I went from there. I don't really think Snape's stupid, I only > > dislike him very much and I thought if the poster was right then he > > must be dumb. Sorry my meaning got across the wrong way. Things > seem > > so much clearer when I think them than when I write them... > > Finwitch: > BUT if all Marauders were absent too - keeping > company, as they used to do (or study animagi before that) - that's > not much of a clue, is it?) > kmc: All the Marauders weren't absent until 5th year. James, Sirius and Peter were curious where Remus went the first year. Remus was afraid they wouldn't be his friends if they found out. They discovered the truth... and took 3 years to figure out how to become animagi. They succeed in their fifth year. I am beginning to lean toward the theory that they all had to be in the same house for Snape to notice that Remus disappeared once a month. No wonder Snape picks on Gryffindors. Was he ostracised by his own house? Remember how Harry feels when Seamus thinks he is the hier to Slytherin in COS. Harry still had Ron and Neville. Dean was a neutral party. He did not know until the prank that Remus was a werewolf. Did James pull Snape back to save him or to protect Remus from exposure? Puts a different slant on the whole prank. And where was Peter during this whole incident? kmc From karen at dacafe.com Mon Sep 27 21:54:15 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:54:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Kethryn wrote: > snip > Honestly, if any literary character ever needed a psycologist as > much as Snape does, I would be vastly surprised (I am an English > major and I have read a ton so I can say that I have never met a > more complex man than Snape...no, not even Hamlet). > > Potioncat: > Welcome to the group. > > JKR has made Snape and set him up so that whatever she does with > him, half of us will be surprised. Or maybe everyone will. As much > as I defend Snape, I can see the possibility that he'll betray the > Order. Or that he will do something unexpected. I am, of course, > hoping for a pleasant surprise. > > Kethryn: > >> Kethryn who admits that she may be biased slightly towards Snape > because Alan Rickman plays him in the movies but, at the same time, > is having a hard time with the scene in the pensive still because > she wants a reason why James acted like a jerk and a bully without > making either Snape or James out to be the big bad monster. > > Potioncat: > I agree (with both parts) Lots of us get caught up in the bad! James- > -good!James vrs Good!Snape--bad!Snape discussions. The thing to > keep in mind is that in the end, both were fighting LV. kmc: Another thing to keep in mind is that they were both 15. Even Harry is a git at 15. There are a lot of times in OotP that I want to shake Harry and tell him to grow up. I really like the Snape character. I like that fact that even when I defend his actions I know he is probably one of the dark grey guys. I really like the mix of good and bad in Snape. I am pinning my hopes on McGonagle's attitude toward Snape. She was his teacher and I am sure gave him and the Marauders detention at least once during their 7 years at Hogwarts. As I mentioned before, IMO MM and Snape have a friendly feud about the positions of their houses when it comes to Quidditch and the House Cup. She does not treat him like a former student but as an equal. (BTW Snape was my favorite character even before Alan Rickman played him in the medium not to be discussed here.) kmc From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Mon Sep 27 23:06:48 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:06:48 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114015 --- Pippin wrote: > I use 'evil' when the damage is lasting and serious, > and the action that caused it was, in the view of the > books, morally reprehensible. I don't think there is > any question that Rowling considers Fudge's conduct > in OOP morally reprehensible. While it was not immoral > for Fudge to believe that Dumbledore was trying to > seize power from him, it was immoral and manipulative > for him to mislead the public to think that he opposed > Dumbledore because the old man was past it. > .... > Rowling wants us to understand [that] we are all capable > of evil, and it is when we don't recognize it, and call it > by its true name, that we are most in its power. I think a good part of the disagreement here is semantic rather than substantive (and is a reprise of some themes that have played out in prior discussions of "evil" -- see #111846 et seq. (James/Sirius in the pensieve scene); #107010 et seq. (also about Fudge)). We can all agree that actions x, y and z were morally imperfect, but we disagree about the level of moral failure that amounts to evil. Plainly Rowling has some issues -- if you will humor my understatement -- with bureaucracy, authoritarian tendencies, the influence of money in politics, and the priority that politics places on retaining power rather than doing the right thing. Almost every interaction Harry has with the WW government shows us another negative aspect, starting with the very first book ("Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual," -- Hagrid, SS, ch. 5), and continuing with the mistaken warning to Harry in CS (re: Dobby's levitation charm), the implications that the Malfoys are outside the law (CS, ch. 4), Hagrid's imprisonment later in CS without even being charged, the Buckbeak trial and appeal in PA, the whole story about Sirius being sent to Azkaban without a trial, and the increasingly more sinister events in GF and OP. Despite all that, I don't think Rowling would call Fudge evil -- not in so many words. 1) The power of satire means that she does not have to articulate moral judgments -- she can write what Fudge does, and let readers draw their own conclusions. 2) I think it would be fairly controversial to assert that it is *evil* to mislead the public about your reasons for taking important policy decisions (like, say, going to war). Lots of people seem to agree that it's wrong; others take the view that the ends justify the means; but I haven't heard anyone even in this era of shrill political discourse use the word "evil." Dumbledore says we should call things by their names, but he does not say we should call names. -- Matt From susanadacunha at gmx.net Mon Sep 27 22:43:01 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:43:01 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?House_Elves'_enslavement_?= Message-ID: <000a01c4a4e7$fb502230$522f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114016 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. First, let's see what we don't know: 1 - We don't know how long elves live. I'll assume their life expectance is something between the wizard's and the muggle's. This is not really important for my theory but it can help us put some things into perspective. 2 - We don't know how long it takes for elves to become adults. I'll assume they have short childhoods because something that lives to work is bound to. 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). 4 - We don't know if elves can be bought or sold. My first guess would be no, they can't. You break the magic by giving the elves clothes (or are the clothes part of the magic?). If you could sell an elf wouldn't Mr. Crouch sell his elf instead of freeing it? But if they can't be sold (or exchange in some way), wouldn't some families end up with more elves than they can afford and others with no elves at all? On the other hand, since Malfoy was so upset about loosing an elf, they must be valuable. 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). 5 - We don't know if a free elf can give up its freedom. An elf is set free when it receives clothes. Can an elf give his clothes to someone and therefore bind himself to a family? If so, that would be the way to exchange elves between families: The owner would give the elf clothes and the elf would give them to the new master. It would require the elf's consent - I prefer this hypothesis over my previous. Now, what we do know: 1 - Winky and Kretcher had devotion for the masters they served for years while Dobby didn't. It appears elves are quite capable of judging people and develop regard for them or not. The magical bound they have with their masters does not command their harts. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume an elf usually 'grows up' with its master and is 'educated' in its master's values. Kretcher is the perfect example of that. We don't know how Dobby ended up with the Malfoys but if he was 'brought up' by them I suspect he's an extremely rare case. Considering the elves predisposition to serve, elves are probably a lot less picky as to whom they like than humans. 2 - Dobby and Kretcher, without disobeying direct orders from their official masters, found a way to pass information to people they regarded. A wizard can't say to its elf "do *only* what I tell you to do" because he/she would then have to spend his/her day ordering all its tasks (set the table; cook the meal; clean the bedroom). Therefore, elves have some autonomy in their work/lives which allows them to do 'what their hart tells them to'. 3 - Winky disobeyed a direct order from her master (stay in the tent) but acting - she thought - in her master's best interest. She was forced to contravene because circumstances had changed. There could be a better analysis of this if she hadn't been so extremely punished. Would she feel the need to punish herself if her master had said "you've done well"? Or did she punish herself on top of the punishment her master gave her? My point with this is that elves have the capability to disobey a direct order in extreme circumstances. Or maybe not that extreme: Dobby and some other Hogwarts elves warned the DA members they had been exposed. It looked a lot like they were disobeying direct orders (but we don't know for sure). I can only conclude elves *can* disobey direct orders if they think they're doing the right thing. 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. b) He could be acting on account of the magic binding his species: there could be some clause about not being allowed to cause physical harm to wizards. But I'd find it strange, given point 5 below. c) He could have punished himself out of ethics. If an elf can judge its master it has a set of values from which he can tell right from wrong. Dobby could have considered he was doing wrong, no matter whose interests were in stake. d) Dobby might consider Harry the 'master in his hart' (as oppose to 'official master'). Dobby remembers when 'house elves were treated like animals'. Harry changed that, even if not for Dobby, thus winning Dobby's hart. That is consistent with Dobby going out of his way to 'serve' Harry (warnings, bludgers) and punish himself when he fails. 5 - Dobby attacked his former master seconds after he was freed. He did so to protect a person he regarded (we don't know if he punished himself after or not). This is consistent with c) and d) above and clashes somewhat with a) and b). The notable thing about this was the quickness of Dobby's decision to stop his former master using physical (magical) force. If there was some magic preventing elves to physically harm wizards, I doubt he would have been so prompt. 6 - Winky was freed (the ultimate punishment in her point of view) for acting - she thought - in her master's best interest, and she still sees her not-official-any-more master as her beloved master. This is *very* consistent with d) above. Her moaning of her condition is all directed to her master's welfare (what will he do without me?). This sounds a lot like love to me - but then again, she's not human and I'm not Hermione. But one fact remains: she still considers Mr. Crouch her master, even if he's not. Note that neither Kretcher nor Dobby show regret for acting against their official master's best interest. Were they acting on behalf of the 'master in their harts'? Concluding notes: Given the considerations above, we might be able to infer about house elves happiness in general. If we accept elves have indeed two masters (official-m. and hart-m.) we can conjecture that a happy house elf is the one who has the privilege of serving (officially) their hart-master. We can add that most elves are probably 'brought up' in the family they will later serve. This will be true more for the wizard's sake than the elf's sake. Dobby (serving Malfoy) and Kretcher (serving Sirius) are good examples of what happens if you have an elf that dislikes you. Not many wizards would want this. Even if adult elves can be exchanged, a wizard is not likely to chose an older elf because it might not adapt to the new family (some things are true for all living things). That might explain Dobby's and Winky's difficulty in finding work. Maybe it's just me, but if an elf offered to cook and clean for me for a galleon a week I wouldn't exclude him because his former master thrown him out - but I would think twice if I thought he could be disloyal to me and my family. If elves are generally brought up in the family they serve, I wouldn't find it odd that most elves find their hart-masters in that family. I'm more concern with elves in places like Hogwarts. I suspect they have little contact with staff and certainly even less with students. With the addition of the changes in staff, it seems difficult for them to develop the wizard-elf relation they seem to need - or worse, they do create the relation and then the wizard leaves. 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! In the case of elves' emotional and physical abuse, I would like to point something out: elves are not human but wizards are. The abuse cases must be as usual as in human houses and place the same challenges to law enforcement as they do in our world: you can't enter someone's home to enforce a law without invading their privacy. I seriously doubt there are no laws in the WW to protect elf abuse. But I most certainly believe they have trouble enforcing them. Finely, some speculations (trying no to cross the fan-fic line): Dobby's wish to be paid has puzzled me. For reasons stated, I have no trouble believing Harry is his hart-master. Could it be he doesn't want to create magical bounds with a new family because he's hopping to serve Harry in the future? Maybe his making sure his free when Harry gets himself a house... Will Winky's broken hart ever heal? Is it as simple as giving her hart to a new family? If so, Hogwarts is the totally wrong place for her and reassures my concern that it's not a good place for an elf at all! Hopping my English was up to the task, Susana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susanadacunha at gmx.net Mon Sep 27 23:41:36 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:41:36 +0100 Subject: Survival of AK References: Message-ID: <004001c4a4eb$8b5d8bd0$522f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114017 Kneasy wrote: >>At GH the last spell used (according to the wand and JKR's corrections) was the AK that killed Lily. And if you accept Harry's 'visions' Voldy was still laughing after that one. But then something marked Harry, dis-embodied Voldy and wrecked the house - all physical effects. 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?<< -------------------------------- I'm sorry, Kneasy. Can you quote about the laughter *after* the green light? I can find the laughter and I can find the green light but not the two toguether. -------------------------------- Sandy wrote: >>Before I began lurking around HP discussion boards, I figured, as Susana and Charme suggest, that LV cast the AK at Harry, and Lily literally threw herself in front of it to block it. A small part of it ricocheted towards Harry, the rest back to LV. (I love Susana's comparison to Fawkes' action, a comparison I hadn't drawn myself). That wasn't based on deep study of canon, it just seemed the most likely way for the scene to play out (even if it might remind some people of the "super bullet" theory from the JFK assasination). It's interesting, Charme and Susana seem to have have come to opposite conclusions about that scenario, based on the same quote. It's true "the woman's foolish sacrifice" could refer to some other action on Lily's part, but to me it seems to indicate she died shielding her son, thereby causing the curse to rebound on Voldy.<< ------------------------------- Really? I only read it that way after someone pointed out to me about the prior incantatem. It was my first thought: if nothing comes out, then there was no spell after. It does sound a little "super bullet" to me, but if someone could read it like that the first time around... then I might be willing to believe it. Plus, I don't trust my English to make the interpretation. I rather trust you and Charme. Susana From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 00:11:30 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:11:30 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114018 Nora wrote: > > There's certainly some degree of scholarship and R&D going on in the > WW. It doesn't seem to be institutionalized, with the resulting > bonuses (and minuses) that come from that, however. But this is all > speculative, unless she wants to tell us more. Neri: The reason for the lack of universities might be simply quantitative: there's just enough wizards in Britain for one big school. Given that not everybody continues to the university and that the number of fields and courses in the university needs to be larger (diversity of knowledge increases with its level) there would be only one or two students per class. More logical to use the master/assistant system. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 01:03:38 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:03:38 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114019 macfotuk at y... wrote: > > In SS/PS Ollivander knows that Harry's wand is the 'brother' of LV's but IIRC he doesn't state that *he* sold the wand to its present owner (remember, at this point Tom Riddle is yet to come, in CoS). > > We perhaps assume Kneasy: > Of course, we're making an assumption - that Voldy's wand is the same one that he bought as Tom. Probably yes, but is there firm evidence? Valky: How about the priori incantatem effect? This wouldn't have happened if LV wasn't using the "brother" Pheonix feather wand. macfotuk (i think): > > There have, however, been questions about why LV (as TMR) was given a wand with Fawkes' feather in the first place. > > Alternatively, DD (or almost anyone else of 50ish years ago) acted on a prophecy and deliberately gave TMR (LV to come) a powerful, but compromised (or counterable) weapon in a Fawkes' feather wand. > Kneasy: > DD kept a very close eye on the wands made > with Fawkes's feathers, much more than just casual interest. One thing I want to know is *when* the feathers were given. Were they random events or was the second wand deliberately constructed as a corrective to the first and intended specifically for Harry or Neville - the putative Voldy destroyers? Note that Neville never bought a wand on entering Hogwarts; he was using his father's. Be interesting to see how he'd perform with Harry's wand. > Valky: I am becoming increasingly more certain that the wand cores are linked to *another* prophecy, that we haven't heard yet. Or there maybe some far old written lore somewhere saying that a phoenix will give two feathers and the two people who command those feathers will reunite the divided wizard world (or the divided Hogwats four Houses), something like that. This could be why DD admits to having kept a close eye on the recipients of Fawkes feathers. The wand chooses the wizard, as we know so I doubt that DD would have been involved in any plotting to ensure that Harry or Tom would get the wands. Kneasy: > What is intriguing is that he identifies the wand as Voldy's. > This is odd, because in CoS DD informs us that very few people know that Tom became Voldy. So who told Ollivander? We need to get Ollivander in the back room with a bright light > and a bottle of veritaserum. We could get some key gen from him IMO. > Valky: I agree, Ollivander always seems to know more than he should. Maybe he is some kind of prophet it seems a likely skill that would prove an advantage in his line of work. From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Sep 27 16:55:50 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:55:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Behavoir justification was Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <004101c4a4b2$d9c64480$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114020 Kethryn: >> Kethryn who admits that she may be biased slightly towards Snape because Alan Rickman plays him in the movies but, at the same time, is having a hard time with the scene in the pensive still because she wants a reason why James acted like a jerk and a bully without making either Snape or James out to be the big bad monster. Potioncat: >>I agree (with both parts) Lots of us get caught up in the bad!James- -good!James vrs Good!Snape--bad!Snape discussions. The thing to keep in mind is that in the end, both were fighting LV. Kethryn again - Which begs the question, does the end justify the means? That certainly is a theme that JKR is exploring (the use of the unforgivable curses on the Death Eaters for example) and, just because Snape, for example, is in the OotP, does that justify his behavoir? Ok, I don't like that example. Let's take Umbridge (I think we can agree the woman is a sadistic who was working on behalf of the Ministry. Does the fact that she was, presumably, following orders justify her sadistic treatment of Harry? I don't think so and I desperatly wish that Harry had told someone about what she was doing with the whole writing lines thing. That is straight up abuse and there is no justification big enough for it and ANY teacher worth his/her salt would have put a stop to it. I even believe that Snape would have thrown a conniption fit if he knew about it...it is one thing for him to treat Harry like garbage but I think he would prevent anyone...sorry, make that any other adult...from doing so, if it were in his powers. In my opinion, in Snape's mind, it's one thing for Malfoy to torment Harry because he is just a kid and, like it or not, children are most adept at torturing other children without the teachers coming down on them. Bullying, from child to child, is considered part of the growing up process (and it does suck, says the child who was bullied) but from adult to child is child abuse and that has a nice long jail sentance to go with it. So, Snape doesn't stop Malfoy but I believe that he would have stopped Umbridge if he knew what the deal was. Kethryn who doesn't quite understand why Hermione and Ron did not write to their respective parents about Umbridge, especially when they learned what she was doing to Harry, and who kind of gets why Harry didn't tell anyone, abused children rarely speak out after all, but neither Hermione nor Ron were constrained by the same thing that constrains Harry. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 27 17:31:32 2004 From: katebossetti at yahoo.co.uk (kate_bossetti) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:31:32 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114021 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. > > Then there's Lily Evans. When Harry sees his mother in the Mirror of Erised, she is > described as pretty; when he sees her in Snape's memory, her eyes are "startling". So > perhaps there is a place for good-looking people in the WW, too. This is Kate: So: my teacher used to say that only evil needs advertising. For example ? health. How much advertisement of chocolate, alcohol, chips, mayonnaise, etc. can you find in TV? And what about ? let's say ? carrot, or any other kind of (fresh) vegetable? People will buy them anyway, won't they? When it comes to HP books this theory seems to work: the good ones aren't very beautiful (like you have pointed out). What's more ? Arthur Weasley said to Harry something like this: don't trust anything if you don't know where its heart is. In other words: `don't trust beauty, because instead of its heart you see its face' (yes ? it's farfetched, but seems to be OK for JKR world) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 01:28:09 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:28:09 -0000 Subject: Why Privet Drive? (was Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: the ONLY reason for Harry to > live with the Dursleys was protection. Any idea that Dumbledore > meant to "toughen Harry up" or thinks that the experience "prepared" > him to meet Voldemort is horse manure. > > Dzeytoun Mac: JKR describes a boy 'coming, fully-formed into her imagination. He was a wizard, but he didn't know he was a wizard. Work backwards and forwards from there' (these aren't the exact words but capture the sense of her statement). And no I'm not saying that Privet Drive is just a necessary plot device, although trying to get inside characters and the way they 'would' think, if it isn't like JKR thinks they think is a mistake, but understandable since none of us can think otherwise than we do (which is not to say we can't be imaginative, empathetic or influenced). Harry doesn't know of the wizard world because he's placed with wizardphobic muggles who don't hold any truck with magic. He is also protected by blood. Both achieve DD's aims though perhaps even more so than he intended (though somehow I doubt it - DD' doesn't miss a trick - e.g. letters addressed to HP 'under the stairs'). This way, Harry doesn't know his destiny (pretty daunting if end of OotP is to be taken literally - kill or be killed) until he's approaching being mature enough to cope with it. Ch.1 Bk 1 DD: "... . Famous before he can walk and talk! famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it? ..." It takes Harry out of the loop from any who might wish to contact or harm him before he is old enough to really expres his abilities and/or understand what is going on - LV of course, Trix and crew (not averse to a bit of post GH mischief), Sirius, etc. Snape I believe must have known (or at least that DD had hidden HP and protected him VERY well). It kinda begs the question of why the rest of the WW didn't clamour to be told where the 'hero' was - though we know that several wizards knew enough to be able to approach him during his childhood - perhaps these slipped through DD's mask of secrecy (e.g. Diggle who's always been portrayed as immapropriate and untrustworthy, if in a harmless way). From dwoodward at towson.edu Mon Sep 27 20:18:35 2004 From: dwoodward at towson.edu (Woodward, Deirdre) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:18:35 -0400 Subject: Is Crookshanks Mundungus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114023 In Chapter 2 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (American Edition), Mundungus is described as bandy-legged with long ginger hair. Sounds awfully familiar! Can Mundungus be Crookshanks? Deirdre [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From twwnut at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 19:10:11 2004 From: twwnut at yahoo.com (Irene) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) In-Reply-To: <1096311388.26952.28953.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040927191011.87643.qmail@web11322.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114024 Haggridd wrote: > Pardon me, but do we really know that there are no > Wizarding Universities? I am not speaking of other > fandoms, such as Unseen University in Terry Pratchett's > Discworld, but in JKR's Wizarding World? Irene: Good afternoon, newbie here. Profuse apologies if the subject has been touched upon, and numerously, but I've just joined over the weekend - as it happened, during a short break from reading "The Colour of Magic" - and would very much like to see other people's opinions on the blatant similarities between JKR's work and Terry Pratchett. Does anyone else find them upsetting, as I do? Thanks, Irene. ===== http://www.joshlyman.com The West Wing Web "There are two infinities - the Universe and stupidity. Although I'm not so sure about the Universe." - Albert Einstein From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Sep 27 20:32:28 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:32:28 -0000 Subject: HP as "fairy-tale," Harry left with the Dursleys (Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: <20040927201937.9249.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114025 Magda: > The "toughening up" is a result of the situtation, not a cause; as > JKR said, the prime motive was magical protection. > > There's a fairy-tale quality to the HP series (and is particular > apparent in the first part of the first book) where Harry - like > Cinderella - undergoes tribulation and personal degradation at the > hands of near-relatives only to be given the opportunity to take > his rightful place in the world with the assistance of a magical > stranger - like a fairy godmother. Harry is rendered deserving of > a chance at a golden future because of his earlier trials. This is > the context in which the Dursleys treatment of Harry is best > understood. 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. "phoenixgod2000" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 01:36:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:36:06 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114026 > > This is Kate: snip. >When it comes to HP books this theory seems > to work: the good ones aren't very beautiful (like you have > pointed out). > What's more ? Arthur Weasley said to Harry something like this: > don't trust anything if you don't know where its heart is. In other > words: `don't trust beauty, because instead of its heart you see its > face' (yes ? it's farfetched, but seems to be OK for JKR world) Alla: I am not quite sure that I agree, Kate. As previous poster seemed to point out Lily is described as pretty and she is one of the good guys. Besides, I don't remember Arthur ever telling Harry that. Could you please point me to the page? I do remember him telling Ginny though not to trust anything, if she does not know where this thing keeps its brain. As to beauty in HP world, to me main philosophy seems to be that your looks do not necessarily reflect your inner beauty. Quite a few characters are beautiful inside, but not outside. I am glad though that JKR does not do generalisations - Dursleys seem to be not very attractive inside and out, Ginny for example seems to be both. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 01:46:08 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:46:08 -0000 Subject: HP as "fairy-tale," Harry left with the Dursleys (Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > 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. Alla: Yes, for me Dursleys are way past the point of looking at them as evil step-parents. When did it start, I am not so sure. Maybe in OOP, when Harry feels so trapped at privet Drive. Maybe in GoF, when Harry sends food to Sirius, because "after last summer, Harry had not forgotten what it felt like to be continually hungry" - GoF, p.548. It just felt like a rather realistic depiction of abuse, not the fairy - tale like, when we know that hero is going to get out eventually anyway. Maybe it started even earlier, I am not so sure. I do disagree or at least partially disagree with your second point - I am willing to assume that Dumbledore did not ahve any other choice to keep Harry alive. I dislike it, but I am trying to find tolerable explanation for it, because I don't believe in ESE! Dumbledore. From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 01:53:40 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:53:40 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: <000a01c4a4e7$fb502230$522f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114028 > Susanna wrote: > [snipping lots of interesting analysis] > Another cause of unhappiness for elves would be the > death of their hart-master. > Kreacher 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! > Sophierom: First, let me say, wow, what a fantastic analysis. You've made some great points and suggested some fascinating ideas about house elves. I think (and I could be completely wrong) that the treatment of house elves in wizarding society is another of JKR's way of telling us that wizarding society is actually a pretty racist society. (Other examples of this are pureblood/muggleborn distinction and treatment of Lupin the werewolf perhaps?) In this way, Voldemort is not so much an aberrance but an extreme version of some widely held views. Based on this reading of house elves, I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that SPEW should only focus on teaching wizards to take care of their house elves (hence giving up on the ultimate quest for freedom). While getting wizards to treat their house elves well is a good thought (and perhaps a good short-term aim), it's ultimately a reenforcement of paternalism, which is only a nicer manifestation of racism. Many of you may disagree with this analogy, but I can't help but think of the way American whites treated African American slaves in 17th, 18th, and 19th century America. There were white masters who considered their slaves members of their family. (See, for example, historian Eugene Genovese, who, in his research, found slaveowners' references to their "family, white and black"). If one considers his slave a member of his household, his family, does that make slavery any better? Well, the slaves might not be treated as poorly as they are in other families, but in the end, they are still slaves. And they are still unequal - the head of house is always the one with ultimate control. In other words, the master can be a benevolent dictator or a cruel dictator - but still a dictator. In arguing this, I want to make something very clear: the slave analogy is flawed in a big way. That is, African American slaves are biologically the same as their white masters; they are all human. But in JKR's universe, house elves are a separate species altogether. Given this important difference, it is possible to argue that making the analogy between human slave societies and house elf enslavement is wrongheaded. But I think, if you look at the larger thematic trend of the HP books, house elf enslavement is indeed yet another way of showing that wizarding society has a severe and problematic superiority complex. By keeping house elves enslaved, even if they are treated more kindly, wizards and witches will never come to see these creatures as their equals (read: as creatures who have as much right to control their own magic, their own destiny, as other sentient creatures). Now, this does not mean that I think Hermione is correctly handling her campaign to free the house elves. While I agree with her ends (house elf freedom), I disagree with her means. She tries to manipulate the elves because she believes she knows better than they do. In other words, she's patronizing them; she, too, fails to see the creatures as equals. So, I don't think SPEW should alter its goals, but it should alter its methods. Susanna also wrote: Will Winky's broken hart ever heal? Is it as simple as giving her hart to a new family? If so, Hogwarts is the totally wrong place for her and reassures my concern that it's not a good place for an elf at all! Sophierom: Some good questions, but again, I must disagree slightly with your point. I do not think Hogwarts is a bad place for house elves. Indeed, I think it might be the ideal location situation, if there can be such a thing. Whereas house elves like Kreacher and presumably Winky (pre-clothes) seemed to be isolated, alone except for human companionship, the Hogwarts house elves seem (from what little canon evidence we have) to have a community. While Susanna argues that the transience of humans at Hogwarts prevents the creation of a true "heart master" bond between elf and human, Hogwarts might provide a much better substitute: a house elf bond. Consider this: right now, if there is a "master" at Hogwarts, it is Dumbledore, who would appear to be a kind master. But, let's say Dumbledore had been permanently exiled from his position at the end of OotP and Umbridge had become the Headmistress. Would she be a good Mistress to the house elves? Probably not. But the house elves would at least have each other to rely on in bad times. Now, let's consider the isolated house elf: Kreacher has a "heart" master in Mistress Black (even if we do not like her, she seems to have won her elf's loyalty). But when Mistress Black is dead, he is passed on to Sirius, a man he hates. On whom can Kreacher lean for support? No one - he is stuck in a position he hates. This is why all enslavement - whether with a master one likes or a master one hates - is ultimately a bad situation. Kreacher had very little control on his own destiny. Still, the Hogwarts elves at least have a little bit of constancy in their lives - each other. They can build a community, a culture; and cultural preservation and/or cultural creation can be seen as an assertion of one's equality, perhaps even the basis for a protest or a larger social movement. Susanna astutley points out that house elves do have some autonomy, but they have to sneak around and punish themselves to exercise it, and in the end, these little bits of autonomy do not allow Kreacher (or Winky) to determine their course in life. They must react instead of act. Perhaps Winky will always hate Hogwarts because she is too conditioned to love her old master. But I do not think this makes Hogwarts a bad place for an elf to serve. Thanks, Susanna, for the thought-provoking analysis! From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 02:12:50 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:12:50 -0000 Subject: Is Crookshanks Mundungus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Woodward, Deirdre" wrote: > In Chapter 2 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (American Edition), Mundungus is described as bandy-legged with long ginger hair. > > Sounds awfully familiar! Can Mundungus be Crookshanks? > > Deirdre > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] This question comes up like clockwork about every three weeks. Crookshanks is half-kneazle--per JKR> And note that Crookshanks walks into one of the scenes with Mundungus at Grimauld Place. That aside--do you think it appropriate for Mundungus to be sleeping in a girls dorm for most of three years? Personally, I'm totally grossed out by that idea. It's not THAT kind of story. mhbobbiin From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 20:34:17 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape and Harry again. Message-ID: <20040927203417.43464.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114030 Kethryn: > I don't think that when Harry told him that Padfoot was in trouble, Snape > had any options or any time to think of other options. Or, in other > words, Snape had no choice because he had no time to prepare a ready > comeback. Although why on earth the OotP did not have a set of prearranged > signals worked out is totally beyond me...the key to winning any war or > confrontation is communication after all...and even DD admits, in the end, > that by keeping Harry in the dark, he essentially caused Sirius' death. > Even though Snape loathes Sirius (although that may be too strong a word), > I don't think that he would want to see him dead. Snape is smart enough to > guess what that would do to Harry and Snape bloody well knows how important > Harry is to the Order and to the rest of the wizarding world. He is a > teacher after all. No one can be a teacher and do the job for as long as > he has without truly loving his work and that includes at least being able > to tolerate your students, not hate them. Kelsey: Hi. I'm also new here (little self conscious). I agree with Kethryn. Snape probably didn't have time to think of something clever to say (or maybe he thought that what he said was clever enough) to put Harry at ease. Here are some other possibilities as to why Snape didn't make it clear to Harry that he was going to take care of the Sirius issue: 1. As soon as he heard that Sirius was in trouble, he began to fight an internal battle. He didn't know what or if he was going to do anything to save Sirius. Wouldn't it have been totally out of Snape's character if he just winked at Harry and ran off to save Sirius? After all the fighting between Sirius and Severus, I would think that he'd have a moment's hesitation before doing anything. Also, he had just recently been forced to relive his worst memory (of being tormented by the Marauders) with Harry knowing all about it. When Harry screams for Snape's help, Snape is caught off-guard, fighting between his responsibilities to the Order and his hatred of Sirius. 2. It was another chance to put Harry through emotional torture. Snape (though I love him dearly) is sadistic towards Harry. He likes to make Harry feel unsure and powerless (look at the Shrieking Shack scene in POA and the occlumency lessons). Even though Snape knows perfectly well that he'll do something to help Harry, he wants to constantly remind Harry that he's just a kid. Snape almost seems to be competing with Harry for heroism and, consequently, Dumbledore's attention. The occlumency lessons are an example, when Snape says that it's not Harry's job to find out what Voldemort is doing, then smiles when Harry says that it's Snape's job. It's almost like sibling rivalry (maybe going back to the James days) when he wants Harry to get into trouble and is angry that Dumbledore lets him get away with everything. Although I, like Harry, want someone to blame for Sirius' death, I have to say that Snape did everything possible to save them. After all, it was Harry that was in the real danger at that point by walking into a trap. Snape's alerting the Order caused Sirius to go after Harry to save him from the DEs. If anything, Snape saved Harry's life at the expense of Sirius', but I don't think that he is to blame. How could he have predicted all of that at that very short moment, while also dealing with an internal battle and his own sadistic nature? Fate is complicated. I love "He is a teacher after all. No one can be a teacher and do the job for as long as he has without truly loving his work and that includes at least being able to tolerate your students, not hate them." I have always thought this about Snape. I think that he really does enjoy his job and his students. In COS, he emotionally grabs the back of a chair when he hears that Ginny Weasley is in danger of being killed. He's always saving Harry's tail, even if he acts like he doesn't want to. Even when he's cruel or mean, he seems to be alerting his students to a greater danger (for instance, assigning the werewolf essay to warn them about Lupin). Snape likes his students, the big softy. Kelsey, Ravenclaw, who would love to see Snape receive a Teacher of the Year award. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 28 02:27:18 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:27:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114031 Potioncat: > > You agree, Snape was Gryffindor as a student and McGonagall was > > Slytherin? (She does wear green a lot!) Alla: > LOL! It sure is a possibility. Seriously though, if we were to > look for "good " Slytherin among the adults, I would say > Dumbledore is a strong enough possibility. > > Do we have any other confirmation of him being a Gryff, except > Hermione's "she heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor" > She haven't read about it in "Hogwarts, A History", hasn't she? SSSusan: I always took the griffin door [GryffinDOR] knocker as a clue to DD's house. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 21:18:41 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape and Harry again (Sirius as Snape's bully) Message-ID: <20040927211841.38221.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114032 Feklar wrote: >> I should specify, I meant 'til he was about 13. By that point, he'd been at Hogwarts a couple of years, in Gryffindor, no less. He would have learned from the behavior of teachers and other students that there were different ways of dealing with frustration, conflict and opposition. He was hitting the point where he should have begun to understand the moral import of his actions. So where an 11 yo Sirius might not know a different way to react or that there was even anything wrong with reacting to things he didn't like with abuse, by 13 he had to have known he was behaving badly. By 15 and 17, there is really no excuse IMO. << RL answers: > By the same token Severus should have learned the same thing. He was at Hogwarts as a student for as long as Sirius was, he's been a teacher there for 15 years, he's seen McGonagall and Dumbledore and all the others. He should know abusing his students is wrong. Strangely enough most Sirius basher (don't mean you specifically, this is a general observation) are ready to excuse any action from Snape because he was abused by his peers and ignore the abuse he visits on his charges while hating and condemning Sirius for what he did to someone his own age. That sounds rather unfair to me, to say the least. < Feklar wrote: >> 1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there were innocent bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't in the "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and waited, but chose to attack without regard to the safety of others. << RL answers: > Are we sure SB attacked first? Strangely enough PP had the time to accuse him of killing J&LP and then blew up a whole street, while SB did nothing. For all we know he just wanted some explanation and PP took advantage of his presence to escape (no, I don't really think that's what happened, I'm just saying it's too early to accuse SB of irresponsibly attacking anyone). < Feklar: >> I specified he was unreliable about Sanpe's character. We don't know about the facts, but I do think he immediately saw Snape as a stand-in for his family and was probably incapable of seeing the reality of Snape's personality and character. Indeed, Sirius seems so eager to attack and express his hatred of his family that Snape's real character was probably irrelevant. In other words, I think Snape would have been his target no matter what. << (snip) Kelsey: Thank you RL for sticking up for Sirius. I'd like to add that I've noticed that we can forgive Snape for his cruelty or past evil deeds because he was bullied, picked on, and abused by classmates and probably his own family. But, for some reason, we can't forgive Sirius for bullying as a stupid, hormonal teenager, when he was abused emotionally and verbally by his own family (if his mother's portrait is any sign). Maybe this is just because Snape is the underdog, where often our loyalties lie. But I've noticed some huge parallels between Snape and Sirius. Snape's abused past is probably a good explanation for why he became a DE (perhaps the promise of power and respect). But, of course, it could never really excuse it. There's really no excuse for being cruel and sadistic. But Snape is doing his part in the Order to pay back his debt. Sirius' behavior as a teenager has no excuse, either. It's never right to bully someone or treat them as if he wished they never existed. But I think there is an explanation for his behavior (it's James doesn't yet have a reason). Sirius was abused, too. Sirius' family was quite cruel to him. In the very least, they held him to high standards that he never desired to fulfill. He probably never got the attention and love he needed within his family (part of that elite and cold society). Just as with Snape (later, as a teacher and DE), Sirius' bullying is a sign of some deep hurting. It's not just that Snape was, in some way, reminding Sirius of his horrible family, but that he was someone whom Sirius could challenge, and thereby gain attention. Just from my own experiences teaching in Middle Schools and High Schools, it's the kids that are going through tough times fitting in with their families, communities, or school peers that tend to berate and put down the others. It's a way to get attention or power. Often, most people grow out of this stage, grow up, wake up to the pain they put others through. No matter how justified the bullying may seem, someone's got to break the cycle (hence why I think Harry sees the scene in the Pensieve). Maybe the reason Sirius and Snape can't grow out of this cycle of hatred is not that they haven't grown out of their bullying stage (both of them are good men that do extraordinarily courageous things), but that each of them reminds the other of a time when they were abused. On the note of Sirius vs. Peter: Remember that that day was a very emotionally upsetting one. Sirius went so far as to give up his beloved motorcycle. Sirius is a very emotional character (look how vengeful he acts years later in POA with children in the room). Even Fudge say he was unhinged after the death of the Potters. He was so upset about Peter's betrayal and his own guilt, I don't think he was thinking about the Muggles around him. Maybe, he didn't even want to kill Peter, but wanted to bring him in to the MOM. Killing Peter wouldn't exactly have been a very practical (since when was Sirius ever practical, though?) thing to do (when everyone thought he killed Peter, they sent him to Azkaban). In my very over dramatic mind, it was just that Sirius was so emotional that he wasn't even thinking of the people around him or the consequences of his actions. He stuttered for just a moment, hesitated in killing Peter (Peter was his friend for many years), was overcome, and it gave Peter the upper-hand for just a moment. The rest is history. Kelsey, Ravenclaw, who loves to see grown men cry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 02:33:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:33:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's House. Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114033 > > SSSusan: > I always took the griffin door [GryffinDOR] knocker as a clue to > DD's house. :-) > Alla: Oops, you are right. It does look as a quite a clue. Hmmm, I guess I have to look for a different candidate for a good Slytherin. Well, if Snape as Gryffindor will not work out, I guess he will be a good candidate. :) From kjones at telus.net Tue Sep 28 01:52:43 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:52:43 -0700 Subject: Is Crookshanks Mundungus? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4158C3EB.2050208@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114034 Deirdre wrote: > In Chapter 2 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (American > Edition), Mundungus is described as bandy-legged with long ginger hair. > > Sounds awfully familiar! Can Mundungus be Crookshanks? JKR in an interview said that Crookshanks was not an animagus so it is not likely. KJ From kjones at telus.net Tue Sep 28 02:27:38 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:27:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's tips on Book6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4158CC1A.1010408@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114035 nineve_laguna wrote: > Does anybody have any ideas about JKR tips about clues for book 6? > Clue 1: She mentions we should ask about why Voldemort didn't die > when the AK rebounded and which precautions did he take to prevent > his death. > Clue 2: is why Dumbledore didn't kill Voldy at the MoM, she said that > what Dumbledore said (there are worst things than death) wasn't the > true reason. > Just thought it would be interesting to hear theories about these > clues. I have been considering the same questions for some time, as well as the prophecy. If V's spell rebounded as he says it did as a result of Lily's sacrifice, and if he had taken some kind of step to protect himself from death (immortality was what he was mainly about) it would explain several things: 1. The wording of the prophecy says that either will die *at* the hand of the other not *by* the hand of the other. At hand normally means *near* not *as a result of. *2. The wand chooses the wizard. Harry's wand, duplicate of V's chose him for some reason. 3. Harry speaks parseltongue as does V. 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. 5. We know Dumbledore lies because JKR said he did while talking to Voldemort. 6. Harry said that he thought occlumency was making him worse. What if he was right? 7. Suppose Snape treats Harry badly because he knows what Dumbledore has planned, believes that it must happen, and can't afford to actually see Harry as a person? Everybody believes that Snape's hatred of James is a pretty weak reason for hating Harry. 8. It was only mentioned once that Dumbledore killed the other dark wizard (his name escapes me). so we know that he is not the benevolent wizard he appears to be. 9. Suppose Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys because he did not want Harry raised in a loving household, suppose he wanted him raised in a way that would aid in creating the environment necessary for Voldemort to make use of him. 10. At the end of Ootp Harry thinks Dumbledore is weak and can't be trusted, he hates Snape with a passion, he is pushing Ron and Hermione away from him, he has lost Sirius. He is getting darker. It's all very interesting. KJ From animalspussycat at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 19:47:00 2004 From: animalspussycat at yahoo.com (animalspussycat) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:47:00 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114036 Tabekat wrote: > Petunia was an abuser who made Harry pay for real and imaginary > emotional slights inflicted upon her by other people. > > Petunia appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her muggle > world to stay the same. She wants to pretend they are "normal" > forever. ---I would have to agree with you on that. But I think she does have some ties to the magical world somehow. How else could she keep her house that clean! "animalspussycat" From figgys26cats at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 00:50:29 2004 From: figgys26cats at yahoo.com (Kathleen Hunt) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:50:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040928005029.82658.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114037 Tabekat wrote: > Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these > speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. > Petunia appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her > muggle world to stay the same. She wants Dudley to grow up > to be a big Vernon. She wants to pretend they are "normal" > forever. Surely she knows that Voldemort was, and is, a > threat to her world too. I quite agree that Petunia really hates Harry and the whole magical world. My question is why is she so bitter about it? Maybe her parents treated Lily extra special. Petunia doesn't ever speak of her parents. Why? Could Voldemort have kill them too, which she also blames on Harry? I would also love to know what happened to Harry's other grandparents? Why did they pass on? I would love to know what other think. "figgys26cats" From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 03:02:43 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:02:43 -0000 Subject: HP as "fairy-tale," Harry left with the Dursleys (Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114038 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" > wrote: > > 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. > > > Alla: > > Yes, for me Dursleys are way past the point of looking at them as > evil step-parents. > > When did it start, I am not so sure. snip > > It just felt like a rather realistic depiction of abuse, not the > fairy - tale like, when we know that hero is going to get out > eventually anyway. > > Maybe it started even earlier, I am not so sure. > snip And, not to condone in any way the fashion in which the Dursleys treat Harry, but things have marginally improved for him since after PoA. He has his own room now, can leave the house, do his homework in the open, send letters with Hedwig, etc. I'm not saying the Dursleys will ever be a paradise for poor Harry but he's not sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs anymore, and after the scene at the end of Order I'd like to see Aunt Petunia try to feed him through that damn catflap. So yes the Dursleys have treated him...well basically like shit. But as DD said, Harry arrived at school alive and relatively intact, and without the one thing that DD feared the boy would get if he had been raised by a WW family: a humongous bighead. And I get the impression that as the WW situation gets worse, Harry's situation will probably get a little better. I mean, now the whole world knows he was telling the truth about LV, the school will be on his side again, his friends are all still standing with him, there will probably be no draconian new teachers at Hogwarts, and now at least he knows what he's got to do. (Well, that last bit'll be debated by us till the end of time, won't it?) Anyhow, of course Cinderella never had it quite as bad as Harry, but then again I don't see any fairy godmother swooping down to save him, and if that was the end of the last book I doubt I'd be the only one who was a mite ticked. Meri - in her first post in a good bit...hoping it makes sense and is not condoning child abuse! From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Sep 28 03:47:44 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:47:44 -0000 Subject: HP as "fairy-tale," Harry left with the Dursleys (Re: Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" > > So yes the Dursleys have treated him...well basically like shit. But > as DD said, Harry arrived at school alive and relatively intact, and > without the one thing that DD feared the boy would get if he had > been raised by a WW family: a humongous bighead. I rather think everyone makes too much of the whole "Dumbledore fearing Harry would be arrogant" theme. We really only have two references to that, in SS/PS and in OOTP. In PS/SS he is making excuses to McGonagall, evidently not wanting to tell her the truth about why he has to leave Harry at Privet Drive. Now, this begs the enormous question of why he feels he can't be honest with Minerva. The answer is, I suspect, simply one of plotting. JKR doesn't want the readers to know the answer so he can't tell Minerva the truth. In other words, that whole speech is a plot device to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. In any case, since he is admittedly not being fully truthful with Minerva I don't think we should really trust anything he says there. Now, the OOTP situation is much more interesting. "and if you were not a pampered prince, you were as normal a boy as I could ask for under the circumstances." There is a piece of crucial information that JKR does not provide, and it makes all the difference in the world. What tone of voice does Dumbledore use when he says this? If he says it simply and straight out, as if relaying facts, then one would suspect he did have a priority in keeping Harry humble, and one's opinion of Dumbledore plummets through the floor. If he says it sadly and with remorse, it would mean what Alla takes it to mean, i.e. "how I wish you could have been spoiled by your family, as all children deserve to be to an extent, but I take cold comfort in that you at least were as normal as possible." If he says it in a tone of bitterness and mockery, one might take it as a reproach on himself, i.e. "old fool that I am, I meddle with people's lives and look what happens." The last is the interpretation I tend to place on it. All three meanings, and probably more, can be legitimately attributed to Dumbledore's speech. Without knowing the tone in which he says it, we are at a loss at present to know definitively which one is correct, and you have to choose the one you think best fits Dumbledore's character as revealed by JKR's (i.e. "Dumbledore is Goodness") and by his actions in the rest of Canon. On a related note, the last time I looked at JKR's site the question about the meaning of Dumbledore's Howler to Petunia was still leading in the FAQ poll. I think it's curious that JKR hasn't answered yet, and I wonder if that is because that answer might reveal more than she is prepared to talk about right now. Then again, it probably means no such. Dzeytoun From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Sep 28 04:00:46 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:00:46 -0000 Subject: Can't buy esteem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114040 Freud said; > > Molly bought Harry attractive dress robes because she knows he > > has never had anything nice like that before and will not let > > them go to his head. And yes, she knows Harry can afford it. > > Molly is attempting to make up for 11 years of physical and > > emotional neglect. Yb: I agree that Molly is trying to fill the void of Harry not having a mother, but I think that's a strictly subconscious reason. Someone several posts back suggested that she bought his robes specifically so they'd be like his school ones, but so they'd match his eyes. She doesn't know very well what the style is or what Harry looks particularly good in, so she gets ones almost exactly like his everyday ones. > > Molly is a practical witch and she wants all her children to > > focus beyond their external embellishments. Yb: True, but she is doing that because they are forced to focus on things other than external embellishments. If the Weasley's had a bit more money, I'm sure Ron could have new robes and such. Ron has probably gotten the "Clothes don't make the man" speech before, and Molly is probably tired of preaching it after so many children. But Ron is a typical teenager, and that statement is so very NOT true to an adolescent, so it hasn't sunk in that only the materialistic Slytherins (as we've seen; I'm sure there are other students that think as such) really care how his dress robes look. Of course, Padma gives him a slighting once over at the Yule Ball, but she is focusing on the frayed, uneven edges, not the color of the robes or that fact that they're secondhand. > > The twins had the same clothing issues that Ron does, but they > > figured out ingenious ways to get spending money on their own. Right. He could have asked Hermione to help with the "de-lacing," for example. Given that Ron is still in school, I doubt he could make any money to buy robes (and he'd probably have to buy them through mail-oder; not the way to buy clothes if you can help it.) But he could have looked up a de-fringing spell or something. Now Becki; > I am certain that if Molly had the money, Ron would have gotten > new dress robes too. By buying the robes that she did, however, > she made him stand out even more. > I am like a lot of posters and wonder why Molly didn't > do a bit of alteration to at least make Ron's robes a bit more > conservative. > Perhaps she was comparing them to the rest of the crap that > was on the rack at the secondhand shop and figured that they > weren't all that bad. That would be my suppostition, except for a few more notes, again from an earlier post: Harry and Hermione are visiting, as are Bill and Charlie. I am making a guess, but I'll bet Arthur is the kind of guy who invites friends over to the house for dinner without thinking to mention it to Molly. There are 11 people in that house, plus 4 owls (Hermes, Errol, Pig, and Hedwig) and a cat that has probably been causing a small amount of chaos-- as evidenced by him chasing the gnome out of the garden. Molly is the worrying sort, so she wants to take care of almost everything regarding her children: I doubt she's making Bill and Charlie do their own laundry while they're visiting. She won't let Bill's hair alone, and she is very busy trying to convince him to cut it, and that earring is probably driving her nuts. Charlie had a burn he probably came home with, so she's probably been trying to take care of that, even though he can do it himself. She's been under a bit of stress all summer: Gred and Forge are up to new tricks, leaving fake wands lying about and making explosions. She says: "I've had more owls from Hogwarts about them than the rest put together." So she's had to deal with this all summer. The twins baited Harry's cousin, which could easily put them in trouble with the MoM, though Arthur would probably handle it. She's been referree between "Golden Boy" Percy and the rest of the children. I can see him whining to Molly about everyone "walking so loudly" (reminds me of my neighbor down below me.) Now she has to cook for everyone too. With that large family, it may be a "like it or starve" mentality, but I'm sure the kids have been putting in for their favorite foods. She probably has hardly any time to herself with the normal crew around, much less with all the visitors. And now it's time for the World Cup. She gets up at 4 in the morning or earlier to get everyone up and make breakfast. She makes sure all the kids are up and going, have a good breakfast, and then, when they're almost ready to go, she catches the twins in the act again. She gets rid of all their toys, and is a little short with them when they leave. She makes ure everyone has all their things before they go, then lies down for some sleep before she gets Charlie, Percy, and Bill up to do the same thing again. And the best part is: 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. So she runs to Diagon Alley to get books, robes, school supplies that are necessary, socks (you always need socks), and other things. Everyone will need certain tolietries, and she may have even picked up something for Bill and Charlie. Percy may have asked her to pick up a thing or two for him. When she got Ron's robes, she was probably picking from a small selection, for something that didn't look half bad and wouldn't clash with his hair. Ginny and Hermione need *certain* items, being teenage girls. Molly probably has some basic shopping to do as well, groceries and such. When she gets home, she has to sort everything out. She probably puts everything together for Ron and Harry, barely giving the robes a second thought. She is a /very/ busy woman. Then she reads the latest Daily Prophet, and starts to worry nonstop, barely even sleeping, I'm sure. She's worried that Arthur is hurt, that the younger (Ron, Ginny, Hermione, and Harry) kids are injured, that the last thing she may have said to Fred and George is that they didn't get enough OWLS, and who knows what else is going through her mind. Skeeter reported bodies being carried out of the woods. She would be scared to death. When everyone gets home, she can finally breathe a sigh of relief. No one is permanently injured, just tired. Bill had a somewhat serious injury, and she may try to patch that up, but she's glad everyone is in one piece. Things go back to their normally chaotic state, except that now Arthur isn't home to help with sibling squabbles and the like. Molly is still cooking for 11, and now she has to deal with Arthur being late to dinner, so she has to keep it warm for him (a very annoying thing, no matter whose fault), plus her day-to-day business. Now Ron FINALLY gets around to looking at the things Molly picked up for him. HE hasn't even looked at them, probably barely even gave her a "thank you" for getting everything. She comes up with his clean laundry, making sure he's packing up and not goofing off. It's the last possible moment. And Ron goes off on how he doesn't like his new robes. She says it isn't a big deal, that nearly all wizards wear dress robes, and tells Harry to show his. When Ron complains that "His look okay," she gets a little embarrassed, because she really doesn't like the fact that they have to buy secondhand, but that's just the way the cards fall. Instead of asking for help changing them, Ron flat-out refuses to wear them. Never mind that she was rushed to get them, that she had a limited selection, and that she hasn't had a moment to think about them since she put them in the bag. If he wants to be ungrateful, fine. He can wear them like that. Or not at all, fine by her. ~Yb, with a post that has been chugging the Miracle Gro From caesian at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 07:38:26 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:38:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as Borgin's son (was Snape as Borgin) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <620E6378-1121-11D9-9BBE-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114041 On Sep 24, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Gregory Lynn wrote: > I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr > Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. > Caesian snips most of a well-reasoned post: Oh hooray! Someone else finds the similarities between Snape and Mr. Borgin intriguing. I also agree that the manner in which Mr. Borgin is introduced seems a bit too memorable to discount him - particularly the vignette as he drops his oily manner after the Malfoys depart. G.Lynn continues: > And, of course, a shopkeeper who deals in dark arts toys would > reasonably be expected to be in the company of a variety of DEs on > occasion, and would appear (to the DEs) to be in a subservient > position and thus possibly be overlooked.? No better place to hide > than right in plain sight is there? Perhaps. But if Snape is spying - I believe he can do alot better than staking out a storefront in Knockturn Alley. I surmise that Voldemort is no more likely to do his own shopping than I am able to triumph over SearchMort. Let me suggest an alternative explanation for the resemblance - Mr. Borgin is Severus Snape's father (or other close relative). The reasoning behind this is multiple (posts #96654 and 96813). Briefly: No other member of the "Snape" family has been mentioned in the books thus far. His name, Severus Snape - two words that mean to cut off or separate oneself - from his family?.** Young Snape's extensive knowledge of Dark Arts at the tender age of 11 strongly suggests extensive early contact with Dark Arts - as would be likely for a shopkeeper's son in Knockturn Alley. It is also clearly stated that Borgin&Burkes appears to be the largest and oldest of such shops. Snape's subservient attitude towards the Malfoy family utterly flies in the face of his generally prideful manner. It is not merely explained by the (putative) utility of Malfoy as a conduit to Voldemort - as this relationship seems to be long-standing (Sirius taunts Snape about being Lucius's lap-dog). Yet it would be explicable if Snape's family of origin was in a different social and class strata, such as the merchant class.*** I apologize to those who have read this idea from me before - I'm still holding out for Snape the Half-Blood Git! Cheers, Caesian rampant speculation section: ** Perhaps Harry was correct when he assumed that the child who cowered as a hooked-nose man berated a woman was young Snape. A suitable reason to cut familial ties at a young age? Maybe even to have run away, as did Sirius. And to seek refuge with another wizarding family - the Malfoys perhaps? Or perhaps to his (muggle?) mother? *** This may also explain some of Snape's self-discipline and ambition - to rise above his childhood station - and possibly serve as a motive for his original branding with the Dark Mark. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From joseph at kirtland.com Tue Sep 28 03:42:54 2004 From: joseph at kirtland.com (Joe Bento) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:42:54 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: <20040928005029.82658.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathleen Hunt > I quite agree that Petunia really hates Harry and the whole magical world. > My question is why is she so bitter about it? Maybe her parents treated Lily extra special. Petunia doesn't ever speak of her parents. Why? Could Voldemort have kill them too, which she also blames on Harry? I would also love to know what happened to Harry's other grandparents? Why did they pass on? > I would love to know what other think. > > "figgys26cats" I recall reading JKR stating that Petunia is not a Squib, however, did she ever specifically state that Petunia is truly a Muggle and has no magical ability? Joe From caesian at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 08:10:26 2004 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:10:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Keeper of the Keys. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114043 On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > I don't know about you, but after his introduction in PS/SS? I expected > Hagrid to play a more central role in the HP story than he has. Still > time for a stellar appearance and I have a sneaking suspicion... no, > not quite - more a hope that his moment will come. > > I wonder more about his title - Keeper of Keys...? What keys? He has > been seen with exactly one key - the one to the Potter bank vault. > Keys > to the school? Wouldn't Filch have those? Hagrid hardly ever has > reason > to enter the school buildings and I wouldn't expect Filch to allow > Hagrid to keep the keys to his precious domain. Keys to? the school? > gates? Possible. Mind you, Hagrid takes his pride in his official? > title, and if he actually had some keys I'd expect them to be > flourished on a regular basis. > > There are a number of meanings for the word 'key', one of which is:- > ? "a solution or explanation of? what is unknown, mysterious or > obscure". > How appropriate for a tale like Harry Potter. Caesian now: I've often wondered about the Keys as well. "Rubeus Hagrid, Keeper of Key and Grounds at Hogwarts". The Keeper of the Keys is even the name of the chapter in which we first meet him. I'm also not the first to have noticed a strong underground trend in the D?nouement of each book. Literally underground - i.e., Harry goes underground to face the villian in the end. In PS, the challenges are "miles under the school", the CoS is likewise beneath ground, as is the tunnel to the Shreiking Shack. In GoF, Harry enters the figurative land of the dead (which is underground in many myths) - the Graveyard. In OotP, the MoM. There is one (and only one, I think) other prominent Underground local which has been mentioned thus far, and it is strongly associated with Hagrid. Though odd and fantastical, this place has been completely ignored since first mentioned in passing in PS: the underground entrance to Hogwarts from the lake. That little cove in the wall of the cliff with the underground staircase that the first years come to in the boats. Does Hagrid have the Keys to that underground place? (And what happens when Grubbly-Plank stands in?) Will the cove play a role in one of Harry's underground battles? Will Harry someday come to hold the Keys himself? I don't know. Oh well, Caesian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eloiseherisson at aol.com Tue Sep 28 08:19:57 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:19:57 -0000 Subject: ESE!Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114044 SSSusan: > So for HunterGreen, if I've understood correctly, ESE! is a tag we > place on a character to identify that they're part of a conspiracy, > whereas "Evil" is a label reserved for someone whose actions go > beyond a bad choice here or there. > > If I've understood *Pippin* correctly, ESE! is a tag reserved for > those conspiring with Voldy, and "Evil" can describe an action or > behavior appropriately, even if the person himself isn't > overall "Evil." > > Personally, I never thought of ESE! as being equal to "In cahoots > with Voldy." In fact, I just took it as a way to designate that > someone is NOT what he seems...and in such a way that he's much WORSE > than he seems. > > Others have thoughts on "ESE!" and "evil"?? Eloise: I think one of the problems with ESE!Fudge (who was originally my fault, although I'll willingly share the blame with Dicentra ;-) ) is that there are at least three different interpretations of him, all of which ascribe evil to him or link him to evil outcomes in different ways. Using the ESE! epithet for all three of these interpretations is what is causing some of the difficulty here. 1) Dicentra and I originally accused him of being part of a scheme deliberately to frame Sirius, something which came about because of his weakness and ability to be manipulated but which as an *action* was very wrong. *If* this theory were correct, then neither of us ever suggested he was actually a DE or a deliberately active supporter of Voldemort, just that he was egocentric and self-seeking and let his own self interest and advancement overcome any moral qualms (I'm not sure that morality is a very well developod concept in the WW). Having allowed himself to be manipulated by evil (and thus act evilly) once, he has carried on *when necessary to save his own skin*, viz by pursuing Sirius and by allowing the Dementor to soul- suck Barty Jr. so doing or consciously allowing evil when expediant because he is too weak to face the consequences of standing upfor right. 2) Others have argued that he *was* a Voldemort supporter. This interpretation argues that he *is* thoroughly evil. 3) Still others suggest just that he is weak, but that his weakness allows evil to flourish. Some regard this as ESE! some do not. And then we have to decide what we mean by "evil". The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that the ESE! label came about at a time when the list was very...how shall I put it? ...playful and rather silly on occasion. It was the era when TBAY came about, when the list had a much smaller group of posters and shorthands and acronyms and wild and entertaining theories (many of which their originators never believed, but all of which could be interpolated from canon) abounded. At that point I think that ESE! really meant(as SSS suggests) that there was arguably more to this character than met the eye, not that they were necessarily *evil* in a strict moral sense. At least, that was how it was used of Fudge, who was the second ESE! accusation (Bagman was the first). More than that, trying to find canon that could be interpreted to imply that a character was somehow involved with Voldemort was a game. For instance, I once suggested to a friend off-list April Fooling the list by coming up with an argument that a completely trustworthy character was evil (I think I was meaning inventing spurious canon and stuff) and threw out McGonagall's name. My friend immediately came out with some real canon that could be interpreted in that light. I mentioned these off-list to Elkins and ESE! McGonagall was born. None of the three of us ever took the idea seriously, it was just an intellectual game, but the idea was picked up, apparently quite seriously by some. What I am saying is that ESE! has a history and it doesn't necessarily mean that the proponant of a theory that a character is ESE! (particularly the older ESE! theories) would actually use the epithet evil of that person in RL (or necessarily even believe it of the character). Having said that It *has* often been used to mean that someone is a closet DE or LV supporter. Basically it's been used in different ways by different people, but I'd say that the broadest definition is that there's more to the character than meets the eye. Having been thoroughly involved in ESE! accusations in the past, I have to say that I would be very hard pressed to use the word "evil" of *anyone* in RL, although I have no doubt that deeds meriting the name evil are done in this world. I suppose I'd have to agree with Carol that we're abusing the word "evil" in a way, because ESE! (to me) doesn't necessarily mean *evil* in a conventional sense. Of course, others come along and then understandably think it does. ESE! is just a shorthand and originally used of Fudge without this kind of analysis being anticipated (I think I get an inkling of how Jo must feel sometimes). I'd go along with SSSusan and say that ESE! and "evil" are two separate things. The original ESE!Fudge is a bit of both. More to him than meets the eye, some involvement with Voldemort supporters even if he wasn't signed up and some highly morally questionable acts. But in real life, I'd call him weak and a pawn of evil rather than actually evil. I don't think that's my judgement to make. ~Eloise making things clear as mud From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 28 08:55:16 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:55:16 -0400 Subject: Is Crookshanks Mundungus? Message-ID: <001401c4a538$e02c0770$b1c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114045 Deirdre "In Chapter 2 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (American Edition), Mundungus is described as bandy-legged with long ginger hair. Sounds awfully familiar! Can Mundungus be Crookshanks?" DuffyPoo: Nope. Crookshanks is part cat, part kneazle, and not someone in Animagus form, according to JKR. Think about it. Mundungus as Crookshanks in Hermione/Parvati/Lavender's dorm room. However, this doesn't mean that Mundungus isn't an Animagus of some sort, maybe even an orange, bandy-legged cat, but he's not Crookshanks. Becoming an Animagus takes a lot of study and work and I'm not sure Mundungus has it in him. JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 28 09:45:39 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:45:39 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114046 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Kneasy: > > Of course, we're making an assumption - that Voldy's wand is the > same one that he bought as Tom. Probably yes, but is there firm > evidence? > > > Valky: > How about the priori incantatem effect? This wouldn't have happened > if LV wasn't using the "brother" Pheonix feather wand. > No, I was wondering if the Fawkes wand was bought *after* he decided to rename himself Voldy. If that is the case then obviously Ollivander would not need to know that Tom became Voldemort. Maybe Voldy went through the whole make-over deal on declaring himself seriously evil - red eyes, white skin, nose job, snake accessory and a new image-enhancing wand. Making a statement, you might say. Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 10:24:26 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:24:26 -0000 Subject: JKR's tips on Book6 In-Reply-To: <4158CC1A.1010408@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114047 nineve_laguna wrote: > Does anybody have any ideas about JKR tips about clues for book 6? > Clue 1: She mentions we should ask about why Voldemort didn't die > when the AK rebounded and which precautions did he take to prevent > his death. > Clue 2: is why Dumbledore didn't kill Voldy at the MoM, she said that > what Dumbledore said (there are worst things than death) wasn't the > true reason. > Just thought it would be interesting to hear theories about these > clues. KJ Responded: 1. The wording of the prophecy says that either will die *at* the hand of the other not *by* the hand of the other. At hand normally means *near* not *as a result of. Dungrollin: But it doesn't say "either will die *at hand* of the other" it says "Either must die *at the hand* of the other." Which *does* mean "as a result of". KJ: 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. Dungrollin again: I'm not quite sure what you mean here, my reading of the prophecy is that the important word is `survives'. Harry should have died (if we assume that it was an AK that bounced) but he survived. When the curse rebounded, LV should have died, but he also survived. The question is then: how can we say that `neither can live' as both of them currently appear to be very much alive? There must be some other interpretation of the word `live' in the context of the prophecy, other than that with which we are all familiar. KJ: 7. Suppose Snape treats Harry badly because he knows what Dumbledore has planned, believes that it must happen, and can't afford to actually see Harry as a person? Everybody believes that Snape's hatred of James is a pretty weak reason for hating Harry. Dungrollin again: I'm not sure about this It's been gone over so many times that I'm hesitant to say what I think, lest this thread goes the way of so many others (never fails to astonish me how many innocent threads end up rehashing Snape arguments). But No, sorry, I can't help myself (unrepentant Snape fan here) :-). I don't think that Snape's hatred of James is a weak reason for hating Harry. Or rather, I would if it were anyone other than Snape. If it was someone with a character like Lupin's, then yes, I would think there had to be something else behind it, but Snape, frankly (much as I adore him) is an emotional cripple. For those of us with a degree of emotional maturity his reasons for hating Harry seem weak, but this is Snape! He does not have any emotional maturity or self-control. However, I think you may have a point about his refusal to see Harry as an ordinary boy. I suspect that Snape is one of the few that Dumbledore takes fully into his confidence. But it doesn't matter ? even if Snape only knows the bit of the prophecy that Voldemort knows, he has still known, (presumably) since before Harry was born, that Harry is `the *one* with the power to vanquish the dark lord'. It seems fairly obvious that Harry's life is going to be in danger at some point. If Snape was the sort of chap who *could* form normal relationships I'd say you have a point. But he's not. He's either an obsequious creep, or a tyrranical sadist. The only person with whom he appears to have a normal kind of relationship is with Dumbledore, but then Dumbledore knows all his secrets, so he has nothing to hide from him. Knowing also that Harry is James' son, I think Snape's been dreading his arrival at Hogwarts. Then Harry arrives, showing none of the splendiferous talent of his father and mother (except on the quidditch pitch) and looking just like James. I think Snape is somewhat disappointed in Harry ... But this is where I start repeating what other and better posters have said. KJ: 8. It was only mentioned once that Dumbledore killed the other dark wizard (his name escapes me). so we know that he is not the benevolent wizard he appears to be. Dungrollin again: It's on the famous wizard card, and it says "His *defeat* of the dark wizard Grindlewald." Nothing about death or killing. KJ: 9. Suppose Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys because he did not want Harry raised in a loving household, suppose he wanted him raised in a way that would aid in creating the environment necessary for Voldemort to make use of him. Dungrollin again: Again, I'm not entirely sure I've understood what you mean. Are you suggesting DD wanted Harry to live with the Dursleys to make things *easier* for You Know Who? KJ: It's all very interesting. Dungrollin: Amen to that!!! From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 28 10:54:09 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:54:09 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement In-Reply-To: <000a01c4a4e7$fb502230$522f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114048 >Susana wrote: > 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. > > b) He could be acting on account of the magic binding his species: there could be some clause about not being allowed to cause physical harm to wizards. But I'd find it strange, given point 5 below. > > c) He could have punished himself out of ethics. If an elf can judge its master it has a set of values from which he can tell right from wrong. Dobby could have considered he was doing wrong, no matter whose interests were in stake. > > d) Dobby might consider Harry the 'master in his hart' (as oppose to 'official master'). Dobby remembers when 'house elves were treated like animals'. Harry changed that, even if not for Dobby, thus winning Dobby's hart. That is consistent with Dobby going out of his way to 'serve' Harry (warnings, bludgers) and punish himself when he fails. > Hannah now: I really like your analysis Susana, great post! The elves certainly do seem to have a certain degree of autonomy - it proabably varies from elf to elf, as they seem to have distinct personalities. I was interested in your analysis of Dobby ironing his hands. I don't think that b) can apply, because Harry wasn't really harmed by this incident, more inconvenienced (I'm sure if he and Ron had had the sense to owl the school, or just wait a few minutes for the Weasleys, then they could have got to school some other way, such as the knight bus). Dobby's bludger, however, is another matter since this actually breaks Harry's arm, and could have done a lot worse. I don't think c) would work either, since ethically Dobby believes he *is* doing the right thing. I think his belief that protecting Harry Potter is *right*, despite the endoctrination of his species to obey and serve their 'family', is what keeps him going. I think the reason that Dobby irons his hands is a). He ought to act in Malfoy's interest, and also is presumably neglecting his duties at Malfoy Manor in order to be at Kings Cross closing the barrier. He has to punish himself even for agreeing that he hasn't met many decent wizards, for example. I think the fact he *had* to iron his hands is because he acted against his 'family,' meaning he had done wrong, so *had* (by a house elves thinking) to punish himself. Although this was painful, he didn't mind because he thought that Harry was safe - it was worth the self punishment for disobeying his masters because he cared about Harry. I like the thought of Harry being 'master of Dobby's heart.' I suppose he is, in a way. But Dobby doesn't really want *anyone* to be his master. He helps Harry out of love for him and what he stands for as the Boy Who Lived. But he doesn't want even Harry to order him about. If Harry asks him to do something, then he will, in the same way I would do something a friend asked me to. But when Harry orders him to tell him things, give him his letters, etc. Dobby has no problem disobeying, and doesn't punish himself for that. I hope that makes sense! It does in my head, but it's much harder to put into words! Hannah From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 11:28:04 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:28:04 -0000 Subject: (LV's Wand ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > Kneasy: > > > Of course, we're making an assumption - that Voldy's wand is the same one that he bought as Tom. Probably yes, but is there firm evidence? > > > > > > Valky: > > How about the priori incantatem effect? This wouldn't have happened if LV wasn't using the "brother" Pheonix feather wand. > > > Kneasy: > No, I was wondering if the Fawkes wand was bought *after* he decided to rename himself Voldy. > > If that is the case then obviously Ollivander would not need to know that Tom became Voldemort. > > Maybe Voldy went through the whole make-over deal on declaring > himself seriously evil - red eyes, white skin, nose job, snake accessory > and a new image-enhancing wand. Making a statement, you might say. > > Valky: Ahhh and you may be right about that, considering that Tom was an orphan he probably had a borrowed wand as a schoolboy. He likely used the wealth from his fathers (that he killed in little Hangleton) estate to make himself over after he renamed himself. It makes a lot of sense Kneasy I agree. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 28 11:49:25 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:49:25 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040927203417.43464.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114050 > Kelsey wrote: > Snape almost seems to be competing with Harry for heroism and, consequently, Dumbledore's attention. The occlumency lessons are an example, when Snape says that it's not Harry's job to find out what Voldemort is doing, then smiles when Harry says that it's Snape's job. It's almost like sibling rivalry (maybe going back to the James days) when he wants Harry to get into trouble and is angry that Dumbledore lets him get away with everything. > > I love "He is a teacher after all. No one can be a teacher and do the job for as long as he has without truly loving his work and that includes at least being able to tolerate your students, not hate them." I have always thought this about Snape. I think that he really does enjoy his job and his students. In COS, he emotionally grabs the back of a chair when he hears that Ginny Weasley is in danger of being killed. He's always saving Harry's tail, even if he acts like he doesn't want to. Even when he's cruel or mean, he seems to be alerting his students to a greater danger (for instance, assigning the werewolf essay to warn them about Lupin). Snape likes his students, the big softy. Hannah: Hi Kelsey, welcome to the group. I like your description of Snape competing with Harry for DD's attention. I think that is a large part of Snape's problem with Harry: he sees him as a threat. I think that's partly why he attacks Harry in the first lesson in PS/SS; Snape wants to defend himself against the boy that he percieves as a threat to his standing with DD, and he attacks as a means of defence. It isn't rational to do this, but since when has Snape been rational around Harry and his own emotions? Snape has spent the last 16 years (approx) trying to redeem himself to DD, to justify the great man's trust in him (IMO, anyway). I think he would like to be DD's 'right hand man.' He sees Harry as someone who will take DD's attention away from him, perhaps as James did when they were at school. The fact that trouble maker James was head boy, and knew DD very well at school and afterwards suggests he was something of a favourite with the Headmaster; maybe Snape would have liked that status but never got it/ wasn't prepared to share it? I also liked the point that someone made in another thread (can't remember who now) that Snape would have been very angry about Umbridge and her approach to writing lines. I agree with this. I think that while Snape considers it OK for him to be horrible to the students (and maybe he doesn't see it as being that bad), he would not condone another teacher harming them (such as when he stopped Quirrel jinxing Harry's broom and refusing to help Umbridge interrogate Harry). I don't know if Snape enjoys being a teacher or not, I can never make up my mind. But I do think that he has a very strong sense of duty, and that as such he will protect his students, even when, as in Harry's case, he doesn't like them. I always thought that he was given the job post GH (there has been some debate on this) because DD wanted him nearby, perhaps where he could keep an eye on him, or perhaps for Snape's own safety. I always felt that Snape was made a teacher for those reasons, rather than because he wanted to teach. Hannah From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 28 12:15:38 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:15:38 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114051 There is something up with Hermione's memory. I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if there is more to it than that. In OotP Professor Umbridge pp.223 Am pb, Hermione *quotes* DD's end of year speech from GoF and Ron wonders how she is able to do that. She shortly comments that she *listens* and moves on but Ron is still flummexed. This exchange reminds me of any number of comments in PoA when Ron says 'how can you be in two classes at once?!' and she shortly replies 'Oh Ron... of course I'm not' and the like. She just changes the subject and plows on. I definitely think there is something to it but I'm not sure what it would be. Any ideas? If this has been discussed already I'd appreciate any help in finding those posts. Thanks, tina From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 12:17:42 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:17:42 -0000 Subject: Sirius Hestitates WAS (Sirius as Snape's bully was Snape and Harry) In-Reply-To: <20040927211841.38221.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114052 > Feklar wrote: > >> 1981 Pettigrew confrontation--again, he didn't care that there were innocent bystanders. He had to take time to track Peter down, so he wasn't in the "heat of battle" when he found him, he could have followed and waited, but chose to attack without regard to the safety of others. << > > RL answers: > > Are we sure SB attacked first? Strangely enough PP had the time to accuse him of killing J&LP and then blew up a whole street, while SB did nothing. For all we know he just wanted some explanation and PP took advantage of his presence to escape (no, I don't really think that's what happened, I'm just saying it's too early to accuse SB of irresponsibly attacking anyone). < > Kelsey: > On the note of Sirius vs. Peter: Remember that that day was a very emotionally upsetting one. > > In my very over dramatic mind, it was just that Sirius was so emotional that he wasn't even thinking of the people around him or the consequences of his actions. He stuttered for just a moment, hesitated in killing Peter (Peter was his friend for many years), was overcome, and it gave Peter the upper-hand for just a moment. Valky: Romulus, I don't think you need to disclaim your suggestion, I am almost positive that Sirius first instinct was not to kill Peter but to find out from him what was going on but he underestimated Peter drastically. On the day of the attacks Sirius was probably confused about many things not least of all the loyalty of the people he called friend for so many years. Peter was a weakling after all, and Sirius didnt really know the whole story. He may have supposed Peter might have been framed and so hesitated to give his friend a chance to redeem himself of the situation. Sirius probably didn't *know* 100% that Peter was the traitor until Peter turned on Sirius in the alley and started accusing him. Then it would have been too late. Sirius does overestimate his reflex ability as shown in the OOtP fight with Bella, Sirius is quite sure he has it all under control and, well, *plays* with Bella, he deems himself champion enough to give her a *headstart* he probably did the same with Peter. I wonder if it really was *mercy* with either of them. I think at least given the history between them that it might have been with Peter. Plus considering that Bellatrix was *family* it could well have been mercy he was showing there too. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 13:08:21 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia In-Reply-To: <20040928005029.82658.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040928130821.48134.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114053 > Tabekat wrote: > > Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these > speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. > > Petunia appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her > muggle world to stay the same. She wants Dudley to grow up > to be a big Vernon. She wants to pretend they are "normal" > forever. Surely she knows that Voldemort was, and is, a > threat to her world too. Yes, she probably does know that. Petunia doesn't have to like Harry or not resent his presence to fulfill the terms of the magical protection that Lily died to put on him. She does know more than she lets on (or that she wants to know) about the magical world, but I don't think at this point she has any envy of it. After all, magic was responsible for killing her sister in her early 20's; if that's magic, she'll stay proudly muggle, thank you very much. But we can accept all of her flaws as long as we accept that she took Harry in - resentfully, grudgingly, angrily - but she did take him in. And for that she deserves credit. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 13:16:55 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040928131655.84127.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114054 There's a popular Grimm's fairy tale called The Shoemaker and the Elves (see http://www.shoemakerandtheelves.com/en/flash for the text of the story). In it elves cheerfully work for people and are rewarded by being given new clothes. They leave the household but the people are blessed with good fortune, apparently as a result of their kind treatment of the elves. I think this is the basis of the relationship that JKR has in mind for houseelves and wizards. Comparisons to American slavery in the 19th century aren't the best. At some point in the distant past, centuries ago, not-nice wizards abused the rules by making sure that they did not give their elves clothes as rewards and thus tied them to their wizard houses forever. Thus what was a relationship of mutual respect turned into enchanted servitude. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Sep 28 14:05:39 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:05:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002501c4a564$3cb6ebb0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 114055 Tina wrote: There is something up with Hermione's memory. I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if there is more to it than that. In OotP Professor Umbridge pp.223 Am pb, Hermione *quotes* DD's end of year speech from GoF and Ron wonders how she is able to do that. She shortly comments that she *listens* and moves on but Ron is still flummexed. This exchange reminds me of any number of comments in PoA when Ron says 'how can you be in two classes at once?!' and she shortly replies 'Oh Ron... of course I'm not' and the like. She just changes the subject and plows on. I definitely think there is something to it but I'm not sure what it would be. Any ideas? If this has been discussed already I'd appreciate any help in finding those posts. Thanks, tina Sherry now As to Hermione in POA, the time turner explains that. she was going to two classes at once, and as she explains to the boys later, she wasn't allowed to tell them about, promised she wouldn't. As for her memory, it could just be good. I could remember things like that. I have an excellent memory and can remember the comments of people I love or just respect. I think she's smart and she just has a good memory. In fact, it would kind of take away from Hermione, as she's been developed, to have that all be some sort of charm or spell in the end. Sherry email and MSN messenger: sherriola at earthlink.net 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 hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 28 14:05:05 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:05:05 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114056 Tina wrote: > There is something up with Hermione's memory. > I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to > comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if > there is more to it than that. > In OotP Professor Umbridge pp.223 Am pb, Hermione *quotes* DD's end of year speech from GoF and Ron wonders how she is able to do that. > She shortly comments that she *listens* and moves on but Ron is > still flummexed. > This exchange reminds me of any number of comments in PoA when Ron > says 'how can you be in two classes at once?!' and she shortly > replies 'Oh Ron... of course I'm not' and the like. She just > changes the subject and plows on. > I definitely think there is something to it but I'm not sure what it would be. Hannah now: I agree that Hermione has a very good memory, but I think this is just a natural ability of hers, with nothing more complex about it than that. I have a photographic memory and sometimes freak people out by remembering things that they can't believe I would be able to recall. Unfortunately, nothing very interesting is behind this ability, it's just something I can do. I understand Hermione quickly carrying when Ron makes the comment about her memory. I do the same thing myself. It's embarrassing and usually irrelevant to the conversation anyway. Ron may be amazed by her ability, but that's always the case when someone is able to do something much better (or more easily) than you can. My brother is good at art, I am terrible. I just can't comprehend how he can make things look so good, whereas he can't understand how I can be so bad. It's so easy to see conspiracy theories or 'more than meets the eye situations' everywhere in the books (I'm completely guilty). But surely not everything is the result of some larger and more complex future plot line... or is it? Hannah, who regrets that her memory doesn't extend to remembering where she last put down her keys. From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Sep 28 14:43:30 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:43:30 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114057 > Tina wrote: > > There is something up with Hermione's memory. > > I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to > > comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if > > there is more to it than that. > > In OotP Professor Umbridge pp.223 Am pb, Hermione *quotes* DD's > end of year speech from GoF and Ron wonders how she is able to do > that. > > She shortly comments that she *listens* and moves on but Ron is > > still flummexed. > > Hannah now: I agree that Hermione has a very good memory, but I > think this is just a natural ability of hers, with nothing more > complex about it than that. I have a photographic memory and > sometimes freak people out by remembering things that they can't > believe I would be able to recall. Unfortunately, nothing very > interesting is behind this ability, it's just something I can do. > > It's so easy to see conspiracy theories or 'more than meets the eye > situations' everywhere in the books (I'm completely guilty). But > surely not everything is the result of some larger and more complex > future plot line... or is it? > > Hannah, who regrets that her memory doesn't extend to remembering > where she last put down her keys. Tina again: Through my first 5+ readings I thought, just as you do, that she has a very good or possibly photographic memory. As I'm listening to OotP, I heard more to make me wonder about her memory. In OotP Professor Umbridge chapter 12 p229 Am pb, Ron and Harry are goofing around in Binns' boring class and Hermione is irritated that they aren't even trying to listen: "How would it be ... if I refused to lend you my notes this year?" "We'd fail our OWLs, " said Ron. "If you want that on your conscience, Hermione...." "Well, you'd deserve it," she snapped. "You don't even try to listen to him, do you?" "We do try," said Ron. "We just haven't got your brains or your memory or your concentration - you're just cleverer than we are...." This last bit had the desired effect of mollifying Hermione but I can't help but wonder over the *second reference* to her memory in one single chapter. But again, I haven't the foggiest idea of what this *power* might indicate as far as the plot goes... ~tina, who wishes she had a photographic memory when it comes to looking up the page numbers From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 28 14:58:30 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:58:30 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Kate: > > What's more ? Arthur Weasley said to Harry something like > this: > > don't trust anything if you don't know where its heart is. In > other > > words: `don't trust beauty, because instead of its heart you see > its > > face' (yes ? it's farfetched, but seems to be OK for JKR world) > > > Alla: > Besides, I don't remember Arthur ever telling Harry that. Could you > please point me to the page? > > I do remember him telling Ginny though not to trust anything, if she > does not know where this thing keeps its brain. Geoff: I think Kate has had a lapse of memory over this. Your reference is the accurate one: '"His d-diary!" Ginny sobbed. "I've b-been writing in it and he's been w-wrting back all year -" "Ginny" said Mr.Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you /anything/? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself /if you can't see where it keeps its brain/."' (COS "Dobby's reward" p.242 UK edition) Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Sep 28 15:14:51 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:14:51 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: <20040928131655.84127.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > There's a popular Grimm's fairy tale called The Shoemaker and the > Elves (see http://www.shoemakerandtheelves.com/en/flash for the text > of the story). In it elves cheerfully work for people and are > rewarded by being given new clothes. They leave the household but > the people are blessed with good fortune, apparently as a result of > their kind treatment of the elves. > > I think this is the basis of the relationship that JKR has in mind > for houseelves and wizards. Comparisons to American slavery in the > 19th century aren't the best. > > At some point in the distant past, centuries ago, not-nice wizards > abused the rules by making sure that they did not give their elves > clothes as rewards and thus tied them to their wizard houses forever. > Thus what was a relationship of mutual respect turned into enchanted > servitude. You may well be right, certainly it's been confirmed (I think) that House Elves are based on the old Scottish legend of Brownies, who act in much the same way as the shoemakers helpers. What is interesting is the total lack of support that Hermione gets for SPEW - no interest even from DD or Hagrid (who's an old softy where any creature is concerned). The typical stances taken in the frequent debates on site centering on Elf status are based purely on Hermione's perceptions, no-one else's. And she bases all her ideas on the mistreatment of just one - Dobby. From then on she'll hear no contrary argument, even the happy Hogwarts Elves are wrong in her opinion. Does she really think that DD would condone slavery, even if it's comparatively benign? I'll bet my best cauldron that we're missing some very important information about House Elves. I did once suggest that for once Hermione was going to be wrong, but she was going to be wrong in the right way, if you get my meaning - caring about Elves but misunderstanding their true situation. We'll see. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 28 15:19:44 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:19:44 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114060 > Kate: > > > > > What's more ? Arthur Weasley said to Harry something like > > this: > > > don't trust anything if you don't know where its heart is. In > > other > > > words: `don't trust beauty, because instead of its heart you see > > its > > > face' (yes ? it's farfetched, but seems to be OK for JKR world) > snip > Geoff: > I think Kate has had a lapse of memory over this. Your reference > is the accurate one: > > '"His d-diary!" Ginny sobbed. "I've b-been writing in it and he's > been w-wrting back all year -" > "Ginny" said Mr.Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught > you /anything/? What have I always told you? Never trust anything > that can think for itself /if you can't see where it keeps its > brain/."' > Potioncat: Perhaps Kate had combined that quote with this one: In GoF chpt 8. The Veela are fighting with the Leprechauns and change. Faces become "cruel-beaked bird heads, and long, scaly wings were bursting from their shoulders.-- "And *that,* boys," yelled Mr. Weasley..."is why you should never go for looks alone!" From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 15:18:50 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:18:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114061 Tina wrote: There is something up with Hermione's memory. I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if there is more to it than that. In OotP Professor Umbridge pp.223 Am pb, Hermione *quotes* DD's end of year speech from GoF and Ron wonders how she is able to do that. She shortly comments that she *listens* and moves on but Ron is still flummexed. Hannah replied: I agree that Hermione has a very good memory, but I think this is just a natural ability of hers, with nothing more complex about it than that. Tina replied: Through my first 5+ readings I thought, just as you do, that she has a very good or possibly photographic memory. "We do try," said Ron. "We just haven't got your brains or your memory or your concentration - you're just cleverer than we are...." This last bit had the desired effect of mollifying Hermione but I can't help but wonder over the *second reference* to her memory in one single chapter. Now Dungrollin: Being able to remember things like that is a product of concentration and understanding. You have to be listening to be able to remember something in the first place, and if you understand what's being said it's an awful lot easier to remember. The bits from Umbridge's speech that she recites are not really very long, and they *are* the bits that one who was concentrating on the speech and understanding it *would* remember: `How about: "progress for progress's sake must be discouraged"? How about: "pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited"?' That's all. Not a huge feat of memorising. And honestly, those phrases aren't complicated, if Ron was trying, he'd have understood it and remembered it too, but Umbridge is not a very interesting speaker, it was late in the evening and the students just wanted to go to bed after a lovely feast, so only Hermione was concentrating. And I agree with Sherry, who said: "In fact, it would kind of take away from Hermione, as she's been developed, to have that all be some sort of charm or spell in the end." Remember Occam's razor from another thread? Why posit magical complexities where none are necessary? Hermione's a bright girl who listens and learns; I don't see the need for supposing there might be something behind it. Though of course, you have every right to disagree :-). Dungrollin. (Who should still be writing her thesis, and not this) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 16:17:37 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:17:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin's son (was Snape as Borgin) In-Reply-To: <620E6378-1121-11D9-9BBE-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > On Sep 24, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Gregory Lynn wrote: > > Let me suggest an alternative explanation for the resemblance - Mr. Borgin is Severus Snape's father (or other close relative). > Tonks here: Sounds goods. I noticed the hair thing with Mr. Borgin too and thought of Snape. But Borin can't be his father because of the last name. Maybe Mr. Borgin is Snape's grandfather. Snape's mother is Borgin's daughter. She may or may not have married a Muggle. I suspect that she just married a wizard who was poor. Or maybe she was a widow with a young child and lived with her father. (and the pensive scene was of Grandfather, mother and Snape.) Maybe Snape's father was killed by LV and he didn't find out till after he joined the DE himself and that is why he is no longer a DE. Or if his father was a DE and Mr. Borgin did not approve of LV, this would explain the pensive scene too. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 16:29:00 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:29:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin's son In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks here: Or maybe she was a widow with a young child and lived with her father. (and the pensive scene was of Grandfather, mother and Snape.) PS. Maybe the Hand of Glory in Borgin's is Snape's father's hand, because Snape's father was a wizard and a thief and died. Wild idea, I know.. Tonks_op From claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 17:05:35 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:05:35 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114065 Now alot of talk has gone about Snape and his role/past history in the books, so I wanted to bring up Malfoy's role (or possible role). Now I have read alot of fanfiction and alot of different authors have different views, but I have noticed that alot of authors have him as a good guy eventually and this is something that I find a) rather disturbing and b) completeley wrong. (Especially the D/G shippers or worse D/H ships.) What role will he play? 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. A more speculative thought is that there will be a forced confrontation between Harry and Malfoy either at school or before the final showdown (however that does pan out). Possibly even after Harry has defeated Riddle if he does, (I have already mentioned my thoughts on the ending in an aptly named post The End). Anyone care to give their reasons for or against my ideas? ChrisT From karen at dacafe.com Tue Sep 28 17:13:39 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:13:39 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: <20040928130821.48134.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114066 > > Tabekat wrote: > > > > Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these > > speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. > > > > Petunia appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her > > muggle world to stay the same. She wants Dudley to grow up > > to be a big Vernon. She wants to pretend they are "normal" > > forever. Surely she knows that Voldemort was, and is, a > > threat to her world too. > > Magda writes: but I > don't think at this point she has any envy of it. After all, magic > was responsible for killing her sister in her early 20's; if that's > magic, she'll stay proudly muggle, thank you very much. > > But we can accept all of her flaws as long as we accept that she took > Harry in - resentfully, grudgingly, angrily - but she did take him > in. And for that she deserves credit. > kmc adds: I will only give Petunia credit for taking Harry in if at the end of book 7 she gets nothing in return. From JKRs hints, I think Petunia took Harry in for magical powers and a chance to feel superior to Lily. Petunia gets the last word by taken in Harry. It's a look at me, Lily, you died and I was the one who took in your son. If Harry turns out bad, it is because biologically he had "bad blood". If Harry turns out good, it is because Petunia, by her child rearing skills, was able to overcome his "bad blood". I will give Petunia credit for one thing - She gave Harry lots of practice handling criticism and verbal abuse. Great preparation for dealing with a certain Potions Master after that Professor does not spend all his time picking on Harry like Petunia does. He spreads his abuse around to the rest of the Gryffindors. - kmc From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 28 17:07:19 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:07:19 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin's son (was Snape as Borgin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114067 > Tonks here: > > Sounds goods. I noticed the hair thing with Mr. Borgin too and > thought of Snape. But Borin can't be his father because of the last name. Maybe Mr. Borgin is Snape's grandfather. Snape's mother is Borgin's daughter. She may or may not have married a Muggle. I > suspect that she just married a wizard who was poor. Or maybe she > was a widow with a young child and lived with her father. (and the > pensive scene was of Grandfather, mother and Snape.) snip Potioncat: It would fit with the Perseus Evans connection. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) JKR hinted that Snape is not exactly Pureblood, nor is he Muggleborn. It's hard to imagine how a Muggle would end up in Borgin's family. Although a witch trying to break away from that family might fall for a Muggle. Snape being Halfblood might explain part of Lily's reaction in the Pensieve scene after OWLs. But it takes a lot of contriving to make it work. And I can't imagine Malfoy would associate with Snape if he were either Half-blood or Borgin! Wait a minute...how many different Snape origin theories have I combined here? Potioncat who still likes the anagram for Draco Malfoy: Lord of a YMCA. From claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 17:12:57 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:12:57 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: <20040928005029.82658.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > I quite agree that Petunia really hates Harry and the whole magical world. > My question is why is she so bitter about it? Maybe her parents treated Lily extra special. Petunia doesn't ever speak of her parents. In the PS/SS Petunia does mention something about her parents in the lighthouse to Hagrid. She says how they were thrilled to have a witch in the family. This could mean that they showed slight favouritism towards Lily, who I believe to be the youngest and the one that most parents show the most favouritism to in general. Also there are no mention of Harry's grandparents at all. From either side I might add. So what happened to them, I would especially like to know why there is a distinct lack of Evans relatives. ChrisT From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 28 17:45:53 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:45:53 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizarding Universities (Was Re: Reading Hieroglyphics) References: <1096336445.22396.57161.m16@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001201c4a583$010acb80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 114069 Neri wrote: >The reason for the lack of universities might be simply >quantitative: there's just enough wizards in Britain for one big >school. Given that not everybody continues to the university and >that the number of fields and courses in the university needs to be >larger (diversity of knowledge increases with its level) there would >be only one or two students per class. More logical to use the >master/assistant system. We don't of course have a definitive answer on whether Hogwarts educates every wizarding child in the British Isles: one of the problems with it doing so is that the society that JKR describes is just too complex to be possible with that small a number. But assuming that it's so, then the quantitative argument would just move up one level and be "why isn't there a wizarding university at a European level?" Medieval European universities drew their students from many countries. Because the language of teaching was Latin, it didn't really matter where you came from. And of course we know that Wizard Latin is the language of many spells and charms... But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From ryokas at hotmail.com Tue Sep 28 17:59:45 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:59:45 -0000 Subject: Is Crookshanks Mundungus? In-Reply-To: <4158C3EB.2050208@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > Deirdre wrote: > > In Chapter 2 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (American > > Edition), Mundungus is described as bandy-legged with long ginger hair. > > > > Sounds awfully familiar! Can Mundungus be Crookshanks? > > > JKR in an interview said that Crookshanks was not an animagus so it is > not likely. Which doesn't rule out expert-level transfiguration done by a professional, doesn't it? A Chocolate Frog card in the Game Boy Color version of Philosopher's Stone said that one of the wizards featured was famous for having seven sons and turning them all to hedgehogs. Of course I don't for a moment think that this actually holds true, but you're just so /cute/ when you think up stuff like this. As a bonus, once the Hogwarts gang has some experience with transifuring humans we can expect the hallway fights to become much more interesting. - Kizor From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 28 18:08:31 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:08:31 -0000 Subject: Making up our own book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114071 The long wait for Book Six seems to be having an extraordinary effect on posters. An awful lot of recent posts seem to becoming wilder and wilder in speculating not about future story lines but about past ones.There seems to be a great deal on the lines of "Maybe Snape did something awful to Sirius to provoke him" - well beyond canon and unproveable anyway. Sylvia (who has to admit, though, that Tonks' theory that Snape's Dad was the original possessor of the Hand of Glory had her in stitches) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 18:38:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:38:21 -0000 Subject: Making up our own book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: > The long wait for Book Six seems to be having an extraordinary effect > on posters. An awful lot of recent posts seem to becoming wilder and > wilder in speculating not about future story lines but about past > ones.There seems to be a great deal on the lines of "Maybe Snape did > something awful to Sirius to provoke him" - well beyond canon and > unproveable anyway. Alla: Hmmm, true these theories are quite weak now, but since I am one of those posters who is very fond of such theories, I would like to disagree about them being wild and unproveable. Hints are there, we 'll just have to wait for direct evidence. I am pretty confident that next books will provide them. We'll see. From spinelli372003 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 13:29:40 2004 From: spinelli372003 at yahoo.com (spinelli372003) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:29:40 -0000 Subject: Prophecy / Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114073 I have been rereading the first book again. Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone (American edition). In it when Harry is in his first potions class Snape makes a speech: "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death -- if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach." What I am wondering is if Snape has anything to do with the prophecy. Bottle fame? Brew glory? Stopper death? Anyone have any ideas? sherry From red_rider4 at lycos.com Tue Sep 28 17:52:34 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:52:34 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114074 Hi! First time poster, so I'm sorry if this repeats something already discussed. ChrisT wrote: > In the PS/SS Petunia does mention something about her parents in the > lighthouse to Hagrid. > > She says how they were thrilled to have a witch in the family. This > could mean that they showed slight favouritism towards Lily, who I > believe to be the youngest and the one that most parents show the > most favouritism to in general. Hester now: The question to ask is: why would their parents be "thrilled" to have a witch in the family? This statement suggests to me that one or both of Lily and Petunia's parents are a Squib. JKR has stated pointedly that Petunia is not a Squib, but... My thought is that if the parents were Squibs they would, quite naturally, be thrilled that Lily was gifted, and perhaps a bit disappointed in Petunia's utter lack of magical ability. Even trying to treat their children equally, kids do pick up on those attitudes. And of course, Petunia was probably the brunt of many a prank. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 28 19:10:38 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:10:38 -0000 Subject: Making up our own book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114075 Sylvia wrote: > The long wait for Book Six seems to be having an extraordinary effect > on posters. An awful lot of recent posts seem to becoming wilder and > wilder in speculating not about future story lines but about past > ones. There seems to be a great deal on the lines of "Maybe Snape did something awful to Sirius to provoke him" - well beyond canon and unproveable anyway. Hannah now: But surely wild speculation is all part of the fun? Suggesting really out-there theories that could just possibly be true can lead to interesting discussions and new insight into what could really be going on. And lets admit, we've discussed all of the obvious (and less than obvious) things many times. As for speculation about past events, I think the past is vital to the future plot of the series. Events like the prank, although they happened in the past, will be expanded upon in the future and have a bearing on future events. Surely the whole point of a group like this one is to discuss things like 'maybe Snape did something awful to Sirius to provoke him'? I don't see that it's beyond canon, if it's supported by canon evidence (such as Snape's character, the fact Sirius wasn't expelled etc.). And at the end of the day, it's all unproveable until book six, or even seven comes out, or JKR says something unequivocal on the subject. If we stuck to what was proveable, what would we find to discuss? Hannah From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 19:24:18 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:24:18 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114076 ChrisT writes: > > 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. > > A more speculative thought is that there will be a forced > confrontation between Harry and Malfoy either at school or before the > final showdown (however that does pan out). Possibly even after Harry > has defeated Riddle if he does, (I have already mentioned my thoughts > on the ending in an aptly named post The End). > > Anyone care to give their reasons for or against my ideas? Sophierom: I agree that Draco is unlikely to become a "good" guy by the end of the series. As others have pointed out, there is just too little time left in the books to develop a convincing change of heart by Draco. That being said, I'm not so sure about the big showdown. Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if one happened, I suppose, but it seems that Draco is becoming less and less a real foe to Harry as the threat of Voldemort grows. In the early books, especially in CoS when the Trio suspects Draco of being the Heir of Slytherin, he seemed to be a real threat. Also, Harry's adventures in books 1,2, and even most of 3 were dangerous, yes, but not emotionally tramautic. But now, as Harry grows up and he faces serious, emotional issues (death, betrayal, responisbility of saving the wizarding wold, etc.), Draco seems to be more of a stupid school-yard bully with his two stupid sidekicks; he's become a skinnier, magical version of Dudley. From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 28 19:42:28 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:42:28 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > A more speculative thought is that there will be a forced > confrontation between Harry and Malfoy either at school or before the > final showdown (however that does pan out). Possibly even after Harry > has defeated Riddle if he does, (I have already mentioned my thoughts > on the ending in an aptly named post The End). I agree that Draco is most likely setup to be a bad guy. There is plenty of foreshadowing to indicate that some or much of the eventual war will occur within Hogwarts, perhaps leading to and/or after Dumbledore passes away. I think Draco is groomed as the leader of the pro-Voldemort camp inside the school, just as his father had been the leader of the Death Eaters before him (as evidence by his being to the right of Voldemort, and the first one to be chastised in the graveyard scene). However, I think that Harry's role is leading to fight the ultimate bad guy - Voldemort. Overcoming Malfoy and his cronies will fall to Harry's helpers or soldiers. I think the most likely Malfoy opponent is Ron Weasley - Malfoy never misses an opportunity to provoke him and there is a lot of hostility between them, greater even perhaps than between Harry and Draco. Other possible opponents are Hermione - wouldn't it be cool if he is defeated by a "mudblood" - perhaps together with Ron. Neville may be another candidate, but I doubt it. Salit From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 28 19:58:05 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:58:05 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114078 Sophierom: > I agree that Draco is unlikely to become a "good" guy by the end of > the series. As others have pointed out, there is just too little > time left in the books to develop a convincing change of heart by > Draco. > > That being said, I'm not so sure about the big showdown. Oh, I > wouldn't be surprised if one happened, I suppose, but it seems > that Draco is becoming less and less a real foe to Harry as the > threat of Voldemort grows. In the early books, especially in CoS > when the Trio suspects Draco of being the Heir of Slytherin, he > seemed to be a real threat. Also, Harry's adventures in books 1,2, > and even most of 3 were dangerous, yes, but not emotionally > tramautic. > > But now, as Harry grows up and he faces serious, emotional issues > (death, betrayal, responisbility of saving the wizarding wold, > etc.), Draco seems to be more of a stupid school-yard bully with > his two stupid sidekicks; he's become a skinnier, magical version > of Dudley. SSSusan: One of my biggest complaints with the series is the 2-D-ness of Draco [likely explained, as someone noted last week, by our seeing so much of him through Harry's eyes only]. And probably *because* Draco seems just a drawling, sneering smart ass, with little depth, I can't see him having a major change of heart, either. That said, though, I still would not go so far as to say that there isn't enough time for that to happen, should JKR have it planned. She has managed to pull some really whammies so far, even *within* a book, and if she wants Draco to change, I'll bet it would be convincing. On the other point you raise, I would disagree a bit with the assessment that book 3 was more of a dangerous adventure than emotionally traumatic for Harry. PS/SS and CoS, I agree, were more adventure story, but PoA, while also filled with adventure, was, for Harry, filled with emotional jerkings around, with real highs & lows. Consider Harry's emotional outburst with Aunt Marge, culminating in his running away from Privet Drive, then his discovering the news that a mass murderer was on the loose & likely out to kill him, and subsequently learning that that mass murderer had been his own godfather who had essentially killed his parents. Just think of the swings he experienced from wanting to kill Sirius to wanting to live with Sirius to finding out that Sirius is going to be Kissed and that he won't get to live with him after all. I think it was a very emotionally draining year for Harry, with many of his actions dictated by very strong emotions. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 20:30:23 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040928203023.24470.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114079 Kim here, adding to the following thread: > Steve wrote: > Not necessarily. Right before the duel between LV and HP in the graveyard, > LV cast both the imperius curse and the cruciatus curse on HP. But during > the priori incantatem the first spell out was the AK that killed Cedric, > not the imperius curse that should have been first. The only things that > come out are 'people' killed by the AK. Where are those other 2 spells? > Kneasy wrote: > Sorry, you're mistaken. The first replay was screams of pain (Cruciatus - > Harry's, Avery's) then Peter's hand, then Cedric. The wand replays *every* > spell that has an observable physical effect. The Imperio! wouldn't show > because it has no *physical* effect. > > At GH the last spell used (according to the wand and JKR's corrections) > was the AK that killed Lily. And if you accept Harry's 'visions' Voldy was > still laughing after that one. But then something marked Harry, dis-embodied > Voldy and wrecked the house - all physical effects. 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? Kim now: But it was a wand spell that marked Harry, etc. I found this paragraph (Ch. 2, p. 20 of GoF, US Scholastic edition) which retells what happened at GH the night Harry got his scar. It's the narrator speaking, not a character, so one would suppose it's meant to be the correct history of what happened: "Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort--the most powerful Dark Wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years--arrived at his house and killed his father and mother. Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches and wizards in his steady rise to power--and, incredibly, it had not worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded upon Voldemort. Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning-shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to something barely alive. His powers gone, his life almost extinguished, Voldemort had fled..." Looks like Voldemort used a separate AK on Harry after killing James and Lily with AK's, and that that was the last spell (at least the last that's ever been mentioned) used at GH. That single AK gave Harry a scar instead of killing him and also nearly killed Voldemort when it rebounded. In re. another theory somewhere in this thread, if the same AK that killed Lily had then gone through her and somehow scarred Harry too, Harry probably would have witnessed her death, but according to JKR, Harry didn't see either of his parents die. He was in his little cot at the time (and maybe in his own bedroom where Lily might have been heading to protect him from Voldemort but she got zapped by an AK and died instead). That's why Harry couldn't see the thestrals til after he'd witnessed Cedric's death. Here's a thought -- maybe the AK spell that hit Harry and then rebounded onto LV at GH didn't come out of the wand during the GoF Priori Incantatem scene because the two people involved (HP and LV) were standing right there alive dueling with each other. JKR could have included images of baby Harry being scarred and Voldemort losing his body, but she chose not to for some reason. Of course the counter to that idea is that PP was standing right there too and the image of his severed hand came out of the wand. IMO, JKR writes wonderful stories and she's justifiably got a lot of folks hooked. But she isn't always perfect in every detail she writes. Few authors are. So sometimes things don't seem to add up, the above possibly being a case in point. Kim P.S. Another question for another thread? Has anyone found any descriptions of Lord Voldemort's physical appearance/attributes during his reign of terror 15-25 years previously? Was he supposed to have looked the same then as he does after his rebirth in the GoF graveyard scene? I think I read somewhere DD saying that Tom Riddle (young, dark-haired, and handsome) was no longer recognizeable when he returned as LV. Anyway, the reborn LV is no 60+ year old version of the young Tom Riddle. Does his current snakelike appearance have anything to do with the experiments he said kept him from dying from the rebounded AK at GH? --Kim 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. __________________________________________________ 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 claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 21:03:45 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:03:45 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114080 > Hester said: > > The question to ask is: why would their parents be "thrilled" to have > a witch in the family? This statement suggests to me that one or both > of Lily and Petunia's parents are a Squib. Chris' reply: I think this is a great shout. (Wonders how I missed it) My guess (now) is that one of them was a squib, making the possibility that Petunia is Muggle and Lily a witch most likely. It would also make it likely that one of Lily's grandparents was magical (and considering wizarding longevity) should be around now but is not and hence probably killed during the first Voldemort war and their children (Lily & Petunia's parents) killed after Petunia moved in with Dursley and Lily was at Hogwarts. Howzat? ChrisT From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Sep 28 21:55:04 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:55:04 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Sophierom: > > I agree that Draco is unlikely to become a "good" guy by the end of > > the series. As others have pointed out, there is just too little > > time left in the books to develop a convincing change of heart by > > Draco. > SSSusan: > One of my biggest complaints with the series is the 2-D-ness of Draco > [likely explained, as someone noted last week, by our seeing so much > of him through Harry's eyes only]. And probably *because* Draco > seems just a drawling, sneering smart ass, with little depth, I can't > see him having a major change of heart, either. Geoff: I've commented on this before. Because they were longish replies, I won't repost them to save bandwidth but might just direct your attention to them.... The first was message 110442 (Draco's Nature) and the second 110465 (Draco and Lucius) - the latter included a lot of previous material re-quoted to support the point. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 22:07:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:07:38 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abadgerfan2" wrote: > I imagine the group has discussed the various Dept. of Mysteries > rooms seen late in Bk 5. Still, my archives search reveals too > little discussion on the room that intrigues me the most ? the one > with the amphitheatre seating looking down to the stage with the > veil. You know, the veil behind which Harry and Luna hear whispered > voices, and through which Sirius later falls, disappearing. > > What actually happened to his body? The way the book is written, it > seems clear that the body is nowhere to be seen! > > What logical purpose would such a room serve for the MoM? A stage > is for performances, and amphitheatre seating is for an audience > what possible uses have been made of this room, is it a means of > communication between the dead and the living, as we saw from the > workings of the dueling wands of HP and LV in Goblet of Fire? > > If the dead can still be heard of from their paintings, might this > stage be yet another means of communication between the living and > dead? Could this even be some kind of portal that plays a crucial > role later in the series? > > Questions abound. Has anyone uncovered answers, either from other > portions of the books, or from interviews of JKR herself? > > Educate me, oh wise ones! Carol responds: While a number of people on this list think that Harry will go through the veil and return (like Odysseus or Orpheus from Hades), I'm hoping that JKR won't inflict such an often-used device on us. As for the purpose such a room serves for the MoM, clearly it's their means of studying Death, just as other rooms serve to study Time and the Mind and presumably Life, though I don't remember such a room. My hypothesis (there's not enough evidence to justify calling it a theory) is that the MoM is built on the site of an ancient Celtic sacrificial site, which would explain the amphitheater, a portal to the world of the dead where ritual sacrifices and possibly public executions were held in the time of the Druids. The later wizards would have built a chamber around it and brought it other Mysteries to be studied along with Death, and in the twentieth century, when even the WW had become bureaucratized, the headquarters of the MoM were built around and above the older chamber of Mysteries, which then became just one department in the ministry. I think the fact that the entire MoM is underground and the DoM is the lowest floor (the ninth, IIRC) lends some credence to this view. Carol From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 22:20:56 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:20:56 -0000 Subject: Prophecy / Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spinelli372003" wrote: > I have been rereading the first book again. Harry Potter and the > Sorcerers Stone (American edition). In it when Harry is in his first > potions class Snape makes a speech: > > "I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death -- > if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to > teach." > > What I am wondering is if Snape has anything to do with the > prophecy. Bottle fame? Brew glory? Stopper death? Anyone have any > ideas? > > sherry Do you mean did he have any part in storing the prophecy? Because IIRC Dumbledore tells Harry that the DoM is responsible for the labeling and recording of prophecies. And at the time the prophecy was made he still could very well have been working for LV. There has also been speculation about whether or not Snape was the one to overhear the prophecy as well, but canon has not yet proven it. But I am pretty sure that Snape is NOT the one the prophecy is refering to, if that's what you were getting at. Meri - who almost thinks that the night that ST delivered the prophecy is replacing that fatefull evening in GH as the time period that she most wants JKR to explain... From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Sep 28 22:45:49 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:45:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room Message-ID: <20040928.184558.2044.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114084 Carol: > As for the purpose such a room serves for the MoM, clearly it's > their means of studying Death, just as other rooms serve to study Time > and the Mind and presumably Life, though I don't remember such a room. So... if the room is a laboratory -- and not an execution chamber -- it would stand to reason that someone at the MoM is sending things through the veil and then retrieving them for study. Why, yes, I *will* grasp any straw that suggests someone could bring Sirius back, even if it takes some sort of Monkey's Paw zombie situation. I think the fact that the > entire MoM is underground and the DoM is the lowest floor (the > ninth circle of hell. 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 susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Sep 28 23:03:55 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:03:55 +0100 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) References: Message-ID: <001c01c4a5af$7022df90$292f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114085 Sophierom wrote: "I think (and I could be completely wrong) that the treatment of house elves in wizarding society is another of JKR's way of telling us that wizarding society is actually a pretty racist society." "Based on this reading of house elves, I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that SPEW should only focus on teaching wizards to take care of their house elves (hence giving up on the ultimate quest for freedom). While getting wizards to treat their house elves well is a good thought (and perhaps a good short-term aim), it's ultimately a reenforcement of paternalism, which is only a nicer manifestation of racism." ------------------------------ Oh, Sophierom! What a nice challenging debate I'm predicting here. I agree the wizarding society is completely racist... but elves are not another race! They are a different species (as you noticed). And while you made the analogy to human enslavement I can't help make a comparison that will scandalize you and others so much, I'm sure to receive hate mail over this (gee, I hope not)! I should have added this to the "what we don't know" list. 6 - We don't know if elves can live without humans. Actually, if there is a society of elves hidden somewhere in the globe, I will be the first to yell RUBISH to my own theory. I assume there isn't because they are *house* elves. Thus my comparison to a symbiosis - and most symbiosis are not 'equal'. One of the species can live without the other (but lives better with the other) while the other cannot survive on its own. One example: bacteria living in our intestine - experiments with mice suggest we *can* live without them, though with great discomfort, but they can't live without us. But elves are hardly comparable to bacteria. So I'll compare them to something that live in a less strict symbiosis with humans. I'm about to compare elves to... dogs! No, really, I'm not! I want to make this very clear: I will compare some similarities of the dog-human relation with the elf-wizard relation. I am *NOT* saying elves are like dogs in *ANY* way! Having cleared that out, the reason for my comparison is simple: dogs have evolved to serve humans. There are no wild-dogs - wolfs are not dogs. Most dog breeds don't have the ability to form a society without humans - some can't reproduce, some can't hunt, some can't create bounds with other dogs, etc. If you want to free the dogs (send them into the wild) you'd have to rebreed them, i.e. make them evolve back into independence. If this is comparable to elves (we don't know) you'd have to do it over centuries (we don't know how long elves live). If someone asked me to join a Society for Promotion of Dogs Freedom (SPDF) I'd have a reaction very similar to Hagrid's about SPEW: "Free the elves? What a mean thing to do!" (paraphrased from memory) I also chose dogs, not sheep, for another reason. Most dog breeds were developed to have a will to serve humans. Dobermans, for example, go literally insane (and have to be put down) if they don't have a human alfa-leader giving them orders all the time (comparison to Kretcher, any one?). Collies and Labradors are extremely unhappy if they sit around all day with nothing to do. Border Collies (as in "Babe" the movie about a pig who wanted to be a sheep dog) are a good example: if the owner isn't careful, they will work themselves to death - 'tired' just doesn't compute! And this is not a bad thing. If you ever see a sheep dog working all day, you'll be dazzled by its obvious happiness. And another very close similarity is the responsibility a human have towards the dog. Labradors will heat until they're sick. We have the responsibility to stop them - and wizards have the responsibility to stop elves from punishing themselves. Keeping an Irish Setter in an apartment should be a crime - and so should be keeping en elf in an empty house (Kretcher again). And in case someone's about to reply in ALL CAPS: Abandoning a dog *is* a crime (in most countries) - but giving clothes to an elf *is* *not* *comparable* because they *are* *not* *dogs* - I know! But, you see, paternalism is not totally out off place here. If you say elves have human intelligence I agree; But if you say elves have human *capabilities* I'll say I've seen no proof of that in canon (maybe they do, I don't know). ------------------------------ "But I think, if you look at the larger thematic trend of the HP books, house elf enslavement is indeed yet another way of showing that wizarding society has a severe and problematic superiority complex. By keeping house elves enslaved, even if they are treated more kindly, wizards and witches will never come to see these creatures as their equals (read: as creatures who have as much right to control their own magic, their own destiny, as other sentient creatures)." ------------------------------- Er... I'm trying to let this pass... but no, I can't. A superiority complex is when you think your superiority is a flaw. Wizards are plainly arrogant - no complexes about it! As for 'equals'... maybe... er... elves don't want to be equal? Muggle society has an 'equality complex'! You're anthropomorphising elves. I hate to bring dogs back, but... It's like giving a chocolate cake to a dog. You're poisoning him! Dogs are not equipped to process sugar the way we are, and they simply *can't* process chocolate - it's poison to them! Of course, by little steps, you might 'breed' elves into having the capability to decide their own destiny. I'd like that. But first you'd have to educate wizards about elves nature and how to educate elves. We're talking centuries! ------------------------------- "While Susanna argues that the transience of humans at Hogwarts prevents the creation of a true "heart master" bond between elf and human, Hogwarts might provide a much better substitute: a house elf bond." ------------------------------- I just want to point out that Winky - Mr. Crouch-I-hate-Death-Eateres's elf - and Dobby - Mr. Malfoy-I-am-a-vicious-Death-Eater's elf - knew each other. I doubt elves are isolated in the house they serve. ---------------------- "Susanna astutley points out that house elves do have some autonomy, but they have to sneak around and punish themselves to exercise it, and in the end, these little bits of autonomy do not allow Kreacher (or Winky) to determine their course in life. They must react instead of act." ---------------------------- I completely agree! Kretcher and Winky's situation put a weight over my hart. SPEW should definitely pick this up - not to free all elves - to make sure elves are not neglected by wizarding society the way those two were (transition houses for elves?). I'll be very upset with Hermione if she doesn't finely remember to ask the elves what are the main problems they face in life. Unlike dogs, we can ask them! ---------------------------- Thanks, Susanna, for the thought-provoking analysis! ---------------------------- No, no, no! Thank you! :) Susana -- who doesn't mind the extra 'n'. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 23:31:04 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:31:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Survival of AK References: <20040928203023.24470.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000a01c4a5b3$39c6b7b0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 114086 ----- Original Message ----- From: "kim reynolds" > "Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort--the most powerful Dark Wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years--arrived at his house and killed his father and mother. Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches and wizards in his steady rise to power--and, incredibly, it had not worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded upon Voldemort. Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning-shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to something barely alive. His powers gone, his life almost extinguished, Voldemort had fled..." snip > > P.S. Another question for another thread? Has anyone found any descriptions of Lord Voldemort's physical appearance/attributes during his reign of terror 15-25 years previously? Was he supposed to have looked the same then as he does after his rebirth in the GoF graveyard scene? I think I read somewhere DD saying that Tom Riddle (young, dark-haired, and handsome) was no longer recognizeable when he returned as LV. Anyway, the reborn LV is no 60+ year old version of the young Tom Riddle. Does his current snakelike appearance have anything to do with the experiments he said kept him from dying from the rebounded AK at GH? --Kim charme: Someone give this gal several gold stars smack dab on her forehead! Nice work digging that up - however, I'm not sure the paragraph is strictly from the "narrator's" point of view; perhaps it's just a repeat of what everyone and Harry has been told had happened. I've always wondered how the story "got out" if no one else was in attendance to see exactly what transpired. For example, there's a whole site dedicated to urban legends in our reality: stories or legends have a way of taking a life of their own. While some are completely true and some are undeniably false, others have sometimes the barest roots in truth can be corrected. (Can you say Rumor Bin? How interesting...) Something to think about when weighing the "fact" (HP is fiction so I feel funny typing that without quotes) from the "fiction." Lord Voldemort describes having some help from his "dear Nagini" in GoF, I believe. Once can wonder if in fact one of the things that kept him from dying when he was hit with his own rebounded AK is some experimentation with snake venom or blood. Clearly from his own description, Nagini's "help" was critical to his being able to take some sort of physical manifestation prior to his "rebirth" in the graveyard scene. Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is no longer recognizable to others who knew him, I guess the only way we have of knowing TR is LV we see is Tom's diary in CoS. DD does say that Tom travelled extensively after leaving Hogwarts - could he have "switched" with another being? Ugh. So many questions, so little time... charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 23:48:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:48:30 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra and Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114087 Kneasy wrote: > > > AKs though. A few of us on site wonder if Voldy actually cast > an AK at Harry or if it was something else entirely. When you > consider what we've been told, well - it makes you think. > > There is no defence or counter-curse to an AK. Yet Harry was > protected. Carol responds: We're told there's no countercurse. I'm not sure we're told that there's no defense whatever. Can you provide a quote for that? (If not, the possibility still exists that the "ancient magic" *was* a protection against AK. Kneasy wrote: > AKs leave bodies unmarked. Yet Harry has a scar. Carolresponds: But the scar could have been caused by the "ancient magic" forming a lightning-shaped shield the instant the curse struck. (I still say it was a protective charm activated by Lily's death in combination with an AK. JKR has said that the shape of the scar isn't the most important thing about it, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it's shaped like an eihwaz rune and denotes protection.) Kneasy wrote: > AKs are a green flash. Harry remembers one - presumably > the one that killed Lily, because after it he hears a high pitched > laugh - so it wouldn't be the one that 'bounced'; Voldy was > still under the impression he was in charge. But he doesn't > remember a second flash - the one that was supposedly > thrown at him. Carol responds: Can you cite canon showing that the laugh occurs after the flash and isn't simultaneous with it? LV could have laughed as he cast the spell. And why laugh when he killed Lily? She was only in his way, not his main goal. Consider Harry's first memory of the event, while he still thinks it was a car accident: "Sometimes, when he strained his memory during long hours in his cupboard, he came up with a strange vision: a blinding flash of green light and a burning pain in his forehead" (SS Am. ed. 29). The laugh is not mentioned, but the green light and the pain in his forehead are almost simultaneous. The suggestion is certainly that the green light *caused* the pain in the forehead--and by implication, caused or activated the scar. (I know that AK's don't normally produce curse scars, which is why I'm arguing that this scar, as opposed to the burning pain he remembers, was caused by the protective charm.) Kneasy wrote: > If by some miracle and underhand work by JKR an AK had > been thrown at Harry and bounced (leaving an absolutely > unique scar) and hit Voldy, where is Voldy's unmarked body > and why the hell did the house collapse into ruin? Carol responds: This I can't answer unless Voldemort's spirit exploded when it was "ripped from" his body (I'm picturing the fall of Sauron in the prologue to the "Fellowship of the Rings" film, but on a smaller scale). The spell may have come back intensified when it bounced off the newly formed scar and reacted abnormally because Voldemort could not be killed. Somehow some of his powers went into Harry (parseltongue and we don't know what else) and the rest, LV says, were lost--the only power that remained to him at this point was the ability to possess animals. Maybe the lost powers blew up the house? At any rate, the fact that this spell doesn't act like a normal AK could be because both its victims were somehow guarded against it. The problem for me is this: If Voldemort left a body behind, how would anyone, even Dumbledore (or Bellatrix), know he wasn't dead? And if he didn't leave a body, how could Dumbledore prove to Fudge et al. that Voldemort was responsible for the killings (and the failed curse that *didn't* kill Harry)? Kneasy wrote: > So look at it another way, if the spell/curse did not behave > like an AK maybe it wasn't an AK after all. There's only one > person in the books that says it was an AK and that's dear > departed Crouch!Moody. And how would he know? > Ans. He wouldn't. He's making an assumption, at the same > time that he's repeatedly telling us that there is no defending > against an AK. Carol responds: Actually, he tells us there's no countercurse, but he also says that Harry is the one person known to have survived an AK. (Apparently, he's not counting Voldemort, or not letting the kids know what he knows about Voldemort.) And consider that Barty Jr. was sent to Azkaban at nineteen--enough time for a bright, highly motivated little fanatic to master the Cruciatus Curse and the other Unforgiveables, all of which he has no trouble casting in GoF--but not enough time to learn all about their prevention. We're told by JKR that Voldemort cast "the killing curse," and the AK is the only killing curse we know of. Carol From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Sep 29 00:05:45 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:05:45 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114088 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" wrote: > Hello people! You don't make a child you love sleep under the > stairs. You don't ignore their physical, emotional and mental needs > 24/7. Petunia was an abuser who made Harry pay for real and > imaginary emotional slights inflicted upon her by other people. Hickengruendler: I agree with you. I quite like Petunia as a character, but she's a horrible person, who treats her own nephew like dirt. However, that doesn't mean she can't care at least enough for him to want him to survive. > Both Pentunia and Snape seem to enjoy making young Harry, an > innocent, pay for their past. It is sad to see adults growing > older, but never wiser. > > Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these > speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. But what you wrote above is already something that contains a deeper Petunia. Petunia is horrible to Harry, but there are at least reasons given. (Even if Harry is totally innocent). This sort of humanizes Petunia. Many villains or antagonists in the Harry Potter books are two-dimensional. They are (so far) just evil. Petunia however is somewhat explained. Even if we don't agree with her actions, we can at least see where she's coming from, the same is true for Snape. I think that's the reason why many fans think that she isn't all that bad deep-down, because they sympathize with her and can understood her. > > Why would Petunia do this? Not because she cares about Harry, that's > for sure... > > Why can't she throw Harry out? When she picked up the baby was > there some kind of "binding" spell placed on her by the great > D? > > That led me to thinking about what Petunia does care about....Why > would she obey Dumbledore, a wizard of all people....? Petunia > appears to have one true goal in life. She wants her muggle world to > stay the same. She wants Dudley to grow up to be a big Vernon. > She wants to pretend they are "normal" forever. Surely she knows > that Voldemort was, and is, a threat to her world too. > > It is just a guess but I think "remember the last" refers to the > last stand with Voldemort...perhaps the magic that protects Harry > protects Petunia too. I think there's a hole in your theory. If I understand it correctly, the spell only works as long as Harry is in the house. Meaning that Petunia could be attacked the other 11 months in which Harry is normally either at the Weasleys or in Hogwarts. Even if we can argue, that the house itself is safe and that Petunia is safe as long as she's in the house, that wouldn't protect her, for example, if she's shopping or going for a walk. It certainly didn't protect Dudley from the Dementors. And it doesn't protect Dudley while he's in Smeltings. No matter what her reason for taking Harry in is, it certainly makes her a likely target of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, since she's the one who protects him. She would have been safer if she never took him in. She puts her own life and that of her family in danger to keep Harry safe. Besides, during the march chat JK Rowling was asked, who her least favourite character was. The answer was Uncle Vernon, not "The Dursleys" or even "Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia" but Uncle Vernon. That means, that she seems to put Petunia above him (admittingly, that doesn't have to mean much, since she also seems to put Umbridge or Lucius Malfoy above Uncle Vernon, still it is something). From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Tue Sep 28 21:35:35 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:35:35 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia Message-ID: <007601c4a5a3$1a5e3390$ea8dd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114089 ChrisT wrote: > [Petunia] says how they were thrilled to have a witch in the family. This > could mean that they showed slight favouritism towards Lily, who I > believe to be the youngest and the one that most parents show the > most favouritism to in general. As the youngest in my own house I feel forced to say that parents don't exactly "show the most favoritism" to younger siblings. What usually happens is that they have more experience dealing with kids after the first one(s). The older kid too, usually feel like the younger one is his/her responsability, and shows indignance when his/her parents try to treat him/her as a kid as well, when deep down they want to be patted in the head as well, if you get what I mean. I'll use my own experience to illustrate my point: My sister was very overprotective of me, and defended me from the bullies at school (I was the typical bully magnet). At the same time, if I ever happened to receive more praise or attention than she did, she'd act nonchalant but be snappish at me later. We've never been the kind to have "sibling fights", but still I think she used to resent me, sometimes. She also gave me suggestions or even ordered me around in the matters in which she considered herself superior to me. I think it only stopped when we started showing our professional inclinations - they were just to different to be compared (physics and arts), so we didn't have much reasons to be jealous of the other. She LIKED physics, I LIKED arts, and we'd never butt in the other's subject. I feel that what went between Petunia and Lily (if Petunia WAS the older sibling) is that, when Lily received her letter, it took her away from under Petunia's wings. Lily wouldn't depend on Petunia anymore, and she'd be able to do things Petunia wouldn't be able to do. And unlike my sister, who's happy enough being able to barely draw charts, Petunia really was interested in Lily's subject, and it unfortunately was beyond the greatest of her efforts to learn. If Petunia learned physics, Lily could learn it as well; but Petunia would never learn magic. At first, her pride as older sibling was destroyed, and with time her curiousity and impotency started to gnaw painfully on her. Lily had what was an inhuman power in Petunia's eyes; the latter's mind probably came up with a thousand ways Lily could control her instead of her controling the younger one. (Note: older siblings do like to control the younger ones. Sometimes they don't see it, sometimes they think it's for the best, sometimes they're just bad siblings. >.>) She probably feared and envyed(sp?) the power she thought Lily had, and grew bitter and wary of her and other wizards because of it. If she was the younger sibling, she was probably very excited with the prospect of receiving a Hogwarts letter as well, and was beyond disappointed when it didn't. She was fated to a boring world, where she'd be nothing more than a face in the crowd, and, in her bitterness, she decided to embrace it with all her being out of sheer spite. We can add fear of her now more powerful older sibling, and the results would be similar. That was my take on the subject. Sorry for the long email. Elanor Pam, newbie, brazilian, 18 years old, capricornian, likes manga, books and metal. Studies japanese, piano and arts. "Believing in people can save them" - Oboe, Violinist of Hameln, Vol. 16, Chapter 1 -- http://elanor-pam.deviantart.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 00:18:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:18:58 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114090 Hannah wrote: The diary is actually a pretty good idea. He was > Slytherin's last remaining heir. He had probably decided he wasn't > likely to have children - and even if he did, they may be suspected > if they were to open the chamber. Instead, he creates a way that he > can use another child, at some point in the future, to open the > chamber, without that child having to have any contact with adult > LV. > > It's an insurance policy - if anything should happen to him (which > of course it does) the diary exists as a means to carry on his work, > and even to allow him to live again. For someone obsessed with > immortality, it's a logical step. If things go wrong in the future, > he's got another chance. > >> > Lucius can't have had it for the entire 50 years. In OoP (or is it > GoF?) a newspaper article gives his age as 41. He might be fibbing > a bit, but I doubt he's much older than 45. Even if he's old enough > to have been alive when Riddle made the diary, he would only have > been a baby/ small child, and not to be entrusted with it. Could > Riddle have given it to Lucius' father? > > I have often wondered if Lucius wrote in the diary, and how much he > knew about it. I always thought that cagey old Lucius would have > been very wary of writing in the diary - I don't imagine he would > want to be possessed by Tom Riddle. But he must have had some idea > of what it was capable of, presumably from being told by LV or > whoever had the diary before him, or perhaps by written instructions > kept with the diary? Carol responds: I agree that the diary was a brilliant idea, both as a means of reopening the chamber since Tom himself could not have come back to do it and as a means of preserving his own memory just in case his search for immortality failed. You're right, of course, that Lucius could not have had the diary all those years considering that he wasn't even born till about 1954, but it could easily have belonged to his father. Tom Riddle is about twenty-seven years older than Lucius, so Lucius's father could well have been one of the few close friends who knew that Tom was starting to call himself Lord Voldemort. Tom had no home after he left Hogwarts--at seventeen he was too old to go back to the hated orphanage and he obviously had not inherited the Riddle mansion from the father he murdered (the police didn't believe Frank Bryce's story of a teenage boy sneaking around; if they'd known of Tom's existence, they'd have sought him out as the obvious suspect). With neither the house nor the orphanage accessible to him, Tom had no place to store his old school possessions (other than his wand, which he kept), so it's plausible that he placed the diary and whatever else Tom no longer had an immediate use for in Malfoy's (future) father's keeping, and they came to Lucius on his father's death. (I think we'd know about the older Malfoy if he were still alive.) I like your idea that Tom wrote down some instructions for using the diary, which Lucius would have read carefully before passing it on to Ginny. And if Lucius knew about Quirrell!mort, he'd know that Voldemort was out there trying to come back, and he might well think it was the perfect time to bring him back in whatever way he could and receive some reward for his faithful service (with some side benefits as well). I realize that Voldemort seems not to know about the events of CoS when he relates the story of his comeback in the graveyard scene in GoF, but as I said in another post, there's no way Lucius could have informed him before that point even if he wanted to--and since the attempt failed spectacularly, he probably didn't want to. Carol From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 21:40:47 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Petunia, well-adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: <20040928130821.48134.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040928214047.74209.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114091 > Tabekat wrote: > Petunia does NOT love Harry, never did love Harry, and these speculations of a "deeper" Petunia are truly absurd. << >>Magda wrote: >> Petunia doesn't have to like Harry or not resent his presence to fulfill the terms of the magical protection that Lily died to put on him. But we can accept all of her flaws as long as we accept that she took Harry in - resentfully, grudgingly, angrily - but she did take him in. And for that she deserves credit.<< Kim here. Hope it's OK if I join in the discussion. 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. Maybe my perspective (being Muggle myself) is too limited, but someone, one assumes Petunia, would have had to feed baby Harry, bathe him, change his nappies, hold him when he cried, and show a certain amount of kindness or Harry would have ended up a total emotional cripple by the time he was 11, wouldn't he, instead of the spunky little guy he turned out to be. Maybe Petunia loves Harry even while she hates him, if that makes any sense (which it probably doesn't...). Or maybe being the boy who lived and the beloved son of Lily and James for that one year of his life (not to mention loved by Hagrid, McGonagall, and Dumbledore for a short time after L and J died) was enough to counteract Petunia and her family's abuse. Or maybe the Dursleys only became really cruel to Harry once he got old enough to talk and think for himself and started having magical reactions to things (like growing his hair back, etc.). Enough maybes already... ;-) Kim From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 23:40:21 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: <20040928131655.84127.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040928234021.79659.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114092 Magda Grantwich wrote: >> There's a popular Grimm's fairy tale called The Shoemaker and the Elves (see http://www.shoemakerandtheelves.com/en/flash for the text of the story). In it elves cheerfully work for people and are rewarded by being given new clothes. They leave the household but the people are blessed with good fortune, apparently as a result of their kind treatment of the elves. I think this is the basis of the relationship that JKR has in mind for house elves and wizards. Comparisons to American slavery in the 19th century aren't the best. At some point in the distant past, centuries ago, not-nice wizards abused the rules by making sure that they did not give their elves clothes as rewards and thus tied them to their wizard houses forever. Thus what was a relationship of mutual respect turned into enchanted servitude. << Kelsey: OOOO!!! I never thought about that. That fairy tale puts a completely different spin on my whole perception of the house-elf issue. Thank you, Magda. I studied this folktale in a college course about a year ago. It's sort of an odd folk tale that goes against the normal formula. Usually, the hero earns the debt of a magical creature through a good deed, or the magical creature has an ulterior motive in helping the hero (fairy-folk mischievousness). In the "Elves and the Shoemaker" tale, the elves are more of "fairy godmother" character that helps the poor, deserving, and hard working shoemaker. While the elves ask nothing in return, they work to make the shoemaker into a rich businessman. Maybe the elves of the Potterverse did the same for the Blacks, Crouches, and Malfoys. This might explain why some wizarding families don't have house-elves (they don't need or deserve them, or better yet, they freed them). But in the folk tale, the kind shoemaker and his wife give the elves clothes in gratitude. Against the usual folk-tale formula, the shoemaker and his wife receive no reward for their good deed. Besides whatever the shoemaker and his wife "take in hand prosper" [Grimm's fairy tales,] they get no real reward. In fact, they still have to work for their money. They don't get a palace or a kingdom or stacks of gold. It's as if the elves' job is to just help the person get back on their feet. I heartily agree with your idea that, in the wizarding world, it must mean that these rich families never did the right thing by freeing and rewarding the elves. This probably did something to the elves and their loyalties, maybe perverting their abilities and loyalties. Maybe it made them lazy, or angry, or psychologically unfit. Regardless, most elves no longer want to be free. If we follow the logical folk tale conclusion, the punishment--for not doing the right thing (releasing the elves) and living off their toil--is on the horizon. Already, the Black family (which has died out) paid the price for their obsessively loyal house-elf. The Crouch family paid by also dying out (or dementing out). The Malfoys paid by losing their elf and their plan (whatever it was) in COS failed. The one thing I still can't quite figure out is the motivation of the elves in the folk tale vs. that of the Potterverse. Both seem like slaves unwilling to do the work (or, in the very least, treated unjustly), but the elves in the folk tale want to be free, whereas the elves in Potterworld don't. Kelsey, who is splashing in glorious folk tale-themed literary paradise. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 29 00:38:43 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 00:38:43 -0000 Subject: JKR and a clever allusion In-Reply-To: <20040925130708.11364.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > --- beatnik24601 wrote: > > > Recently, while re-reading CoS for the umpteenth time, I discoverd > > something new, an allusion I'd never noticed before, that I thought > > > > I'd share with all you wonderful people. > > Yes, indeed a good point. I've always felt that way about Jane > Austen. > > Magda Pat: That's really cute. I hadn't made that connection. What it made me think of when I read it was the way I keep re-reading all the HP books. I strongly suspect that JKR has put some sort of spell on them so I can't put them down--at least not for long. Oh, well, maybe not--it's probably just that I love her style of writing and love trying to figure out all the details. Pat From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 01:02:18 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:02:18 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hester_griffith" wrote: > Hester now: > > The question to ask is: why would their parents be "thrilled" to have a witch in the family? This statement suggests to me that one or both of Lily and Petunia's parents are a Squib. JKR has stated pointedly that Petunia is not a Squib, (snip) Tonks here: I think that is someone is a Squib they are still part of the wizard pure blood line. Since Harry is a half blood, his mother's parents would have to be Muggles. If one were a Squib that would not make them both Muggles. So I don't think that either of them could be a Squib. As I said before and will say again.. I think that Petunia is a person born with the gift to be a witch, but CHOSE not to use it. She chose to live as a Muggle. Tonks-op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 01:16:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:16:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114095 > kmc adds: > > I will only give Petunia credit for taking Harry in if at the end of > book 7 she gets nothing in return. From JKRs hints, I think Petunia > took Harry in for magical powers and a chance to feel superior to > Lily. Alla: Yes, I agree. If indeed we will learn that Petunia took Harry ONLY because of the goodness of her heart (and by that I don't mean much - only that deep inside she did not want her nephew to die), I will give her credit. If though her taking Harry in was the result of some kind of bargain with Dumbledore (Boy, do I want to know what "remember my last" means), she does not get a credit from me. I think though that it is possible for Petunia to be redeemed in the future books. I am not quite sure yet, but I do want Harry to have at least one living relative with the shred of decency left. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 01:25:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:25:30 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114096 Ravenclaw Bookworm wrote: > > Canon against Crouch Junior being the third missing DE: > If Junior was the `most faithful servant' would he have > shrieked during his trial: "I didn't, I swear it Father, > don't send me back to the dementors - " and "Mother, stop > him, Mother, I didn't do it, it wasn't me!" [GoF, Ch30] > > This doesn't sound very faithful. Bellatrix was standing right > next to him, so it is probable she reported it to Voldemort. Fudge, > OTOH, was very quick to have him `kissed' so that he > couldn't tell anything more. Was it so he couldn't name > Fudge? Or so that no one would realize that he [Junior] *wasn't* > guilty of earlier crimes? > > "`The Lestranges should stand here,' said Voldemort quietly. > `But they are entombed in Azkaban. They were faithful. They went > to Azkaban rather than denounce me....When Azkaban is broken open, > the Lestranges will be honored beyond their dreams.'" [GoF, Ch33] > > The Lestranges were `faithful' and didn't renounce > Voldemort. It doesn't make sense that Junior would also be > described as `the faithful servant' even though he calls > himself that. [GoF, Ch35] Carol responded: Other posters have given reasons for Crouch!Moody being the faithful servant at Hogwarts, so I'll only respond to the part about young Barty being a DE. First, Barty in the Pensieve scene is a nineteen-year-old boy being guarded by Dementors, fiends that he knows can suck his soul away (a premonition?). He's terrified and hysterical. Second, like most DEs, he's probably a former Slytherin, and Slytherins, we're told, will use any means to achieve their ends. Barty's "end," or objective, in this instance is to be free, to avoid Azkaban and the Dementors at any cost. So he combines his very real terror with a lie, a desperate attempt to get his father to believe him. Bellatrix, notice, *wants* credit for her evil deed. If Barty hadn't helped her to do it, I think she'd have spoken then and there: "Get this coward boy out of here. Rodolphus and Rabastan and I Crucio'd the Longbottoms. He had nothing to do with it." But she says nothing of the kind. In fact, she sets an example of unwavering fanatical loyalty to her master that he later follows. Also, despite having spent a year dying in Azkaban and another twelve years under the Imperius Curse, conditions under which he could not have learned any new spells (or developed any new loyalties), Crouch, when he recovers his own personality, is a fanatically devoted follower whose first act after stealing Harry's wand is to cast a Morsmordre (Dark Mark), a spell only a Death Eater would know how to do. He also has no problem casting any of the Unforgiveable Curses in GoF, using all three on the spiders, Imperioing his own students and Krum, and AKing his father, an act of murder that parallels Tom Riddle's. Yet these curses are not only illegal but immoral ("unforgiveable") in themselves because they take away another's life or self-determination. As far as we know, only an evil person like Crouch Jr. or Wormtail or Bellatrix can cast them correctly. (Even Crouch Sr. is corrupted by them, using evil means to attempt the destruction of evil and so becoming arguably evil himself.) Crouch Jr. also passionately hates Death Eaters who walked free (e.g., Snape and Karkaroff)--by implication because he was a Death Eater who did *not* walk free. His being a Death Eater before Azkaban is confirmed by his own account under veritaserum, where he states that he had to be controlled by his father after his recovery from his near-fatal illness: "My father had to use a number of spells to subdue me. When I had recovered my strength, I thought only of finding my master. . . of *returning to his service*" (GoF Am. ed. 684-85, my emphasis). So is his hatred of Death Eaters who walked free: "We heard the Death Eaters [at the QWC]. The ones who had never been to Azkaban. The ones who had never suffered for my master. They had turned their backs on him. They were not enslaved, as I was. They were free to seek him, but they did not. . . . I was angry. I wanted to attack them for their disloyalty to my master. . . . I wanted to show those Death Eaters what loyalty to my master meant, and to punish them for their lack of it. I used the stolen wand to cast the Dark Mark into the sky" (686-87). Pretty conclusive evidence, I'd say, that Barty Jr. was as loyal a Death Eater as Bellatrix Lestrange and had been since before his arrest. Yes, he should have had a trial (minus Dementors) in which he could plead his innocence if he dared to do so in front of Bellatrix, but I suspect that a fair trial would have found him just as guilty as his older companions. In the face of the Dementors, cowardice overcame fanaticism, but once he's away from the Dementors, fanatical loyalty to Voldemort is his defining trait. If Luna is the antithesis of Hermione, the boy in the Pensieve is the antithesis of Regulus Black. Carol, who wonders if the Dementor who sucked his soul somehow recognized him and realized that he and his fellow guards had been deceived From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Sep 29 01:49:06 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:06 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114097 Tina wrote in #114051: > There is something up with Hermione's memory. > I've generally considered her very intelligent and > able to comprehend and retain what she has read but > now I'm wondering if there is more to it than that. > [Discussion of Hr's quotation in OP from DD's speech > at the GF end-of-year feast.] And, in #114057, noted the second reference to Hr's memory in an exchange with Ron in History of Magic class, in the same chapter. Dungrollin replied in #114061: > Being able to remember things like that is a product > of concentration and understanding. You have to be > listening ... and if you understand what's being said > it's an awful lot easier to remember. > > The bits from Umbridge's speech that she recites are > not really very long, and they *are* the bits that one > who was concentrating on the speech ... *would* remember: > ... "progress for progress's sake must be discouraged" ... > "pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be > prohibited"?' .... > > And honestly, those phrases aren't complicated, if Ron > was trying, he'd have understood it and remembered it > too, but Umbridge is not a very interesting speaker .... Most of the things Hermione remembers are perfectly natural for someone with a retentive memory and an appreciation for rhetoric. The line of Dumbledore's (that LV's "gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust.") that Hermione recalls is memorable not only for the insight about Voldemort, but also for the crisp antithesis (discord/enmity -- friendship/trust) and the more subtle extended chiasmus. As for Umbridge's lines, "progress for progress's sake" is memorable largely for the attitude it expresses, though also coupled with a rhetorical repetition of the term "progress" from the preceding sentence ("...without progress there will be stagnation and decay"). But "pruning practices that should be prohibited" is such self-conscious alliteration that it could not possibly be forgotten (much like her earlier "tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering"). I would wager that Hermione's vivid recollection for such turns of phrase is intended as another of her autobiographical attributes -- a reflection of Rowling's own self-image -- rather than as a talent of magical proportions. -- Matt From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 02:15:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:15:24 -0000 Subject: Why didn't C!M apparate? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! > > M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > > several times if LV was really back. > > > Even if BC Jr. had the Dark Mark, surely the real Alastor Moody did > not - so wouldn't Crouch's Dark Mark disappear once he was Polyjuiced > into Moody? > > - CMC Also the Dark Marks were coming back "stronger and clearer than ever" (Snape's words in the Pensieve scene, GoF Am. ed. 598) considerably before Voldemort had his body back (which doesn't occur until June 24, the date of the Third Task). Karkaroff shows Snape his Dark Mark in March (GoF Am. ed. 519; the month is given on 510). Snape probably reported the incident to Dumbledore that very night, though Harry doesn't see him in the Pensieve until some time later. The date is unspecified, but it's still (apparently) several weeks before the Third Task. Carol, who think that Barty Jr. must turn back into himself every night while he sleeps and therefore would be aware of what was happening with the Dark Marks From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 02:15:24 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:15:24 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040928203023.24470.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: > Kim here, adding to the following thread: > > > Steve wrote: > > Not necessarily. Right before the duel between LV and HP in the graveyard, > > LV cast both the imperius curse and the cruciatus curse on HP. But during > > the priori incantatem the first spell out was the AK that killed Cedric, > > not the imperius curse that should have been first. The only things that > > come out are 'people' killed by the AK. Where are those other 2 spells? > > > Kneasy wrote: > > Sorry, you're mistaken. The first replay was screams of pain (Cruciatus - > > Harry's, Avery's) then Peter's hand, then Cedric. The wand replays *every* > > spell that has an observable physical effect. The Imperio! wouldn't show > > because it has no *physical* effect. > > > > At GH the last spell used (according to the wand and JKR's corrections) > > was the AK that killed Lily. And if you accept Harry's 'visions' Voldy was > > still laughing after that one. But then something marked Harry, dis-embodied > > Voldy and wrecked the house - all physical effects. 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? > > > Kim now: > > But it was a wand spell that marked Harry, etc. I found this paragraph (Ch. 2, p. 20 of GoF, US Scholastic edition) which retells what happened at GH the night Harry got his scar. It's the narrator speaking, not a character, so one would suppose it's meant to be the correct history of what happened: > > "Harry had been a year old the night that Voldemort--the most powerful Dark Wizard for a century, a wizard who had been gaining power steadily for eleven years--arrived at his house and killed his father and mother. Voldemort had then turned his wand on Harry; he had performed the curse that had disposed of many full-grown witches and wizards in his steady rise to power--and, incredibly, it had not worked. Instead of killing the small boy, the curse had rebounded upon Voldemort. Harry had survived with nothing but a lightning- shaped cut on his forehead, and Voldemort had been reduced to something barely alive. His powers gone, his life almost extinguished, Voldemort had fled..." > Mac: I'd spotted this too on a recent re-read but taken it that the 'narrator' is only telling us the story so far from Harry's (reader's) point of view, so may not be 'correct' or, at least 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. > (Kim) Looks like Voldemort used a separate AK on Harry after killing James and Lily with AK's, and that that was the last spell (at least the last that's ever been mentioned) used at GH. That single AK gave Harry a scar instead of killing him and also nearly killed Voldemort when it rebounded. Mac again: - and also blew up GH, but not Lily or James' bodies (an 'early version' mentioned at JKR's site suggests destruction of Gh but not of L&J's bodies and I don't think that has altered). I think that both the books and JKR in interviews has repeated that there was a last spell (after Lily's death), WITH a wand and just one spell. It seems REALLY unlikely that a different wand was used, though it can't be ruled out (Sherlock Holmes theory), and there is a strong suggestion it wasn't wandless magic, even though I think there have been posts (and I'm moving towards being persuaded) that Harry is that rarest of wizards for whom his wandless magic is actually more powerful than that with a wand (has anyone considered btw that while the wand chose Harry in SS/PS, it actually is inhibitory?). We have many examples of wandless magic (most potions - Snape's first speech - no foolish wand waving), occlumency/legilimency, divination and broom-riding/snitch catching. >(Kim)In re. another theory somewhere in this thread, if the same AK that killed Lily had then gone through her and somehow scarred Harry too, Harry probably would have witnessed her death, but according to JKR, Harry didn't see either of his parents die. He was in his little cot at the time (and maybe in his own bedroom where Lily might have been heading to protect him from Voldemort but she got zapped by an AK and died instead). That's why Harry couldn't see the thestrals til after he'd witnessed Cedric's death. Mac: I'm not quite persuaded of this view either (i.e. Lily died during the final spell), though your last point I've always felt weak when others mentioned it. In general, the idea that Harry has some subconcious recall of events at GH (aged only 15 months) seems rather preposterous for muggle babies, though yes maybe wizard babies are 'special' (e.g. Ginny who one migh argue wans't even a twinkle in Arthur's eye when Bill first started Hogwart's but has been 'looking forward to coming to Hogwart's ever since he came'). > > (Kim)Here's a thought -- maybe the AK spell that hit Harry and then rebounded onto LV at GH didn't come out of the wand during the GoF Priori Incantatem scene because the two people involved (HP and LV) were standing right there alive dueling with each other. Mac: This is a really interesting view I hadn't thought of and maybe gets her out of what would otherwise be a Flint (mistake) in a segment that she'd already made a Flint in (Lily/james emergence order problem). > (Kim)JKR could have included images of baby Harry being scarred and Voldemort losing his body, but she chose not to for some reason. Mac: I suspect the reason is that the details of the events at GH are crucial and, if revealed in sufficient detail, would give the whole game (or too much of it) away to the really thoughtful/perceptive. There HAVE to be reasons why JKR hides the details, who was present, what Lily's job was, any sign of a blood relative other than Petunia and so on - she's pretty well admitted as much. > (Kim)Of course the counter to that idea is that PP was standing right there too and the image of his severed hand came out of the wand. Mac: hmmmmm and the theory was going so well too ... > > (Kim)IMO, JKR writes wonderful stories and she's justifiably got a lot of folks hooked. But she isn't always perfect in every detail she writes. Few authors are. So sometimes things don't seem to add up, the above possibly being a case in point. Mac: JKR isn't perfect? Well, she'll do. As you say, millions love her stories and it's just WAY too much presure to expect that she ever could be (perfect). 99.9% is not so bad. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 02:27:10 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:27:10 +0000 Subject: Polyjuice potions don't work while you're asleep Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114100 Carol pointed out: >Carol, who think that Barty Jr. must turn back into himself every >night while he sleeps and therefore would be aware of what was >happening with the Dark Marks I've been wondering about that for ages! The Polyjuice Potion has to be readministered every single hour. So there *had* to be times when Crouch Jr. was in his own form -- while he was asleep. Snape says at some point that "Peeves can't get into my office." I would suggest that the teachers' offices were impenetrable to ghosts in general, or one of them might have drifted through one night while Crouch Jr. was asleep and noticed that All Was Not As It Seemed. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:03:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:03:47 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan, previously > >> NO, Voldy isn't aware, I don't think. In fact, I keep trying to > use this "Voldy didn't ask about/Lucius didn't offer up info about > the diary" scene as evidence that Lucius was attempting to use the > diary to advance his own agenda, *not* to bring Voldy back. I'm not > sure anyone's listening, but that's what I've been trying to say for > months.<< > > Carol: > > I agree that LV doesn't know about the attempt, but that doesn't > > mean that Lucius wasn't trying to bring him back. (Otherwise, how > > can we explain Dobby's concern for Harry and Harry only since Harry > > isn't a Muggleborn? > > > SSSusan: > Good question. I'm not sure! If we'd had the dueling > club/parseltongue scene in SS/PS rather than CoS, I think I could > make an argument for thinking Harry would be blamed, but.... One > point, though, is that while he is not Muggleborn, Harry is also NOT > a pureblood, and so might be targeted. Or perhaps the goal WAS to > kill some "mudbloods," get DD ousted, and THEN attack Harry, and > that's what Dobby knew? > > > Carol: > > If Lucius tried to bring Voldemort back via diary!Tom and failed > > spectacularly, why would he tell Voldemort? And in any case, he > > hadn't had a chance to communicate with him and didn't know he was > > restored to his physical form until he was summoned to the > > graveyard. > > SSSusan: > The fact that Lucius HADN'T talked to Voldy 'til the graveyard is a > big part of my argument. It would have been Lucius's first > opportunity to protest about how much he'd done on Voldy's > behalf...but he doesn't. And I'm also not sure that the failure > was "spectacular." The plan actually came amazingly close to > success: DD was out of the way; McGonagall was ready to close the > school; people were blaming Harry; Ginny was almost dead and Diary! > Tom was almost "real." I'd call it a near-miss, not a spectacular > failure. (Of course, *any* failure by a DE is likely > considered "spectacular" to Voldy--look at him blaming Bella for the > broken prophecy orb.) > > > Carol: > > I'm not saying that you're wrong, SSS, only that I don't think we > > can rule out the restoration of Voldemort as a possible Malfoy > > motive based on LV's not knowing about it in GoF. > > > SSSusan: > And I agree with you that we can't rule out the motive of restoring > Voldy. *But* "LV's not knowing about it in GoF" really *isn't* my > argument. It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that Lucius doesn't > use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. "But, Master! Let me > tell you how hard I worked 2 years ago to bring you back!" Nope. He > doesn't breath a word. It *could* be because he knows the attempt > was a failure. *I* think it's simply more likely that it's because > his goal wasn't to bring Voldy back. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol again: But how *could* Lucius tell Voldemort about the diary plot? Before it happens, Voldy is in the back of Quirrell's head and Lucius probably doesn't know about it until after the fact (if then--see the posts in this thread about his motives for planting the diary on planting the diary). Then we have CoS, in which the diary plot is coming to fruition--and ends with the destruction of Diary!Tom. Why didn't Lucius tell Voldy about it then (aside from the plan having failed)? Presumably because Voldy was Vapormort again and remained in that form until the end of GoF. Even though by March or so of the year of the Tri-Wizard Tournament, Lucius may have guessed that Voldemort was coming back because his Dark Mark was growing more vivid just as Snape's and Karkaroff's did, and he may even have heard rumors that Voldemort was in Albania, but how was he going to find him? True, Quirrell and Wormtail both found him, but there are significant differences between their circumstances and Lucius's. Quirrell, who wasn't even a Death Eater, wasn't looking specifically for Voldemort (whom he probably thought dead). He was just trying, as far as we know, to gain Defense Against the Dark Arts experience by encountering vampires and hags and other Dark creatures. At any rate, it appears from Voldemort's story in the graveyard scene that *he* found Quirrell, not the other way around. And Peter Pettigrew (who certainly had a stronger motive than Lucius to attempt the search for his old master) had a great advantage over Lucius--he could turn into a rat and inquire of other small animals whether they had seen or heard of an evil spirit that possessed creatures little creatures. He heard what he wanted to hear, followed the rumors, and found Voldemort. Lucius, on the other hand, simply had no opportunity before the graveyard scene, when Voldemort finally took shape, to contact him. Not being an animagus like Peter, he couldn't go after him even if he wanted to-and he probably *didn't* want to. And even after Voldemort returned to England and was staying, in his horrible infant shape, at the Riddle House, he and Wormtail weren't in communication with any other DEs until they "rescued" Barty Jr. and put his father under the Imperius Curse, after which Barty Jr. and Wormtail kidnapped Alastor Moody and Barty Jr. took Moody's place at Hogwarts. I know of no evidence that Malfoy or any other DEs were aware of this plot. They were all invited to the graveyard to see the restored Voldemort-- almost as much a shock to them as to Harry (except that they didn't have to participate in the horrible ritual that restored him). When in this sequence of events could Malfoy have contacted Vapormort or Babymort and told him about the diary incident? Or is there some opportunity for contact between Malfoy and Voldemort that I'm overlooking here? It seems clear to me that the graveyard marks their first contact in the nearly fourrteen years since Godric's Hollow. Carol From ryokas at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:13:19 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:13:19 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice potions don't work while you're asleep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114102 > Janet: > I've been wondering about that for ages! The Polyjuice Potion has to be > readministered every single hour. So there *had* to be times when Crouch > Jr. was in his own form -- while he was asleep. > > Snape says at some point that "Peeves can't get into my office." I would > suggest that the teachers' offices were impenetrable to ghosts in general, > or one of them might have drifted through one night while Crouch Jr. was > asleep and noticed that All Was Not As It Seemed. If Peeves can't get into Snape's office, then it stands to reason that there are ways of keeping those of the spectral persuasion out. Crouch!Moody, impersonating an impressively paranoid person, could easily deploy the lot with minimal eyebrow-raising, and safeguard his sleeping space against everyone else as well as he's at it. - Kizor From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:28:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:28:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Pippin: > > > > Again? Oh dear . There's certainly plenty of ammunition for > > those who want to believe that Snape is up to no good and that > > Dumbledore deliberately makes himself unavailable just when > > Harry needs him most. > > > Alla: > > I was not even saying that Snape is up to no good, although who > knows. :) > > I was only arguing that he , IMO, should not be REWARDED in any way > for MOM disaster, because he did not do what he was supposed to do > from the very beginning of the events and therefore does not deserve > the credit of "saving Harry's life", that's all. > > I can give him some credit for his other actions, but really, Snape's > saving Harry's life in MOM? > > As I said, I think Harry's friends saved each other and then Harry > saved himself at the end. Carol responds: Hi, Alla. You've been referring to a post of Neri's on this topic that I must have missed. Can you by any chance provide me with the message number? Now, forgive me for being repetitive because you've apparently been over this ground, but I missed it, so let me just say that I don't understand why you're saying that Snape didn't do what he was supposed to do. First, he understands the message from Harry that Sirius is in trouble but he can't communicate that openly to Harry. He makes sure that Crabbe or Goyle (I don't remember which) stops suffocating Neville. Then he apparently contacts Dumbledore; somehow finds out where Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge have gone and follows them into the forest; somehow finds out that Harry has left the forest and deduces that he's gone to the MoM; contacts Dumbledore again; then contacts the Order, telling Sirius to wait for Dumbledore, who is on his way. If not for Snape, neither the Order nor Dumbldore would have gone to save the kids. What didn't he do that he should have done? Sorry to be dense (and for having to skip some posts!). Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 03:29:03 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:29:03 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114104 SSSusan: >> The fact that Lucius HADN'T talked to Voldy 'til the graveyard is a big part of my argument. It would have been Lucius's first opportunity to protest about how much he'd done on Voldy's behalf...but he doesn't. And I'm also not sure that the failure was "spectacular." The plan actually came amazingly close to success: DD was out of the way; McGonagall was ready to close the school; people were blaming Harry; Ginny was almost dead and Diary! Tom was almost "real." I'd call it a near-miss, not a spectacular failure. (Of course, *any* failure by a DE is likely considered "spectacular" to Voldy--look at him blaming Bella for the broken prophecy orb.) It's not that Voldy doesn't KNOW; it's that Lucius doesn't use that first chance to MAKE SURE he knows. "But, Master! Let me tell you how hard I worked 2 years ago to bring you back!" Nope. He doesn't breath a word. It *could* be because he knows the attempt was a failure. *I* think it's simply more likely that it's because his goal wasn't to bring Voldy back.<< Carol again: > But how *could* Lucius tell Voldemort about the diary plot? Before > it happens, Voldy is in the back of Quirrell's head and Lucius > probably doesn't know about it until after the fact. Then we have > CoS, in which the diary plot is coming to fruition--and ends with > the destruction of Diary!Tom. > > Why didn't Lucius tell Voldy about it then (aside from the plan > having failed)? Presumably because Voldy was Vapormort again and > remained in that form until the end of GoF. Even though by March > or so of the year of the Tri-Wizard Tournament, Lucius may have > guessed that Voldemort was coming back because his Dark Mark was > growing more vivid just as Snape's and Karkaroff's did, and he may > even have heard rumors that Voldemort was in Albania, but how was > he going to find him? > > Lucius, on the other hand, simply had no opportunity before the > graveyard scene, when Voldemort finally took shape, to contact him. SSSusan: 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. Siriusly Snapey Susan From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:31:36 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:31:36 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice potions don't work while you're asleep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114105 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > Carol pointed out: > > >Carol, who think that Barty Jr. must turn back into himself every > >night while he sleeps and therefore would be aware of what was > >happening with the Dark Marks > > I've been wondering about that for ages! The Polyjuice Potion has to be > readministered every single hour. So there *had* to be times when Crouch > Jr. was in his own form -- while he was asleep. > > Snape says at some point that "Peeves can't get into my office." I would > suggest that the teachers' offices were impenetrable to ghosts in general, > or one of them might have drifted through one night while Crouch Jr. was > asleep and noticed that All Was Not As It Seemed. > > > Janet Anderson Don't forget that he kept foeglasses, a sneakoscope and no doubt much else to warn him of 'enemy' approaches. Besides that, when Harry saw the name Barty Crouch on the maruader's map he reached entirely the wrong conclusion. Peeves might simply think Moody had some strange young man in his office (bedroom, wherever - teachers don't sleep in their offices one assumes though I suspect we'll never find out where they DO sleep - or IF they do). I find it odd btw that Barty's mum died while under polyjuice's effects and never transformed back (it seems). More significant though, there's an alternative reason why Barty Crouch Jr might not see his dark mark returning (see next post). > > _________________________________________________________________ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to > get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:31:52 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:31:52 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr and the DE's mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > Unless he was ordered to stay put at Hogwart's by LV*, why didn't C! > M apparate to join his master? How come he didn't 'know' from his > left arm dark mark that LV had been re-embodied? he asks Harry > several times if LV was really back. > The recent posts by Carol (114098) and Janet (114100) about Crouch's dark mark reappearing when the polyjuice potion wore off during sleep suggested another interpretation to me that better fits the canon: Maybe he doesn't HAVE the dark mark. It's always bugged me that we don't know exactly when Bellatrix, hubby and Barty tortured the Longbottoms. It was sufficiently long after GH (demise of LV) to be shocking, but months or a few years? Does canon say how old Neville was? At 19 Barty Jr is just out of Hogwarts when originally involved. He may have admired LV from afar (anything to spite his uptight, unloving and obsessed father) and so made an ideal new recruit for the few remaining loyal DE's (all the others having been killed, incarcerated or gone into denial/protestations of innocence). Indeed, BCJr's adulation seems SO OTT it might be that he admires an image more than having actually met LV (who might be scarier than imagined!) - can't recall what canon says anywhere else, but I've just read veritaserum (the confession) again and it doesn't contain anything that would gainsay the idea of Crouch never having actually met Voldie physically before. Anyways the point is that either LV wasn't around to give BCJr the mark or never got round to it with what was a relatively fresh recruit before being taken out at GH. Thus BCJr didn't ever have, and may not even know about, the mark. This, if true, would certainly eliminate him as someone all the other DE's were used to seing stand in Voldie's 'inner circle'. From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:37:11 2004 From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (Rachel) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:37:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114107 Chris replied to Hester's idea of one of Lily's parents being a squib thusly: > > I think this is a great shout. (Wonders how I missed it) My guess > (now) is that one of them was a squib, making the possibility that > Petunia is Muggle and Lily a witch most likely. It would also make it > likely that one of Lily's grandparents was magical (and considering > wizarding longevity) should be around now but is not and hence > probably killed during the first Voldemort war and their children > (Lily & Petunia's parents) killed after Petunia moved in with Dursley > and Lily was at Hogwarts. > > Howzat? > > ChrisT Rachel says: Well, it *does* add up logically, but emotionally, it just doesn't. To me, one of the greatest powers of the HRH Trio is the idea that you have all "angles" of the wizarding world represented. You have pure-blood Ron, Muggle-born Hermione, and the Half-Blood Harry. When you see the success of their exploits and the strength they derrive from standing together, you can see the strength the rest of the wizarding world is depriving themself of by so pig-headedly segregating themselves. I guess to make Lily of some magical lineage just sort of kicks the half-blood leg out of the triangle. Rachel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:42:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:42:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Hi, Alla. You've been referring to a post of Neri's on this topic that > I must have missed. Can you by any chance provide me with the message > number? Alla: Hi, Carol. The post is 108146. Neri analyses the timeline and shows that Snape carelessly delayed contacting the Order that night. And I want to stress again, that Snape "INTENDED to search the forest" We have no idea whether he actually went there. Regardless, even if he did all what he was supposed to do, as Hanna said , he was doing his duty as the ONLY Order member onH ogwarts premises that night. And he did that only after significant time delay. I was actually primarily responding to your point that Harry owes Snape his life after that night and was strongly disagreeing with that. Snape may have contributed to helping children win that fight UNDIRECTLY, but Harry does not OWE him anything, especially since IMO Snape was the one who contributed to putting Harry in danger in the first place (occlumency failure). And, of course, Harry saved himself at the end, NOT Snape and not even Dumbledore. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:45:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:45:18 -0000 Subject: Nott, Sr.'s age (Was: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114109 > Potioncat: > I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva > McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I know > in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet one could > be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't think 70 or so > is elderly in the WW. Carol responds: I think seventy is elderly if you're Harry! Also, Nott is Cruciod'd by Voldemort at least once. If it's happened to him before, that could well have aged him before his time, as the four simultaneous stunning spells seem to have aged McGonagall before hers. (We'll see if she's still leaning on a cane in H-BP.) At any rate, I think it's very likely that Nott is one of the first-generation DEs, possibly a few years older than Voldemort (who'll be about seventy in the next book, though reborn in the form he had at fifty-five). As I said in another post, Malfoy's father may also have been a first-generation DE, in keeping with the family's pureblood pride, but he seems to be dead, and Lucius has taken over his role as patriarch. Pure speculation of course, but where are all the people of Tom Riddle's generation, other than Neville's gran and Uncle Algie? Maybe Karkaroff is one, but shouldn't there be more DEs in their sixties and seventies, the leaders of VW1? Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:46:23 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:46:23 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114110 Carol: First, Barty in the Pensieve scene is a nineteen-year-old boy being guarded by Dementors, fiends that he knows can suck his soul away (a premonition?). He's terrified and hysterical. Second, like most DEs, he's probably a former Slytherin, and Slytherins, we're told, will use any means to achieve their ends. Barty's "end," or objective, in this instance is to be free, to avoid Azkaban and the Dementors at any cost. So he combines his very real terror with a lie, a desperate attempt to get his father to believe him. Bookworm: This is exactly what makes me question him being the "most faithful". Lying to save his own skin (soul?) is understandable but doesn't show much fidelity to his master. IMO, Bella is the one who should get that description. Ravenclaw Bookworm From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 29 03:48:02 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:48:02 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice potions don't work while you're asleep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114111 Janet A.: > I've been wondering about that for ages! The Polyjuice Potion has to be > readministered every single hour. So there *had* to be times when Crouch > Jr. was in his own form -- while he was asleep. > > Snape says at some point that "Peeves can't get into my office." I would > suggest that the teachers' offices were impenetrable to ghosts in general, > or one of them might have drifted through one night while Crouch Jr. was > asleep and noticed that All Was Not As It Seemed. Jen: I'm not convinced magical people need that much sleep to survive. Snape is constantly wandering the halls and Dumbledore is out a fair amount himself (when he's not up talking to the portraits). McGonagall seems to be on-call for Gryffindor emergencies, which happen frequently enough to suspect she's a light sleeper at best. Maybe Barty Jr. just woke himself up every hour to take his Polyjuice? Or he slept in the trunk with the real Moody! With his history, no one would think twice about him sleeping in a locked truck. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 03:54:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:54:22 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Potioncat: > > I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva > > McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I know > > in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet one > could > > be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't think 70 or > so > > is elderly in the WW. > > > Alla: > > Me neither actually. After JKR mentioned that wizards life span is > much longer than us, muggles, I never consider McGonagall to be an > elderly woman. Middle-aged, maybe, but definitely not elderly. I > always consider her 70 to be like our 40s maybe. > > Come to think about it, Sirius and Snape are so VERY YOUNG under our > standards. Maybe that is why they still did not get rid of their > childish behaviour? :) Carol adds: Yes. Notice that JKR keeps referring to Lupin, who is the same age as Snape and Black, as "young" or "quite young." And yet their coming of age is at seventeen, which makes no sense under the circumstances. It ought to be thirty-three like hobbits (which corresponds to one and a half times twenty-one; their lifespan is about two/thirds that of Muggles. Er, Men. Er, humans.) Carol, who wouldn't mind a wizard's lifespan as long as it came with a princely income--no teaching adolescents when I'm seventy, thank you! From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 03:59:26 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:59:26 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114113 SSSusan: *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. Bookworm: Could it be that he knew/suspected that Voldemort would ridicule his failed attempt ("You let a half-breed 12-year-old defeat you??"). Malfoy is too proud to risk that kind of scene. He probably waited until a quieter moment between the two of them to mention it. Better yet, he got Crabbe or Goyle to sing his praises - when there weren't other DEs around to try to take advantage of his potential fall from grace. Ravenclaw Bookworm From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 29 04:09:16 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:09:16 -0000 Subject: Nott, Sr.'s age (Was: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114114 Carol: > As I said in another post, Malfoy's father may also have been a > first-generation DE, in keeping with the family's pureblood pride, but > he seems to be dead, and Lucius has taken over his role as patriarch. > Pure speculation of course, but where are all the people of Tom > Riddle's generation, other than Neville's gran and Uncle Algie? Maybe > Karkaroff is one, but shouldn't there be more DEs in their sixties and > seventies, the leaders of VW1? Jen: I was just wondering that! Where are all of Riddle's school chums, the ones he was friends with when he started using the name Voldemort? Surely a few from that group went on to become his first inner circle of supporters. Aha! Maybe that was the problem--Riddle was betrayed by old friends who knew that Voldemort was really Riddle, a half-blood with a Muggle father. Riddle may have ended up AK'ing some of his old friends in the beginning when they threatened to blow his cover. Then he would recruit from a younger group of people who knew nothing of his past. I hope someone mysterious from the past turns up to give us backstory on Riddle at Hogwarts, and the transformations he went through to become Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 05:29:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:29:21 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" (Was: James and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114115 I (Carol) wrote: > > As I keep on saying (but nobody seems to hear me), a lap dog is a> small pet. , the lap dog comment probably refers to the earlier period--a little boy of about eleven who hangs around a much older boy of sixteen or seventeen who treats him as a prodigy and a pet. > > > Valky responded: > Carol you must not have any close British descent because that is > the purely American definition. > In British english the word Lapdog also applies to a person and with > quite different meaning. > Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: > Definition > lapdog (PERSON) > noun [C] DISAPPROVING > someone who is willing to do anything that a more important person > tells them to do: Carol replies: Youch! That does mess up my theory to some degree. It also increases the nastiness of Sirius's comment about tenfold. (I still think, though, that he must be referring to the time when he, Severus and Lucius Malfoy were in school together, so the age difference still holds.) And for the record, my ancestors were almost all originally British--one came on the "Mayflower," one came to Massachusetts only to be hanged as a witch in 1692, and one chopped off the head of Charles I before fleeing to America. (Of course there were other more recent immigrants, all from England or Ireland, but I don't know anything about them. I'm at least a fifth-generation American all around--which evidently does present unexpected difficulties of interpretation for the HP books, even though I have a PhD in nineteenth-century British literature!) Valky wrote: > and while I am at it I think its about time I let you all in on the > British meaning of snivel. Since so many american versions have been > quoted to contradict me when I argue that the derogatory term of > snivel in the language I, *and JKR* was raised into, *British > English*, is used to deride someone on their weakness and not > necessarily sensitivity. > Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: > snivel > verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- > to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make other people > feel sympathy for you: > He's sitting in his bedroom snivelling because he was told off for > not doing his homework. > > snivelling, US USUALLY sniveling > adjective OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL > used to describe someone whom you do not like because they are weak > and unpleasant: > That snivelling creep/coward! Carol again: I've never heard any American use "snivelling" in any sense. We might use "sniffling" to mean that a kid needs to blow his nose but, well, there's no way to say what he's doing instead without being disgusting. And we might use it to mean "whimpering," which is more or less the same as your "snivelling." So the young Sirius was calling the young Severus a crybaby? (Needless to say, the name no longer applies--if it ever did. Just another instance of Sirius's failure to grow up.) I bookmarked the "Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary" at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ even though it's for ESL/EFL students and I assure you, English is my native tongue. Too bad it's the American variety! Carol P.S. Does anyone else know of any other good sites that we Americans can use to translate Briticisms into Americanisms? I had some slang sites bookmarked at one time but lost them. Thanks, C. From sad1199 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 06:29:28 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:29:28 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114116 sad1199 here: On a reread of GoF I am at the part where Harry falls into Dumbledore's pensieve. He sees Dumbledore looking much like he does now but Karkaroff and the Crouches looking younger. My thinking is this the more powerful a wizard you are the longer you live. Not because you can do spells or charms on yourself but because your ability makes you stronger. The more abilities you have the stronger your physical attributes are and the longer you live. Dumbledore is the oldest wizard alive that we know of, his friend and previous partner lived to be about 620(?)and he used the stone to achieve this. But we don't hear of any other o-o-o-old wizards just, by Muggle standards, mainly middle aged wizards. Does anyone else think this? Like maybe being a very powerful wizard or witch slows down your aging process? "When an old man dies a library burns to the ground." (unknown (to me)) sad1199 From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 00:04:31 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929000431.41657.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114117 Carol: While a number of people on this list think that Harry will go through the veil and return (like Odysseus or Orpheus from Hades), I'm hoping that JKR won't inflict such an often-used device on us. Kelsey: Interesting points. But I have to disagree with the decent into the underworld. First, I don't think that Harry's descent into the literal underworld/Hades/Death would be an "often-used device". For mythology, a resounding yes. But for more modern literature, I'm not so quick to agree. Second, JKR "inflicted" the often-used device of the prophesy on us. I love these books as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that when I read the end of OOP and discovered that the answer to the BIG question (Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry?) was because of a prophesy--I groaned. I felt it was a bit of a cop out. I can now accept it because it's part of that classical, mythological formula/theme/tradition, which I love. And when JKR uses these traditional themes and formulas, she puts a spin on them. Look at her version of the labyrinth (solving the puzzle didn't solve the problem), and even the prophesy is different (it doesn't say who will win the conflict). I cannot even imagine how she would do the decent into the underworld. Considering Voldemort's obsession with avoiding death, I think it might be significant. Because JKR treats death differently than most paralleled writer/storytellers (in that people don't come back in her world like they do in Tolkien's or Homer's), who knows how she'll do it. On the point of the room itself and the veil, because so little of it is explained in OOP, I wonder if it was a teaser or an introduction because of its future importance. I'm really sorry if this has been argued to death or if I'm going off the point. Kelsey --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Sep 29 03:58:05 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:58:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia References: Message-ID: <003d01c4a5d8$88a12e40$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114118 >>Rachel says: Well, it *does* add up logically, but emotionally, it just doesn't. To me, one of the greatest powers of the HRH Trio is the idea that you have all "angles" of the wizarding world represented. You have pure-blood Ron, Muggle-born Hermione, and the Half-Blood Harry. When you see the success of their exploits and the strength they derrive from standing together, you can see the strength the rest of the wizarding world is depriving themself of by so pig-headedly segregating themselves. I guess to make Lily of some magical lineage just sort of kicks the half-blood leg out of the triangle. Rachel >> Kethryn - Funny this should be brought up just as I finish the Mirror of Erised scene in The Sorcerer's Stone. Now, I might be going out on a limb here but would Harry see in the mirror the muggles in the family? He doesn't see the Dursleys (not that I can blame him but they are family) but he sees at least ten others, all of whom are apparently related to him. One of them is apparently his grandfather plus Lily and James. Does he only see the dead members of the family...or just the magic users of the family? There at least ten so that could be Lily, James, James' father ("he looked as though he had Harry's knobby knees"), a couple of Lily's relatives (the green eyes are a dead giveaway there), and the one's with Harry's nose are possibly the rest of James' relatives (p. 209). Theories abounding but, if the mirror shows Harry's true heart's desire, is it as simple as wanting to see his family (if so why were the Dursley's left out) or did he just want to see the magic users or did he just want to see the ones he would never get to meet (presumably because they are dead). That's something to ponder, at any rate. Kethryn who has a headache from thinking about the dratted mirror. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 29 08:51:32 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:51:32 -0400 Subject: Petunia Message-ID: <001c01c4a601$854905f0$8fc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114119 "Chris replied to Hester's idea of one of Lily's parents being a squib thusly:" DuffyPoo: Sorry, I missed the original posting of this but hasn't JKR cleared this up already in the most recent round of questions on the website? "Therefore Harry would be considered only "half wizard" because of his mother's grandparents." The grandparents are Muggles, that would make their children (Lily's parents) either Muggles or Muggle-born magical. They must both be Muggles or why would Lily be called Muggle-born and Mudblood? Snape called her a Mudblood. James agreed that she was when he said he would never call her that. During the Edinburgh Book Festival Q&A JKR states the following, regarding Petunia: "No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but..." then she trails off onto some other tangent. She is a *Muggle* according to JKR. Straight out of her own lips. A "Muggle* but.....but she is going to grab HP's wand to protect herself/Dudley/Vernon/HP during the upcoming summer and magic is going to come out of the wand! She will be the one who gets to do magic 'late in life' and it will be a one of situation. JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 09:18:02 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:18:02 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > sad1199 here: > > On a reread of GoF I am at the part where Harry falls into > Dumbledore's pensieve. He sees Dumbledore looking much like he does > now but Karkaroff and the Crouches looking younger. My thinking is > this the more powerful a wizard you are the longer you live. Not > because you can do spells or charms on yourself but because your > ability makes you stronger. The more abilities you have the stronger > your physical attributes are and the longer you live. Dumbledore is > the oldest wizard alive that we know of, his friend and previous > partner lived to be about 620(?)and he used the stone to achieve > this. But we don't hear of any other o-o-o-old wizards just, by > Muggle standards, mainly middle aged wizards. Does anyone else think > this? Like maybe being a very powerful wizard or witch slows down > your aging process? Hard to say, but the professor who examined Dumbledore (and thus MUST be older than Dumbledore (to have passed Hogwarts before Dumbledore), most probably something like 170-200, considering the high status even then!) says that 'he did things with a wand I had never seen before' - and adds that if Dumbledore wishes to stay hidden, the Ministry will NEVER find him (and they didn't!). I can think of several other reasons that wizards have longer life- span - it's not JUST because they're magical: 1. No wizard smokes (at least I have never seen one do so, and I doubt JKR makes one), and thus they avoid several lethal (and painful) lung-diseases. 2. No fast food. (and therefore, not so many heart-failures & such?) 3. No idealizing of being skinny, to go with wearing robes (so no anorectics either) 4. No traffic accidents leading to severe consequences (apparently they can fix splitting for the apparating excelently, at least it's not lethal). 5. Some good Healing methods, even though they do have magical diseases to balance that. (like phoenix tears vs. basilisk bites, or Mansdrake Draught, Pepper-up potion...) 6. What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping them alive? 7. Magical children can protect themselves effectively (like Neville bouncing after such fall!), so much less children dying because of nasty adults or unfortunate accidents... So indeed, they DO live longer and are healthier! I can see that their magic also means they heal faster, never get cancer or other lethal diseases... (I think the witches/wizards didn't get the plague known as Black Death, therefore were accused of causing it, this later leading to the infamous Witch-burnings and the separation of WW and MW...) Finwitch From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 09:24:56 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:24:56 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114121 Kim wrote: Maybe my perspective (being Muggle myself) is too limited, but >someone, one would have had to feed baby Harry, bathe him, change his >nappies, hold him when he cried, and show a certain amount of >kindness or Harry would have ended up a total emotional cripple by >the time he was 11,wouldn't he, instead of the spunky little guy he >turned out to be. Maybe Petunia loves Harry even while she hates >him, if that makes any sense (which it probably doesn't...). Leah: Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage but can't cope effectively with rearing children. We also know that Vernon is Managing Director of the drill firm (can't remember its name) and therefore presumably spent the early days of their marriage concentrating on climbing the slippery pole at work. This would give Petunia plenty of opportunities to, as you say, do her baby care bit with Harry (adding to Dudley's jealousy). I suspect things got worse when Harry ceased to be a cute baby and therefore attractive to Petunia, looked more like James, impacted more on Vernon and of course, started showing signs of that thing they didn't talk about. Leah From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 09:40:31 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:40:31 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: <003d01c4a5d8$88a12e40$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114122 Kethryn: > Theories abounding but, if the mirror shows Harry's true heart's desire, is it as simple as wanting to see his family (if so why were the Dursley's left out) or did he just want to see the magic users or did he just want to see the ones he would never get to meet (presumably because they are dead). > > That's something to ponder, at any rate. > > Kethryn who has a headache from thinking about the dratted mirror. Finwitch: Nah - the mirror tells us *nothing* of Harry's family. It tells us what is his heart's desire. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not truthful. It gives no information but the knowledge of what your heart's desire is. So um.. Harry doesn't see the Dursleys in it, because he doesn't WANT to see them, quite the opposite - he wants to be RID of them! Of course the Mirror won't show him the Dursleys... I wonder if Ron will become the Head Boy AND the Quidditch Captain as he saw in the mirror to be his desire? At least, Ron's in the team *and* a prefect,(and curiously enough, Harry's NOT) so it's not so farfetched a thought for him to gain his heart's desire! Finwitch From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Sep 29 09:47:34 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:47:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's courtesy (was Re: Petunia) In-Reply-To: <001c01c4a601$854905f0$8fc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114123 'During the Edinburgh Book Festival Q&A JKR states the following, regarding Petunia: "No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but..." then she trails off onto some other tangent. She is a *Muggle* according to JKR. Straight out of her own lips. A "Muggle*' What confuses me in all this is Petunia's howler. Dumbledore actually calls her 'Petunia'. The feeling I get from the books, is that DD is very old school in manners. If DD is talking about soemone in the third person, he will always refer to them by their correct title e.g. Always admonishing Harry for not giving Snape his correct title. However, when he speaks to people directly, he will always use their first name e.g. Harry, Severus, Cornelius etc. The only example I can think of where DD has spoken directly to someone and used their correct title is Madame Maxine - which shows how polite DD really is. My point...finally....is that I do not think DD would address Petunia in such a way unless he knew her. If they had never met face to face, he would have called her Mrs. Dursley. So the question is 'When and where have Petunia and DD ever met previously. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 10:01:58 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:01:58 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114124 > > Leah: > > Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, > Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage but > can't cope effectively with rearing children. We also know that > Vernon is Managing Director of the drill firm (can't remember its > name) and therefore presumably spent the early days of their marriage > concentrating on climbing the slippery pole at work. This would give > Petunia plenty of opportunities to, as you say, do her baby care bit > with Harry (adding to Dudley's jealousy). I suspect things got worse > when Harry ceased to be a cute baby and therefore attractive to > Petunia, looked more like James, impacted more on Vernon and of > course, started showing signs of that thing they didn't talk about. Finwitch: Let's not forget that Harry probably got lots of love from his *parents* (being born on Last of July, 1980 and the Night happening on the last of October 1981). That's a year and a half... So he'd have the necessary touch-experience without Petunia. Secondly, Petunia *screamed* when she saw Harry for the first time. Not exactly a reaction of someone who'd actually care for Harry! Harry's magic could have cleaned/banished the nappie instead of Petunia changing him, and summoned food to Harry... (Dunno what Dudley saw with the Dementor, but his food flying to Harry's mouth from the spoon... I think that would upset Dudley?) Finwitch From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 10:38:18 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:38:18 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040928203023.24470.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114125 > Kim wrote: > But it was a wand spell that marked Harry, etc. I found this paragraph (Ch. 2, p. 20 of GoF, US Scholastic edition) which retells what happened at GH the night Harry got his scar. It's the narrator speaking, not a character, so one would suppose it's meant to be the correct history of what happened: Hannah now: This reminds me of a post I wrote about a week ago, on how trustworthy the narrative can be. It's natural to believe what the narrative says, at least more than information from characters, but I've actually come to the conclusion that the narrative isn't more reliable than any other source. Take this from PS/SS, p27 UK paperback; 'He'd lived with the Dursley's for ten years, ten miserable years, as long as he could remember, ever since his parents had died in that car crash.' This quote is from the narrative, and it states that Harry's parents died in a car crash. Obviously it's not true, but at that point, that's what Harry believes. The narrative only ever gives us facts from Harry's point of view, with the exception of the first chapter of PS/SS, and the quidditch match in PS/SS when Quirrel jinxes the broom. The narrative is not omniscient. It can relate events as Harry sees them, and while it describes Harry's emotions and thoughts, it can't tell us what's going on in other characters' heads (more's the pity). So when the narrative says what happened at Godric's Hollow, it tells the accepted version of events, as Harry believed it happened. That may not be what actually occurred (almost certainly isn't, IMO). If the narrative only told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it would be a very dull book with no surprises. JKR has said that the first scene of HBP is going to be something she's thought of putting into other books, or words to that effect. That makes me think that it might be a retrospective chapter, a bit like the first in PS/SS, maybe the actual events at GH, or some other important past incident. Hannah From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 29 11:12:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:12:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114126 > > Carol responds: > > Hi, Alla. You've been referring to a post of Neri's on this topic that I must have missed. Can you by any chance provide me with the message number? > > > Alla: > > Hi, Carol. The post is 108146. > Potioncat: One of my favorite threads...getting to argue with Neri and Alla at the same time...made my head spin! A host of posters participated in this one, providing everything from canon to scientific data. I'd like to suggest two more posts from the thread Pippen (pro Snape) 107919 and Neri (anti Snape) 108037. One view was that Snape wasted time by not responding faster. Either out of negligence or apathy. The other view is that he responded appropriately given information at the time. And I know this will heat up, just as I'm leaving town! Potioncat From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 29 11:25:57 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:25:57 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114127 For all those who want to know where I got the sequence of AK followed by laughter, it's from PS/SS, chap.4. "As Hagrid's story came to close, he saw again the blinding flash of green light, more clearly than he had ever remembered it before - and he remembered something else, for the first time in his life - a high, cold, cruel laugh." You may disagree and consider that the sequence of the events is not specified; I'll stick with this one until something comes along that says different. Oh, and the 'memory' in PoA - the shrill voice laughing - since Voldy finds the whole episode so entertaining I'd be surprised if he wasn't laughing his socks off all the way through. I'll need some canon to accept that he only laughed once. Sorry. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 29 11:25:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:25:58 -0000 Subject: Nott, Sr.'s age (Was: What were the Malfoys DOING there?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114128 -- > > Potioncat: > > I think Nott,Sr. is older than LV. Tom Riddle and Minerva > > McGonagall are close in age, and McGonagall isn't elderly. I know in the RW two people can be the same chronological age yet one could be "elderly" while the other wouldn't be, but I don't think 70 or so is elderly in the WW. > > Carol responds: > I think seventy is elderly if you're Harry! Also, Nott is Cruciod'd by Voldemort at least once. If it's happened to him before, that could well have aged him before his time, as the four simultaneous stunning spells seem to have aged McGonagall before hers. Potioncat: Actually, my interpretation is that after reaching maturity, Magicfolk age much slower than Muggles. If you read the description of McGonagall in SS/PS you would never guess she was 70. And Hagrid is around the same age. He isn't elderly. So I don't think it would be typical for a 70ish wizard to be considered elderly or to appear elderly. I'm going by JKR's comment in her website that T. Nott's father is an elderly widower, her viewpoint, not Harry's. So in this case, I think elderly means old. I think McGonagall, Hagrid, Riddle might be middle-aged by Magic standards. Severus and Sirius, you see, were just young pups! Potioncat From tinainfay at msn.com Wed Sep 29 11:40:07 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:40:07 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Carol: > First, Barty in the Pensieve scene is a nineteen-year-old boy being > guarded by Dementors, fiends that he knows can suck his soul away (a > premonition?). He's terrified and hysterical. Second, like most DEs, > he's probably a former Slytherin, and Slytherins, we're told, will > use any means to achieve their ends. Barty's "end," or objective, in > this instance is to be free, to avoid Azkaban and the Dementors at > any cost. So he combines his very real terror with a lie, a > desperate attempt to get his father to believe him. > > Bookworm: > This is exactly what makes me question him being the "most > faithful". Lying to save his own skin (soul?) is understandable but > doesn't show much fidelity to his master. IMO, Bella is the one who > should get that description. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm Tina's two cents: I've always read it as: Barty Crouch Jr had an *advantage* that his mother (especially) and father were present and that his father had the power to free him. As the faithful death eater, he used *whatever means* he had to be freed so that he might *continue LV's work*. In this case, I think it was all a show. AND it worked! His mother convinced his father to let him out! His true character is revealed during the veritas serum episode. He is cold and fanatically committed to LV (some psychological implications, there...). From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 11:42:25 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:42:25 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: <001c01c4a5af$7022df90$292f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114130 Susana: > I'll be very upset with Hermione if she doesn't finely remember to ask the > elves what are the main problems they face in life. Unlike dogs, we can ask > them! Finwitch: I think she should have done that *first* thing instead of going on her way to "help" them. Particularly as *everyone*, including Hagrid, tells her it's not the thing to do - it'd be unkindness. And I like the dog-comparison, too. After all, a fetcher-dog likes nothing better than to fetch the bird (which is great help for the hunter)! And the dog love the praise, too... and certainly won't be leaving their family! Loyalty and obedience are virtues for both elfs and dogs... And to add: Where house-elves are like dogs, the goblins are like wolves... Finwitch From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 11:47:11 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:47:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114131 > > Leah wrote: > > > > Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, > > Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage but can't cope effectively with rearing children. We also know that >Vernon is Managing Director of the drill firm (can't remember its > > name) and therefore presumably spent the early days of their > marriage concentrating on climbing the slippery pole at work. This would give > > Petunia plenty of opportunities to, as you say, do her baby care bit with Harry (adding to Dudley's jealousy). I suspect things got > worse when Harry ceased to be a cute baby and therefore attractive to Petunia, looked more like James, impacted more on Vernon and of > > course, started showing signs of that thing they didn't talk about. > > Finwitch rplied: > Let's not forget that Harry probably got lots of love from his > *parents* (being born on Last of July, 1980 and the Night happening on the last of October 1981). That's a year and a half... So he'd have the necessary touch-experience without Petunia. > > Secondly, Petunia *screamed* when she saw Harry for the first time. Not exactly a reaction of someone who'd actually care for Harry! > > Harry's magic could have cleaned/banished the nappie instead of > Petunia changing him, and summoned food to Harry... (Dunno what > Dudley saw with the Dementor, but his food flying to Harry's mouth > from the spoon... I think that would upset Dudley?) Hannah now: I agree with Leah on this one. I'm not exactly standing up for Petunia - it is undeniable that the Dursleys treated Harry badly - but they must have provided at least some care for Harry, for him to have survived. Bear in mind that Petunia is obsessed with appearances and what the neighbours think. She isn't going to be too cruel to a baby in her care. To answer Finwitch, I would say that I would scream if I opened my door in the morning and found a baby on my doorstep - from shock rather than from any malice towards the child. I think most people would! I doubt that Harry's magic was responsible for banishing any nappies, or being his only means of getting food. Harry's 'hysterical magic' seems to kick in when he is very emotional or in danger, not for routine things like needing changing. And it does say in PS/SS (p92, UK paperback) that the Dursley's had never starved Harry. Never let him have as much as he wanted, given his share of treats to Dudley, but not actually starved him. I agree that Petunia took in Harry as a baby, when he was at least quite cute. She probably had some sort of vicious pleasure in thinking that she was taking over her sister's role, and that she could bring the boy up, squashing the magic out of him. As he grew up, she realised that it wasn't going to be as easy as all that. She's a lot like Snape, in that she seems unable to put aside her feelings about someone long dead (in her case Lily) and behave in an adult way towards that person's child. She hasn't moved on from her childhood and adolescent emotions about her sister and magic. Whatever else we find out about Lily and James, they must have been very strong personalities to have such an influence on those who knew them. Hannah From tinainfay at msn.com Wed Sep 29 12:02:43 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:02:43 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr and the DE's mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114132 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Anyways the point is that either LV wasn't around to give BCJr the > mark or never got round to it with what was a relatively fresh > recruit before being taken out at GH. Thus BCJr didn't ever have, > and may not even know about, the mark. This, if true, would > certainly eliminate him as someone all the other DE's were used to > seing stand in Voldie's 'inner circle'. In GoF, the Death Eaters chapter 33, Voldemort seems most irritated (understatement, I know) that no one came to find him. He waited and waited, unable to use a wand to help himself but no one came. Then LV found out that Barty Crouch Jr. was imprisoned by his father and was unable to seek him out thus making him a faithful death eater. (The implication is that he would have sought LV if he had been able.) This is all new news. The death eater's circle hadn't been formed since LV's downfall (presumably) and it was only since his downfall that BCJr has been given the 'title' of faithful. LV states (pp651-652 Am pb): "... and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." The Death Eaters stirred, and Harry saw their eyes dart sideways at one another through their masks. "He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts...." So I agree that the other DE's weren't used to BCjr's being called the most faithful but he has since proved that he is that one. ~tina From karen at dacafe.com Wed Sep 29 12:24:15 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:24:15 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > > Leah wrote: > > > > > > Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, > > > Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage > but can't cope effectively with rearing children. We also know that > >Vernon is Managing Director of the drill firm (can't remember its > > > name) and therefore presumably spent the early days of their > > marriage concentrating on climbing the slippery pole at work. > This would give > > > Petunia plenty of opportunities to, as you say, do her baby care > bit with Harry (adding to Dudley's jealousy). I suspect things got > > worse when Harry ceased to be a cute baby and therefore attractive > to Petunia, looked more like James, impacted more on Vernon and of > > > course, started showing signs of that thing they didn't talk > about. > > > > Finwitch rplied: > > Let's not forget that Harry probably got lots of love from his > > *parents* (being born on Last of July, 1980 and the Night > happening on the last of October 1981). That's a year and a half... > So he'd have the necessary touch-experience without Petunia. > > > > Secondly, Petunia *screamed* when she saw Harry for the first > time. Not exactly a reaction of someone who'd actually care for > Harry! > > > > Harry's magic could have cleaned/banished the nappie instead of > > Petunia changing him, and summoned food to Harry... (Dunno what > > Dudley saw with the Dementor, but his food flying to Harry's mouth > > from the spoon... I think that would upset Dudley?) > > Hannah now: I agree with Leah on this one. I'm not exactly standing > up for Petunia - it is undeniable that the Dursleys treated Harry > badly - but they must have provided at least some care for Harry, > for him to have survived. Bear in mind that Petunia is obsessed > with appearances and what the neighbours think. She isn't going to > be too cruel to a baby in her care. > > To answer Finwitch, I would say that I would scream if I opened my > door in the morning and found a baby on my doorstep - from shock > rather than from any malice towards the child. I think most people > would! > > I doubt that Harry's magic was responsible for banishing any > nappies, or being his only means of getting food. > Harry's 'hysterical magic' seems to kick in when he is very > emotional or in danger, not for routine things like needing > changing. And it does say in PS/SS (p92, UK paperback) that the > Dursley's had never starved Harry. Never let him have as much as he > wanted, given his share of treats to Dudley, but not actually > starved him. > > I agree that Petunia took in Harry as a baby, when he was at least > quite cute. She probably had some sort of vicious pleasure in > thinking that she was taking over her sister's role, and that she > could bring the boy up, squashing the magic out of him. As he grew > up, she realised that it wasn't going to be as easy as all that. > > She's a lot like Snape, in that she seems unable to put aside her > feelings about someone long dead (in her case Lily) and behave in an > adult way towards that person's child. She hasn't moved on from her > childhood and adolescent emotions about her sister and magic. > Whatever else we find out about Lily and James, they must have been > very strong personalities to have such an influence on those who > knew them. kmc adds: IMO Petunia ignored Harry from day 1. You just don't start treating a child like the Dursley's treated Harry at say age 3 or 4. Don't forget the memories of the red bike and the fact that there have never been picuters of the other boy who lived in the house. We have cannon that Harry was left with Arabella Figg when the Dursely's took Dudley out for his birthday treat. IMO Mrs Figg came over and was sympathic about Petunia having two babies to care for and did Petunia want some assistance with caring for these babies. It is only as Harry became more self-sufficient that Petunia would need Mrs Figg less and less. I have no cannon for this than the fact that Arabella was in the original Order and see made Harry look at pictures of her cats. One of her cats was watching Harry in the beginning of OotP. I think DD knew at lot about Harry's early At night, I think Vernon was the one who cared for Harry. My cannon for this opinion is: Vernon is the one who talks to Harry about behaving at the Zoo. (PS/SS) Vernon is the one Harry asks to take him to Platform 9 3/4 (PS/SS) Vernon is the person Harry goes to when he needs his form signed. (POA) Vernon is the person who wakes up when there are noises in Harry's room. - kmc From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 12:45:23 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:45:23 -0000 Subject: Petunia:well-adjusted Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114134 kmc wrote: >IMO Petunia ignored Harry from day 1. You just don't start treating >a child like the Dursley's treated Harry at say age 3 or 4. Don't >forget the memories of the red bike and the fact that there have >never been picuters of the other boy who lived in the house. Leah: Sadly, some people do. That's what I meant by Petunia being able to cope with a fairly dependant baby, but not with a boy. There are women who have that problem- I had a social worker friend who dealt with one. Never mind that Dudley had the treats and the bike and the sweeties; does anyone think Petunia has displayed mothering skills in his upbringing? kmc: >We have cannon that Harry was left with Arabella Figg when the >Dursely's took Dudley out for his birthday treat. IMO Mrs Figg came >over and was sympathic about Petunia having two babies to care for >and did Petunia want some assistance with caring for these babies. >It is only as Harry became more self-sufficient that Petunia would >need Mrs Figg less and less. I have no cannon for this than the fact >that Arabella was in the original Order and see made Harry look at >pictures of her cats. One of her cats was watching Harry in the >beginning of OotP. I think DD knew at lot about Harry's early Leah: I like the idea of Mrs Figg being around, although you would think Harry might have had some subconscious memory of that. He seems to hate going to her house. I think it's interesting and possible though. kmc: >At night, I think Vernon was the one who cared for Harry. My cannon >for this opinion is:Vernon is the one who talks to Harry about >behaving at the Zoo.(PS/SS)Vernon is the one Harry asks to take him >to Platform 9 3/4 (PS/SS)Vernon is the person Harry goes to when he >needs his form signed.(POA)Vernon is the person who wakes up when >there are noises in Harry's room. Leah: Vernon is the "man of the house" and the 'parent' of male children. >From what we have seen of the Dursleys' home life, I would expect that the control and disciplinary aspects are Vernon's primary responsibility. Whatever behind the scenes influence Petunia may have, Harry is recognising Vernon's role at Privet Drive. If you are using 'cared for' in the sense of 'wanted to look after', then I would have to disagree. I also think that we have to remember that JKR said Vernon was the character she disliked most in the books, and considering the other possible contenders for the role, that's saying something. Leah From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 12:49:11 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:49:11 -0000 Subject: Making up our own book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114135 > Sylvia wrote: > > The long wait for Book Six seems to be having an extraordinary > effect > > on posters. An awful lot of recent posts seem to becoming wilder > and > > wilder in speculating not about future story lines but about past > > ones. > There seems to be a great deal on the lines of "Maybe Snape did > something awful to Sirius to provoke him" - well beyond canon and > unproveable anyway. > > Hannah now: But surely wild speculation is all part of the fun? > Suggesting really out-there theories that could just possibly be > true can lead to interesting discussions and new insight into what > could really be going on. And lets admit, we've discussed all of > the obvious (and less than obvious) things many times. As for > speculation about past events, I think the past is vital to the > future plot of the series. Events like the prank, although they > happened in the past, will be expanded upon in the future and have a > bearing on future events. > > Surely the whole point of a group like this one is to discuss things > like 'maybe Snape did something awful to Sirius to provoke him'? I > don't see that it's beyond canon, if it's supported by canon > evidence (such as Snape's character, the fact Sirius wasn't expelled > etc.). And at the end of the day, it's all unproveable until book > six, or even seven comes out, or JKR says something unequivocal on > the subject. If we stuck to what was proveable, what would we find > to discuss? > Finwitch: The story about the trick (mind you, 'trick' is the word Lupin used. Not so sure there was enough michievous intent to call it a prank) was given in PoA. During the same scene as it is proven that Pettigrew had tricked Sirius & *everyone* else to think that Sirius killed him and 12 Muggles! Sirius also blamed himself for persuading James to switch Secret-Keeper into Peter and never tell anyone... So discussion about whether or not it was Sirius' fault, or what *really* happened is not all that unfounded. Ok, Snape calls it 'ability to commit murder at the age of 16', Lupin responds 'oh, that trick'. Sirius says nothing about it. Neither does the ratty man. So what are we left with, and how does this come up later or before? Well, there is Snape's hatred towards the two Potters. The thing Snape could never forgive: James Potter saved his life. (after he had gone after Lupin into the secret passage beneath the Whomping Willow) that follows all along. Also, in Book #4 we hear about Snape's great ability to curse before he even came to school (including Dark Arts?). We also hear that 'James despised Dark Arts'. And then, the pensieve scene gives a bit more light as to James&Sirius vs. Severus. And since this old theme came up... 'Sirius Black was capable of murder at the age of 16' - could well be a trick of words, making Sirius look bad. It does not *exactly* say/accuse Sirius of even so much as attempting to kill anyone, only implying it! And Lupin could have commented on the sentence as an old trick to imply someone probably doing bad deeds they never did. That discussion doesn't even have to do with James Potter saving Severus Snape from the Shrieking Shack at ALL. Sirius left home at 16 (breaking his mother's heart, said Kreacher). Interesting age, that 16. Particularly as Harry will be 16 in the next book. (BTW, in the Pensieve scene, James Potter was *still* 15 - 'he was only fifteen, Harry') I just wonder, will Harry do like Sirius and leave home at 16, live with his friend (Ron, Hermione - or maybe the Weasley twins have appartment above their shop at Diagon Alley, so Harry as their financial backer could stay there) for a year and get his own place once he turns 17 (and is thus of age by wizarding standard.) It's not like he lacks the money to purchase a house - and maybe he even already has inherited one! Finwitch From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 29 12:51:12 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:51:12 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114136 > kmc wrote: > > IMO Petunia ignored Harry from day 1. You just don't start treating a child like the Dursley's treated Harry at say age 3 or 4. Don't forget the memories of the red bike and the fact that there have never been picuters of the other boy who lived in the house. > > We have cannon that Harry was left with Arabella Figg when the > Dursely's took Dudley out for his birthday treat. IMO Mrs Figg came over and was sympathic about Petunia having two babies to care for and did Petunia want some assistance with caring for these babies. > It is only as Harry became more self-sufficient that Petunia would > need Mrs Figg less and less. I have no cannon for this than the fact that Arabella was in the original Order and see made Harry look at pictures of her cats. One of her cats was watching Harry in the beginning of OotP. I think DD knew at lot about Harry's early > > At night, I think Vernon was the one who cared for Harry. My cannon for this opinion is: > Vernon is the one who talks to Harry about behaving at the Zoo. > (PS/SS) > Vernon is the one Harry asks to take him to Platform 9 3/4 (PS/SS) > Vernon is the person Harry goes to when he needs his form signed. > (POA) > Vernon is the person who wakes up when there are noises in Harry's > room. > Hannah now: What an interesting idea. I don't know that I agree, though. Vernon is always made out to be worse than Petunia, and JKR did make that statement about Vernon (not Petunia) being her least favourite character. I think Harry asks Vernon things, such as about the form/ the trip to London, because Vernon is the 'head of the household' (bit of an old fashioned concept, but it does seem to be true of the Dursleys). Petunia will normally defer to Vernon, and leave decisions to him. I doubt Vernon did any 'night duty' with the babies, partly because they don't seem terribly enlightened about men doing 'women's jobs,' partly because Vernon has to go to work, whereas Petunia is a full time housewife, so it would make more sense for her to disrupt her nights to see to the babies. I like the idea of Mrs Figg helping with Harry. The only problem I have with it is why Harry doesn't have more memories of this, or a closer relationship with her. And I agree the Dursleys wouldn't have suddenly changed their treatment of Harry. I was thinking that they were never overly attentive to start with, and that their feelings about Harry deteriorated slowly over the ten years. Hannah From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 12:53:41 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:53:41 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement In-Reply-To: <001c01c4a5af$7022df90$292f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" "Based on this reading of house elves, I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that SPEW should only focus on teaching wizards to take care of their house elves (hence giving up on the ultimate quest for freedom). While getting wizards to treat their house elves well is a good thought (and perhaps a good short-term aim), it's ultimately a reenforcement of paternalism, which is only a nicer manifestation of racism." Dungrollin: I agree with that! Susana: I agree the wizarding society is completely racist... but elves are not another race! They are a different species (as you noticed). And while you made the analogy to human enslavement I can't help make a comparison that will scandalize you and others so much, I'm sure to receive hate mail over this (gee, I hope not)! I'm about to compare elves to... dogs! No, really, I'm not! I want to make this very clear: I will compare some similarities of the dog-human relation with the elf-wizard relation. I am *NOT* saying elves are like dogs in *ANY* way! Having cleared that out, the reason for my comparison is simple: dogs have evolved to serve humans. There are no wild-dogs - wolfs are not dogs. Most dog breeds don't have the ability to form a society without humans - some can't reproduce, some can't hunt, some can't create bounds with other dogs, etc. Dungrollin (slightly OT, and pedantic to boot!): Dogs were *bred* to serve humans by humans, they did not evolve to do so, natural selection had no hand in it, it was artificial selection. But, you see, paternalism is not totally out off place here. If you say elves have human intelligence I agree; But if you say elves have human *capabilities* I'll say I've seen no proof of that in canon (maybe they do, I don't know). Dungrollin: Erm What's the difference? And why is their equal intelligence so obvious? As for 'equals'... maybe... er... elves don't want to be equal? Muggle society has an 'equality complex'! You're anthropomorphising elves. I hate to bring dogs back, but... Dungrollin: The point is having the *choice*! Now Dungrollin's couple of knuts: I can't help but butt in on this (sorry) After the analogy with American slavery, I also thought about an analogy with dogs, which sums up nicely the element of House Elves wanting to serve humans. But House Elves are not dogs (as has been pointed out). They are emotional and reasoning beings (okay their grammar's a bit dodgy ? I'm not going to say I think they're superintelligent, but you get my point) ? and that's where the analogy with dogs breaks down. There is no evidence to suggest that they were *bred* to serve humans ? in fact I would be disgusted if they were; imagine house elves being forced to It doesn't bear thinking about! But there's a strong implication that their loyalty is *magically* forced, which is not the case with dogs: dogs respond to good treatment with loyalty. An analogy which strikes me as perhaps more understanding of Hermione's side (and indeed my own) would be with Swiss women in the 1970s (bear with me ). I still find it shocking that in Switzerland women didn't get the vote until 1974, and (I believe) there is still one Canton in which they don't have the vote. My boyfriend is Swiss, and I bring this up from time to time when he's complaining about British politics, and he says "You can't blame the men, a lot of women didn't *want* the vote! They held a referendum and loads of women voted against getting the vote!" The point about freedom is the ability to make one's own choices. If some Swiss women didn't want to vote, fine they shouldn't be forced to, but to stop all Swiss women voting because even *most* of them don't want to is denying them the freedom of choice. If house elves want to serve people and it makes them happy, then fine, let them. But magically forcing them to serve wizards they despise is wrong wrong wrong. While the majority of house elves may be happy, we have already met two who aren't/weren't ? Dobby and Kreatcher. The only way to get rid of this injustice is by giving them the choice, and at the moment, they don't have that choice. No matter how willing the slave, slavery is slavery. Now I know Hermione is not necessarily going about this in the right way - for once, I don't think she's done enough research. But how do you go about convincing a Swiss woman that even if she doesn't want to vote, perhaps her sister does? It takes time. Any large-scale shift in the views of a society (and here I'm talking about house-elf society viewing being free as shameful) must come from within if it is to last. But to get people in that society to listen to moderate views, sometimes you have to be extreme. I'm not an ultra-feminist, but I can quite see how you need them (at least to start with) to get people listening to views that they would otherwise dismiss. And in this sense, i.e. drawing attention to the situation, Hermione is being helpful. Certainly, trying to set the school elves free against their will is wrong, and Hermione is not thinking straight when she does this. But I don't think the reaction of everyone else in the WW (Hagrid etc) is a good enough argument against trying to get the elves freedom. I can imagine talking to a Swiss man in the 60's about women's suffrage and him saying "But they don't *want* to vote! It'd be doing them an unkindness!" Dungrollin (who is annoyed that this post had to be a bit rushed, apologises for snipping and posting-credit errors that have undoubtedly crept in, and really should get back to that **** thesis ) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 13:30:11 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:30:11 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr and the DE's mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrs_sonofgib" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > > > Anyways the point is that either LV wasn't around to give BCJr the > > mark or never got round to it with what was a relatively fresh > > recruit before being taken out at GH. Thus BCJr didn't ever have, > > and may not even know about, the mark. This, if true, would > > certainly eliminate him as someone all the other DE's were used to > > seing stand in Voldie's 'inner circle'. > > In GoF, the Death Eaters chapter 33, Voldemort seems most irritated > (understatement, I know) that no one came to find him. He waited > and waited, unable to use a wand to help himself but no one came. > Then LV found out that Barty Crouch Jr. was imprisoned by his father > and was unable to seek him out thus making him a faithful death > eater. (The implication is that he would have sought LV if he had > been able.) > > This is all new news. The death eater's circle hadn't been formed > since LV's downfall (presumably) and it was only since his downfall > that BCJr has been given the 'title' of faithful. > LV states (pp651-652 Am pb): > "... and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has > already reentered my service." > The Death Eaters stirred, and Harry saw their eyes dart sideways at > one another through their masks. > "He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his > efforts...." > So I agree that the other DE's weren't used to BCjr's being called > the most faithful but he has since proved that he is that one. > ~tina Both good points, but I would point out that, IIRC, Barty does have a place in the inner circle. He's just not there at the moment to fill it. Barty may not have the mark, but he was in deep enough, even at so young an age, to have a place in the circle, and to be called on to help with a little torturing, which I at least am convinced he is guilty of. Meri From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 13:47:26 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929134726.21584.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114139 --- sophierom wrote: > Draco seems to be more of a stupid > school-yard bully with his two stupid sidekicks; he's become a > skinnier, magical version of Dudley. I agree. Draco peaked in GOF when he was helping Rita Skeeter harass the Trio. In OOTP he regressed to a 2-D figure and there's no sign that he's going to grow again. In fact, I think that is his function - to be a symbol of arrested maturity, of the unthinking parrotting of stupid ideas and values, of lack of personal effort in attaining one's goals as opposed to having everything handed to you on a tray. We'll be able to contrast him with the Original Trio and the Additional Trio who will be maturing and growing in the last two books. Just as there's not enough time for Draco to have a change of heart (or to develop a spine or grow a brain), there's not enough time for him to develop into Harry's deadly foe. Harry's got one of those already - his name's Voldemort. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From garybec101 at comcast.net Wed Sep 29 14:16:04 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:16:04 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114140 Finwitch; I can think of several other reasons that wizards have longer life- span - it's not JUST because they're magical: 1. No wizard smokes (at least I have never seen one do so, and I doubt JKR makes one), and thus they avoid several lethal (and painful) lung-diseases. Becki responds; I can recall several off the top of my head... ...Professor Grubbly-Plank comes to the door of the staff room with a pipe in her mouth to address Harry's concerns of Hedwig being attacked in OoP. ...When he first entered the Leaky Cauldron he is describing it and sees a "few old women sitting in a corner, drinking tiny glasses of sherry. One of them smoking a long pipe". ...and the first time Harry is in the Three Broomsticks he describes it as *smoky*. I don't know if all of that increases a wizards chances of getting cancer, if they even get cancer, but they do smoke. Becki From tzakis1225 at netzero.com Wed Sep 29 14:28:26 2004 From: tzakis1225 at netzero.com (demetra1225) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:28:26 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > I'll bet my best cauldron that we're missing some very important > information about House Elves. I did once suggest that for once Hermione > was going to be wrong, but she was going to be wrong in the right way, if > you get my meaning - caring about Elves but misunderstanding their true situation. Demetra: Perhaps it's old age creeping up on me, or perhaps I'm channeling Moody, but I'm starting to question everything I once believed to be fact about a lot of the characters in the books, including the House Elves. I agree with Kneasy, I think there is something more to the whole HE issue. It seems to me that the HE's were introduced as a rather benign group. Dobby is the first HE we meet, and he comes across as more ditzy than dangerous. And he has Harry's best interests at heart, so we excuse a lot of his behavior. But the elevation of the danger of his actions is rather disturbing. He starts out by ruining Aunt Petunia's pudding, then seals the entrance to Platform 9 ?. Finally, he charms a bludger so that it goes after Harry during a Quidditch match. Really, think about what might have happened ? bludger to the head causes concussion or skull fracture, bludger to the body causes a spectacular fall from the broom a la the fake!dementor scene in PoA. The minimization of harm to Harry is probably more due to Harry's skill as a flyer rather than any well thought-out plan of Dobby's. Next we are introduced to poor, pathetic Winky. Who didn't have a Hermione-like reaction? Canon does show Winky's "master" treating her poorly. It is merely another opportunity for Crouch, Sr. to act the part of the concerned and outraged ministry official, betrayed by a family member. Winky was clearly "wronged" by Mr. Crouch. 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. It rather reminds me of the wife who looks the other way when her husband abuses the children. It is morally wrong for the wife to allow that to continue, despite the existence of a sacred vow of marriage. And it is morally wrong for Winky to keep quiet, despite the magical bond between Winky and Mr. Crouch. Then in OotP, we are introduced to Kreacher, and it is so easy to loathe him. But is he really so different from Dobby and Winky? He is as cunning as Dobby in finding a way to disobey his master's order. He is as devoted to a morally corrupt "master" as Winky is. But he is snide and obnoxious, not as weepy and pathetic like Winky, so we don't feel sorry for him. And he does not claim to love Harry, so we don't automatically assume he's a good guy, like we do with Dobby. 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. This does not make for a good starting point for negotiation. Plus, it seems that HE's, like humans, can be very devious and cunning to get what they want. I think Hermione is right about one thing, the good guys need to pay some attention to the HE's or I could see a scenario where LV et al. could persuade the HE's to join them. Demetra From sad1199 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 14:36:23 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:36:23 -0000 Subject: Making up our own book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Sylvia wrote: > > > The long wait for Book Six seems to be having an extraordinary > > effect > > > on posters. An awful lot of recent posts seem to becoming wilder > > and > > > wilder in speculating not about future story lines but about past > > > ones. > > > > Sirius left home at 16 (breaking his mother's heart, said Kreacher). > > Interesting age, that 16. Particularly as Harry will be 16 in the > next book. (BTW, in the Pensieve scene, James Potter was *still* 15 - > 'he was only fifteen, Harry') I just wonder, will Harry do like > Sirius and leave home at 16, live with his friend (Ron, Hermione - or > maybe the Weasley twins have appartment above their shop at Diagon > Alley, so Harry as their financial backer could stay there) for a > year and get his own place once he turns 17 (and is thus of age by > wizarding standard.) It's not like he lacks the money to purchase a > house - and maybe he even already has inherited one! > > Finwitch sad1199 here: Interesting as that may be, Harry must stay at the Dursley's while Voldemort is alive for his own protection. Since we know that one way or another the books end when Harry is seventeen he can then live (or be dead) where ever he wants. But, I am sure that Dumbledore will enforce the blood protection thingie and persuade Harry to go back to the Dursley for that one last summer. Have a happy love filled day. sad1199 From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 14:54:56 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:54:56 -0000 Subject: What's the point? (was RE: making up our own book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114143 Finwitch wrote: I just wonder, will Harry do like Sirius and leave home at 16, live with his friend (Ron, Hermione - or maybe the Weasley twins have appartment above their shop at Diagon Alley, so Harry as their financial backer could stay there) for a year and get his own place once he turns 17 (and is thus of age by wizarding standard.) It's not like he lacks the money to purchase a house - and maybe he even already has inherited one! sad1199 replied: Interesting as that may be, Harry must stay at the Dursley's while Voldemort is alive for his own protection. Since we know that one way or another the books end when Harry is seventeen he can then live (or be dead) where ever he wants. But, I am sure that Dumbledore will enforce the blood protection thingie and persuade Harry to go back to the Dursley for that one last summer. Now Dungrollin wonders: But what is the point of making sure that Voldemort can't hurt him at the Dursleys? He's never *at* the Dursley's except when Dumbledore forces him to be. Is it really just so that there's somewhere he can run to if all else fails and Voldemort gets too close? I mean, he's at Hogwarts for most of the year, it's a bit of a trek from Scotland to Surrey, plenty of things can go wrong on a journey like that if you've got the worlds darkest wizard on your tail... Has anyone come up with a decent theory as to why Dumbledore wants him protected at Privet Drive? Was it mostly for his protection before he went to Hogwarts, and now DD thinks that one little month a year can't hurt, if, through that, he can be sure that there's somewhere safe for Harry? I wonder I wonder I wonder... Dungrollin. From maritajan at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 14:55:09 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929145509.41420.qmail@web12101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114144 --- demetra1225 wrote: > > It seems to me that the HE's were introduced as a rather benign > group. Dobby is the first HE we meet, and he comes across as more > ditzy than dangerous. I think we also have to remember that whatever magic HE's possess, the mere threat of Dobby using it was enough to make Lucius turn tail and run (figuratively speaking). At the end of CS, Dobby casts a spell strong enough to knock LM down the stairs. He tells LM "You shall go now....You shall not touch Harry Potter," and then.... "Lucius Malfoy had no choice.." Why? Why did he "have no choice"? Dobby's just a house elf, right? Why couldn't LM just tell Dobby to go bang his head on the wall and stay out of it? Did the fact that Dobby was at that point free have anything to do with it? Does being tied to a home/family make the HE's magic weaker - or more controllable? There has to be something we're not being told about HEs and what they can and cannot do and the strength of their magic skills. I'm in the group that believes there will be a battle at Hogwarts and HEs will have a role to play in defending it. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 15:41:38 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:41:38 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114145 > Leah: > > Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, > Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage but > can't cope effectively with rearing children. We also know that > Vernon is Managing Director of the drill firm (can't remember its > name) and therefore presumably spent the early days of their marriage > concentrating on climbing the slippery pole at work. This would give > Petunia plenty of opportunities to, as you say, do her baby care bit > with Harry (adding to Dudley's jealousy). I suspect things got worse > when Harry ceased to be a cute baby and therefore attractive to > Petunia, looked more like James, impacted more on Vernon and of > course, started showing signs of that thing they didn't talk about. > Leah I just can't agree more--I totally see Petunia being a "baby-person", it's the only way her continuing baby-treatment of Dudley makes any sense. I just wanted to add that much of Harry's baby care probably came from Dudley's care. Trust me, I have two toddlers at the moment. One cries, the other cries. You feed one, you feed the other--if only to minimize the mess (and you know how Petunia feels about messes!), and since they eat at the same time, they poop at about the same time. In some ways, having two in diapers isn't much more work than just one. I also think a big part of Harry's babycare came from Petunia's compulsive cleanliness. Trust me on this one--the worse messes occur when you're not looking! I don't think for a moment that little Harry was running around with poo in his nappies for every long--because it stinks, diapers leak, toddlers have no concept of yuck and they soon learn how the "help you" by taking an objectionable diaper off, usually dropping it and going off with poo on their bottom. Also, I don't think we can look at Dudley's current behavior to judge what he was like as a toddler with toddler-Harry. Sure, all toddlers think they're the center of the universe and their favorite word is 'MINE!" but that's because they're uninhibited in expressing emotions, including the positive ones. When one of mine gets hurt, the other is usually there comforting (unless they were the one that did it, in which case they're there trying to innocent). Partly it's copying what they see done, but it's also doing what they think is big-person behavior that's done for them. For example, toddler-Dudley falls down, Petunia comforts him, toddler-Harry falls down, toddler- Dudley **wants to be a big** tries to comfort him. I'm not saying he was encouraged to behave that way--quite the opposite, I'm sure--but I'm assuming Dudley came into the world with all the normal emotional reactions. --Frugalarugala, who would love to see the scene where Petunia discovers Little Harry and Duddikins doing a poo-mural From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 15:41:25 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Lapdog" and "snivel" (Was: James and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929154125.52435.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114146 > Valky wrote: > > and while I am at it I think its about time I let > you all in on the > > British meaning of snivel. Since so many american > versions have been > > quoted to contradict me when I argue that the > derogatory term of > > snivel in the language I, *and JKR* was raised > into, *British > > English*, is used to deride someone on their > weakness and not > > necessarily sensitivity. > > Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: > > snivel > > verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- > > to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not > make other people > > feel sympathy for you: > > He's sitting in his bedroom snivelling because he > was told off for > > not doing his homework. > > > > snivelling, US USUALLY sniveling > > adjective OLD-FASHIONED INFORMAL > > used to describe someone whom you do not like > because they are weak > > and unpleasant: > > That snivelling creep/coward! > > Carol again: > I've never heard any American use "snivelling" in > any sense. We might > use "sniffling" to mean that a kid needs to blow his > nose but, well, > there's no way to say what he's doing instead > without being > disgusting. And we might use it to mean > "whimpering," which is more or > less the same as your "snivelling." bamf here: You've never heard the term "snivelling coward"? It might be more or a regional thing, but it's definitely used in the American language. It very much in used in a negative way, and how I've always heard it used in the American language is very much in line with the British one. ===== "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 is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 15:50:16 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:50:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's House. Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929155016.63794.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114147 > > > > SSSusan: > > I always took the griffin door [GryffinDOR] > knocker as a clue to > > DD's house. :-) > > > Alla: > > Oops, you are right. It does look as a quite a clue. > Hmmm, I guess I > have to look for a different candidate for a good > Slytherin. > > Well, if Snape as Gryffindor will not work out, I > guess he will be a > good candidate. :) bamf chiming in: Aren't we also told in Book 1 that Dumbledor was in Gryffindor? I thought Hermonie on the train to Hogwarts say that she wouldn't mind being in Gryffindor, after all DD was. Then again, after two exams this week and my brain is deep fried. 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 frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 16:25:01 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:25:01 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: <20040929134726.21584.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114148 > --- sophierom wrote: > > > Draco seems to be more of a stupid > > school-yard bully with his two stupid sidekicks; he's become a > > skinnier, magical version of Dudley. Ah, but Dudley *has* shown change. If the Dudley-Draco parallel continues, Draco might be beefed up as a baddie next book. The way I see it, Dudley's main form of indulgence was food--a diet forced his changes; Draco's main form of indulgence is money--his father's arrest will like cause put him on a monitary diet. (I doubt the Malfoys will be entirely broke--Narcissa is a Black after all.) Magda: > In fact, I think that is his function - to be a symbol of arrested > maturity, of the unthinking parrotting of stupid ideas and values, of > lack of personal effort in attaining one's goals as opposed to having > everything handed to you on a tray. We'll be able to contrast him > with the Original Trio and the Additional Trio who will be maturing > and growing in the last two books. As much as I can see that being his fate, and an elegant one at that from a storyline point-of-veiw, I just can't help but hope otherwise. It would be just too depressing to turn out to be watching the forming of the next Snape. Magda: > Just as there's not enough time for Draco to have a change of heart > (or to develop a spine or grow a brain), there's not enough time for > him to develop into Harry's deadly foe. Harry's got one of those > already - his name's Voldemort. I don't think he'll ever be Harry's deadly foe, no. But all he has to do is question what he was raised to believe, and 16 year olds do that all the time. Just look at Sirius, he moved out on his dark-arts- loving family at 16... No, I don't think Draco will be either a main villian or a main hero, but I don't think all development is over. After all, Draco has idolizing his father, who's been hard on him for failure and is now under arrest which has to be seen as a huge failure of his own. I think the stage has been set for Draco to see Lucius as a hypocrite. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 16:28:51 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:28:51 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: <20040929134726.21584.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114149 > --- sophierom wrote: > > > Draco seems to be more of a stupid > > school-yard bully with his two stupid sidekicks; he's become a > > skinnier, magical version of Dudley. Ah, but Dudley *has* shown change. If the Dudley-Draco parallel continues, Draco might be beefed up as a baddie next book. The way I see it, Dudley's main form of indulgence was food--a diet forced his changes; Draco's main form of indulgence is money--his father's arrest will like cause put him on a monitary diet. (I doubt the Malfoys will be entirely broke--Narcissa is a Black after all.) Magda: > In fact, I think that is his function - to be a symbol of arrested > maturity, of the unthinking parrotting of stupid ideas and values, of > lack of personal effort in attaining one's goals as opposed to having > everything handed to you on a tray. We'll be able to contrast him > with the Original Trio and the Additional Trio who will be maturing > and growing in the last two books. As much as I can see that being his fate, and an elegant one at that from a storyline point-of-veiw, I just can't help but hope otherwise. It would be just too depressing to turn out to be watching the forming of the next Snape. Magda: > Just as there's not enough time for Draco to have a change of heart > (or to develop a spine or grow a brain), there's not enough time for > him to develop into Harry's deadly foe. Harry's got one of those > already - his name's Voldemort. I don't think he'll ever be Harry's deadly foe, no. But all he has to do is question what he was raised to believe, and 16 year olds do that all the time. Just look at Sirius, he moved out on his dark-arts- loving family at 16... No, I don't think Draco will be either a main villian or a main hero, but I don't think all development is over. After all, Draco has idolizing his father, who's been hard on him for failure and is now under arrest which has to be seen as a huge failure of his own. I think the stage has been set for Draco to see Lucius as a hypocrite. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 16:38:44 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:38:44 -0000 Subject: What's the point? (was RE: making up our own book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Now Dungrollin wonders: > But what is the point of making sure that Voldemort can't hurt him > at the Dursleys? He's never *at* the Dursley's except when > Dumbledore forces him to be. Tonks here: He doesn't have to be at the Dursley house to be safe. As long as he can call the place where his mother's blood lives home, he is safe. That does not mean he has to be in the house the whole time. It just has to be his home. That is what DD ment. However, it does seem, to US at least, that he is not safe outside the house. But according to what DD says, Harry just has to have Petunia's home be his. Tonks_op From yswahl at stis.net Wed Sep 29 16:34:42 2004 From: yswahl at stis.net (samnanya) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:34:42 -0000 Subject: often used device In-Reply-To: <20040929000431.41657.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114151 Carol: While a number of people on this list think that Harry will go through the veil and return (like Odysseus or Orpheus from Hades), I'm hoping that JKR won't inflict such an often-used device on us. Kelsey: I don't think that Harry's descent into the literal underworld/Hades/Death would be an "often-used device". For mythology, a resounding yes. But for more modern literature, I'm not so quick to agree. Samnanya The literal underworld was explored recently in the Amber Spyglass, the third and concluding volume of the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman. And, given that there is a persistent rumor that the Gilderoy Lockhart character was modeled after PP, I would bet that JKR just might think twice before going into that well worn territory in a trite and unoriginal way. ------------- Kelsey On the point of the room itself and the veil, because so little of it is explained in OOP, I wonder if it was a teaser or an introduction because of its future importance. Samnanya From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 16:44:02 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's courtesy (was Re: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929164402.44478.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114152 esmith222002 wrote: What confuses me in all this is Petunia's howler. Dumbledore actually calls her 'Petunia'. My point...finally....is that I do not think DD would address Petunia in such a way unless he knew her. If they had never met face to face, he would have called her Mrs. Dursley. So the question is 'When and where have Petunia and DD ever met previously. now karyn: I was of the impression that he sent that howler to make Petunia think Lily sent it. Which would be why he called Petunia by her first name. --Karyn __________________________________________________ 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 antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 16:47:06 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:47:06 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > kmc wrote: > > > > IMO Petunia ignored Harry from day 1. You just don't start > treating a child like the Dursley's treated Harry at say age 3 or > 4. Don't forget the memories of the red bike and the fact that > there have never been picuters of the other boy who lived in the > house. > > > > We have cannon that Harry was left with Arabella Figg when the > > Dursely's took Dudley out for his birthday treat. IMO Mrs Figg > came over and was sympathic about Petunia having two babies to care > for and did Petunia want some assistance with caring for these > babies. > > It is only as Harry became more self-sufficient that Petunia would > > need Mrs Figg less and less. I have no cannon for this than the > fact that Arabella was in the original Order and see made Harry > look at pictures of her cats. One of her cats was watching Harry in > the beginning of OotP. I think DD knew at lot about Harry's early > > > > At night, I think Vernon was the one who cared for Harry. My > cannon for this opinion is: > > Vernon is the one who talks to Harry about behaving at the Zoo. > > (PS/SS) > > Vernon is the one Harry asks to take him to Platform 9 3/4 (PS/SS) > > Vernon is the person Harry goes to when he needs his form signed. > > (POA) > > Vernon is the person who wakes up when there are noises in Harry's > > room. > > > Hannah now: What an interesting idea. I don't know that I agree, > though. Vernon is always made out to be worse than Petunia, and JKR > did make that statement about Vernon (not Petunia) being her least > favourite character. I think Harry asks Vernon things, such as > about the form/ the trip to London, because Vernon is the 'head of > the household' (bit of an old fashioned concept, but it does seem to > be true of the Dursleys). Petunia will normally defer to Vernon, > and leave decisions to him. > > I doubt Vernon did any 'night duty' with the babies, partly because > they don't seem terribly enlightened about men doing 'women's jobs,' > partly because Vernon has to go to work, whereas Petunia is a full > time housewife, so it would make more sense for her to disrupt her > nights to see to the babies. > > I like the idea of Mrs Figg helping with Harry. The only problem I > have with it is why Harry doesn't have more memories of this, or a > closer relationship with her. And I agree the Dursleys wouldn't > have suddenly changed their treatment of Harry. I was thinking that > they were never overly attentive to start with, and that their > feelings about Harry deteriorated slowly over the ten years. > > Hannah Antosha: It is interesting that, when Vernon is about to kick Harry out of the house (OotP, "A Peck of Owls") and Petunia gets the Howler from Dumbledore, Petunia overrules Vernon and he caves in almost immediately. There are two possible reasons for this: a) Vernon's status as paterfamilias is just for show and Petunia is, in fact, the real power in the house or b) he's astonished that she's stood up to him. (I have a memory of him backing down to her once before, but can't find it.) It seems pretty clear that Petunia is the one who insisted that Harry be kept--I rather like the image of her taking a certain amount of pride in the idea of squashing the freakishness out of Harry. "Tough love" of a sort. (And Petunia seems like the kind of person who would read parenting books by the dozen and understand none of them.) Vernon and his sister Marge seem always to have loathed Harry. It seems possible that Petunia would have enjoyed showing her dead sister up by being the perfect surrogate... until Harry began to manifest just how freakish he really was. At which point she would have been stuck. I'm looking forward to seeing JKR's answer re: "Remember my last!" on her site. (That seems to be the runaway winner in the latest poll.) It seems to me that her answer will probably give nothing away, else she wouldn't have posted the question. Nonetheless, it might give us some insight into Harry's entry into the Dursley household. BTW, I agree (as a dad who DID do 'night duty') that Vernon doesn't seem likely to have participated in that particular joyful bonding ritual/Purgatory. (Women's bodies are flooded with hormones post-partum; this is wonderful, because it allows them to lactate, increases their endurance and ability to function on diminished sleep, etc. Of course, it also can lead to post-partum depression, sweats, acne, and a bunch of other really fun side-effects. Dads, of course, do without entirely. No hormonal depression, but no assistance with sleep-deprivation either. But I digress.) HOWEVER, by fifteen to twenty months (Harry and Dudley's approximate ages on the Night), the boys should have been sleeping through the night--if not completely, then mostly. The addition of a new toddler with a new sleep-cycle would probably have been a bit of a hardship, especially because one would have to imagine that he would have been having some pretty horrible dreams. Perhaps this was the cause of his exile to the closet--so that Vernon and/or Dudley wouldn't be woken by his night terrors? Pure speculation, of course, but it makes a certain amount of sense... Antosha, who is still trying to find his lost sleep... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 16:47:25 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:47:25 -0000 Subject: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114154 Leah wrote: > > > Judging by Petunia's treatment of Dudley, or Mummy's diddikins, > > > Petunia may well be one of those women who love the baby stage > > > but can't cope effectively with rearing children. Finwitch rplied: > > Let's not forget that Harry probably got lots of love from his > > *parents* (being born on Last of July, 1980 and the Night > > happening on the last of October 1981). That's a year and a > > half... So he'd have the necessary touch-experience without > > Petunia. Hannah: > I agree with Leah on this one. I'm not exactly standing > up for Petunia - it is undeniable that the Dursleys treated Harry > badly - but they must have provided at least some care for Harry, > for him to have survived. Bear in mind that Petunia is obsessed > with appearances and what the neighbours think. She isn't going to > be too cruel to a baby in her care. > > I agree that Petunia took in Harry as a baby, when he was at least > quite cute. She probably had some sort of vicious pleasure in > thinking that she was taking over her sister's role, and that she > could bring the boy up, squashing the magic out of him. As he grew > up, she realised that it wasn't going to be as easy as all that. > > She's a lot like Snape, in that she seems unable to put aside her > feelings about someone long dead (in her case Lily) and behave in > an adult way towards that person's child. SSSusan: I can't imagine that Petunia loved the baby stage when it came to Harry. Also, as Finwitch pointed out, Harry was 15 months old when he arrived. This is hardly an infant; he was likely already toddling around. And, frankly, not all 15-month-olds are cute! Of course, *mine* were ;-) but that's a mother talking! Most parents think their own kids are precious, but if the care of a child you DO NOT WANT is thrust upon you, then I'd wager that cuteness doesn't factor in one whit. I'm not sure I agree with Hannah about comparing Snape to Petunia. For one, Snape *isn't* always successful at setting aside his feelings. He is on occasion [witness the Quidditch save of Harry], but not on others [evidence: DD's remarks about Snape teaching Occlumency]. If Petunia was motivated by anything to treat Harry decently, I would have guessed Hannah's first point would be it--how the neighbors would react if she didn't at least keep up the appearance of his care. OTOH, given that Harry lived in the cupboard under the stairs for many years, and he *could* have "outed" the Dursleys for that little gem of "parenting," Petunia must not have been quite so worried that she let all her decisions be swayed by neighbor reaction. Also consider the clothes she put Harry in. I wonder how many sizes too big they were and how ridiculous he looked in them? Yet Miss "What Will The Neighbors Say" Petunia still allowed him to wear them in public. My guess is that Petunia gave Harry the absolute minimal amount of care to keep him alive, and that's about it. As for the original question [I think it was in this thread!] of how Harry turned out so normally, we just don't know, but I doubt it was Petunia's doing. I suspect those first 15 months w/ his parents were extremely important. Beyond that, perhaps his natural temperament just makes him more resilient than most others [Tom Riddle, anyone?]. Siriusly Snapey Susan From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 16:16:51 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:16:51 +0000 Subject: Petunia's protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114155 Dungrollin asks: >Has anyone come up with a decent theory as to why Dumbledore wants >him protected at Privet Drive? Was it mostly for his protection >before he went to Hogwarts, and now DD thinks that one little month >a year can't hurt, if, through that, he can be sure that there's >somewhere safe for Harry? I think you've answered your own question. Until he could go to Hogwarts, Harry needed to have that protection year-round. Now, he needs it for the summer (and in case he ever really did get expelled ...) It's a good question, though, about what happens when Harry is seventeen, an adult by wizard law. If he has to spend a certain amount of time at the Dursley house in order to keep up the protection, then when he is old enough to refuse to return there -- whether he gets his own place, stays with the Weasleys during the summer, does the Wizarding World tour of Europe, etc. -- I think the protection will end. Now, if the Dursleys had been civilized people and Harry cared about them and wanted to live there, or even visit, after he left Hogwarts, it would probably continue for as long as Petunia was alive -- and since it's his mother's blood that controls it, it might live on in Dudley (!) even after Petunia died. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Sep 29 16:53:53 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:53:53 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114156 The exchange between Valky and Carol below amuses me to no end, as both words are perfectly good American English usage, too. (No "close British descent"? What kind of pure-blood ideology are we building up here?) There are plenty of instances of unique British usage in the HP books that might throw an American reader unfamiliar with such usage -- ranging from slang ("Wotcher," "git," "berk," and the like) to formal words that have different denotations in American and British use (such as the "diary" in CS, which we Americans would call a "calendar" or "datebook"). But I don't think there's any significant difference in the meaning of "lapdog" or "snivel" in American and British usage, and I doubt the frequency of use is terribly different either. -- Matt ----------------------- American usage of "lapdog": Merriam-Webster definition -- Function: noun 1 : a small dog that may be held in the lap 2 : a servile dependent or follower (Of course, even if the word had not picked up a specific usage as applied to people, the implication would be a person who acts like a lap dog, i.e., follows the master everywhere and takes orders.) Website for an American band named "Lapdog": http://www.lapdogmusic.com Politically-charged Salon article portraying Pres. Bush as Ariel Sharon's lapdog: http://tinyurl.com/6hmuy Counterpunch article portraying 9/11 Commission as Bush's lapdog: http://tinyurl.com/4mjt2 Joke from Jay Leno's monologue back in February, after Pres. Bush's dog died: "Some sad news, President Bush's lapdog passed away. Gee, I didn't even know Tony Blair was sick." ----------------------- American usage of "snivel": Merriam-Webster definition -- Function: intransitive verb 1 : to run at the nose 2 : to snuff mucus up the nose audibly : SNUFFLE 3 : to cry or whine with snuffling 4 : to speak or act in a whining, sniffling, tearful, or weakly emotional manner The CALD definition quoted by Valky below also confirms that the term is used in American English, with the difference that the "l" is not doubled when forming the participles. National Review article celebrating the "sniveling cowardice" of Bob Hope's character in Road to Utopia: http://tinyurl.com/3shj9 Slate review of memoir by Jayson Blair (young reporter fired for plagiarism at the NY Times): http://slate.msn.com/id/2096811/ Transcript of Powerpuff Girls episode titled "Sniveling Rivalry": http://tinyurl.com/3sdr5 Article quoting memoir of Katharine Graham (owner of the Washington Post) regretting a "sniveling" note she wrote to then-Vice President Spiro Agnew: http://tinyurl.com/5hces ---------------------- Valky wrote: > Carol you must not have any close British descent > because that is the purely American definition. In > British english the word Lapdog also applies to a > person and with quite different meaning. > Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: > Definition > lapdog (PERSON) > noun [C] DISAPPROVING > someone who is willing to do anything that a more > important person tells them to do. Carol: [Apologies for misunderstanding, even though her family came over on the Mayflower.] Valky: > and while I am at it I think its about time I let you > all in on the British meaning of snivel. Since so many > american versions have been quoted to contradict me > when I argue that the derogatory term of snivel in the > language I, *and JKR* was raised into, *British > English*, is used to deride someone on their weakness > and not necessarily sensitivity. > Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: > snivel > verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- > to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make > other people feel sympathy for you. Carol: [Comment about how "snivel" is never used in America at all.] From yswahl at stis.net Wed Sep 29 17:01:51 2004 From: yswahl at stis.net (samnanya) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:01:51 -0000 Subject: The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114157 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........ From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 29 17:03:22 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:03:22 -0400 Subject: Question on wizards aging Message-ID: <001301c4a646$3b2a3580$b9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114158 Becki said: "I can recall several off the top of my head... ...Professor Grubbly-Plank comes to the door of the staff room with a pipe in her mouth to address Harry's concerns of Hedwig being attacked in OoP. ...When he first entered the Leaky Cauldron he is describing it and sees a "few old women sitting in a corner, drinking tiny glasses of sherry. One of them smoking a long pipe". ...and the first time Harry is in the Three Broomsticks he describes it as *smoky*. I don't know if all of that increases a wizards chances of getting cancer, if they even get cancer, but they do smoke." DuffyPoo: Mundungus smokes as well. In OotP Molly admonishes him for smoking his pipe in the kitchen. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 17:02:04 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:02:04 -0000 Subject: What's the point? (was RE: making up our own book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" > wrote: > > Now Dungrollin wonders: > > But what is the point of making sure that Voldemort can't hurt him > > at the Dursleys? He's never *at* the Dursley's except when > > Dumbledore forces him to be. > > Tonks here: > > He doesn't have to be at the Dursley house to be safe. As long as > he can call the place where his mother's blood lives home, he is > safe. That does not mean he has to be in the house the whole time. > It just has to be his home. That is what DD ment. However, it does > seem, to US at least, that he is not safe outside the house. But > according to what DD says, Harry just has to have Petunia's home be > his. > > Tonks_op Dungrollin (begging forgiveness...): GoF, Chapter 33 "The Death Eaters" (p570 UK hardback) Voldemort says: "...Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him *there*..." (emphasis mine) Voldemort then goes on to give *other* excuses as to why he couldn't get at Harry during the Quidditch World Cup, and then afterwards when he was at Hogwarts under DD's protection. He then attempts to kill Harry, so he can't think that he's protected in the graveyard. OoP, Chapter 37 "The Lost Prophecy" (p737 UK hardback) Dumbledore says: "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort." (emphasis mine) I took this to mean that it's only in the house that he can't be touched or harmed by Voldemort (though I suppose he could also be safe in the garden... :-)). Dungrollin From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 17:22:16 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:22:16 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > For all those who want to know where I got the > sequence of AK followed by laughter, it's from PS/SS, > chap.4. > > "As Hagrid's story came to close, he saw again the > blinding flash of green light, more clearly than he had > ever remembered it before - and he remembered something > else, for the first time in his life - a high, cold, cruel laugh." > > You may disagree and consider that the sequence of the > events is not specified; I'll stick with this one until > something comes along that says different. Oh, and > the 'memory' in PoA - the shrill voice laughing - since > Voldy finds the whole episode so entertaining I'd be > surprised if he wasn't laughing his socks off all the way > through. I'll need some canon to accept that he only > laughed once. Sorry. I am rereading PS again and I just came across the dream (the talking turban) Harry has on his first night at Hogwarts - Chapter : The Sorting Hat. At one point during the dream, Malfoy appears and then turns - as it happens often in dreams - into Snape whose laugh became high and cold... There is a burst of green light and Harry wakes up. Harry does not remember the dream in this scene of PS/SS, of course, but could this be foreshadowing ? Who laughed at Godric's Hollow ? Voldy or Snape ? Since the first book, I have had the very distinct feeling that Snape might be the key to the whole story... Anyway. I am very please to reply to one of your posts Kneasy. I never miss any of them especially Snapey's interviews on Radio Tbay. When will Lord Voldemort be back in the studio for a follow up on his evil dooings and whereabouts ? For a good laugh : post 93577. An interview not to be missed ! ;-) Bonne journ?e/soir?e/nuit ! Nadine From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Sep 29 17:48:06 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:48:06 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114161 --- "sad1199" wrote: > Dumbledore is the oldest wizard alive that we know of.... >[W]e don't hear of any other o-o-o-old wizards just, by > Muggle standards, mainly middle aged wizards. --- Finwitch responded: > Hard to say, but the professor who examined Dumbledore > (and thus MUST be older than Dumbledore (to have passed > Hogwarts before Dumbledore), most probably something > like 170-200, considering the high status even then!) > says that 'he did things with a wand I had never seen > before'.... Griselda Marchbanks. Tofty, who does Harry's charms exam, is described as even older. Ollivander also seems to be pretty old. Hagrid is 67 or 68 by the end of OP (more than middle-aged by Muggle standards). McGonagall is "not exactly young" (OP ch. 25), although I do not recall a specific indication of her age. -- Matt From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 18:09:51 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <20040929000431.41657.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040929180951.88290.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114162 Kelsey Dangelo wrote: Kelsey: Interesting points. But I have to disagree with the decent into the underworld. First, I don't think that Harry's descent into the literal underworld/Hades/Death would be an "often-used device". For mythology, a resounding yes. But for more modern literature, I'm not so quick to agree. Second, JKR "inflicted" the often-used device of the prophesy on us. I love these books as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that when I read the end of OOP and discovered that the answer to the BIG question (Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry?) was because of a prophesy--I groaned. I felt it was a bit of a cop out. I can now accept it because it's part of that classical, mythological formula/theme/tradition, which I love. And when JKR uses these traditional themes and formulas, she puts a spin on them. Look at her version of the labyrinth (solving the puzzle didn't solve the problem), and even the prophesy is different (it doesn't say who will win the conflict). I cannot even imagine how she would do the decent into the underworld. Considering Voldemort's obsession with avoiding death, I think it might be significant. Because JKR treats death differently than most paralleled writer/storytellers (in that people don't come back in her world like they do in Tolkien's or Homer's), who knows how she'll do it. On the point of the room itself and the veil, because so little of it is explained in OOP, I wonder if it was a teaser or an introduction because of its future importance. I'm really sorry if this has been argued to death or if I'm going off the point. Kelsey Girffin782002 now: Well, it is obvious that you disagree. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. But the only thing I know about that death is death in H.P. is D.D.'s answer to Sirius after L.V.'s return, that Lily and James came back or something like that, I don't have the book with me, that there is no SPELL that brings back the dead to life. The veil is not a spell, as far as I know. If J.K.R. has anything in an interview, please correct me And about J.K.R. not following usual twists, why some fellow members have said that Harry will die because in other books, like "The Chronicles of Narnia" the hero dies, so will Harry? Griffin 782002 who wonders if anyone else shares sense of humour. --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ 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 spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 18:11:15 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:11:15 -0000 Subject: Petunia's protection/What's the point? (was re: making up our own book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114163 > Dungrollin asks: > >Has anyone come up with a decent theory as to why Dumbledore wants > >him protected at Privet Drive? Was it mostly for his protection > >before he went to Hogwarts, and now DD thinks that one little > >month a year can't hurt, if, through that, he can be sure that > >there's somewhere safe for Harry? Janet replied: > I think you've answered your own question. Until he could go to > Hogwarts, Harry needed to have that protection year-round. Now, > he needs it for the summer (and in case he ever really did get > expelled ...) Dungrollin: Sorry, I've probably not made it clear what I mean. He spent a month at The Burrow at the beginning of CoS, nearly a month in Diagon Alley at the beginning of PoA, a week at The Burrow in GoF, and a month in Grimmauld Place at the beginning of OoP. (I checked on the Lexicon). Dumbledore says "You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you." OoP, The Lost Prophecy p 737 UK hb. Either he's being sent there because he needs the protection over the summer, or he's being sent there to renew the charm so that Privet Drive is there in an emergency. If he's being sent there because he needs the protection over the summer, why is he allowed so much time at other places where he won't be protected? Just being sent there to renew the protection reads (to me) like making sure DD has a back-up plan in case all else fails. Now Grimmauld Place is pretty safe, if it's as safe for Harry to spend a whole month there as it was at the Dursleys' why send him back to them every summer, force him to have a thoroughly miserable and unpleasant month for safety that he can equally find at the far more pleasant (!) Grimmauld Place (or indeed The Burrow or The Leaky Cauldron)? That's probably not much clearer... Sorry :( Dungrollin. And thanks for the reply :) From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 18:45:51 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:45:51 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114164 Valky wrote: Carol you must not have any close British descent because that is the purely American definition. In British english the word Lapdog also applies to a person and with quite different meaning. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: Definition lapdog (PERSON) noun [C] DISAPPROVING someone who is willing to do anything that a more important person tells them to do. Carol: [Apologies for misunderstanding, even though her family came over on the Mayflower.] Valky: and while I am at it I think its about time I let you all in on the British meaning of snivel. Since so many american versions have been quoted to contradict me when I argue that the derogatory term of snivel in the language I, *and JKR* was raised into, *British English*, is used to deride someone on their weakness and not necessarily sensitivity. Cambridge advanced Learners Dictionary: snivel verb [I] -ll- or US USUALLY -l- to cry slightly in a way that is weak and does not make other people feel sympathy for you. Carol: [Comment about how "snivel" is never used in America at all.] Matt wrote: The exchange between Valky and Carol below amuses me to no end, as both words are perfectly good American English usage, too. (No "close British descent"? What kind of pure-blood ideology are we building up here?) There are plenty of instances of unique British usage in the HP books that might throw an American reader unfamiliar with such usage -- ranging from slang ("Wotcher," "git," "berk," and the like) to formalwords that have different denotations in American and British use(such as the "diary" in CS, which we Americans would call a "calendar" or "datebook"). But I don't think there's any significant differencein the meaning of "lapdog" or "snivel" in American and British usage,and I doubt the frequency of use is terribly different either. -- Matt ----------------------- [Snip-Refernces and Links see post 114156] Dharma replies: I'm in agreement with Matt on usage of these two words. "Lapdog" and "snivel" are both commonly used in political discourse on many levels in my experience as a US English speaker. I've heard native and non-native speakers from diverse linguistic backgrounds use these words in the "sycophantic" and "whiny" contexts, so I find it rather surprising that Carol's interpretation was generalized to all US English speakers. It seems a bit presumptuous to me. "Lucius Malfoy's lapdog," was not vague to me at all. On first reading, it implied very strongly to me that Severus did what Lucius said because, Lucius was the more influential of the two. "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. A friend of mine, who is a native English from Mexico of Mexican lineage, interpreted both of these items the same way. It is not at all clear to me that native use of British English and British ancestry have much, or anything at all, to do with understanding the usage of these two words in the context that JKR presented them. Dharma From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 18:56:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:56:52 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: <20040929145509.41420.qmail@web12101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114165 Demetra: > > It seems to me that the HE's were introduced as a rather benign > > group. Dobby is the first HE we meet, and he comes across as > > more ditzy than dangerous. MJ: > I think we also have to remember that whatever magic HE's possess, > the mere threat of Dobby using it was enough to make Lucius turn > tail and run (figuratively speaking). At the end of CS, Dobby > casts a spell strong enough to knock LM down the stairs. He tells > LM "You shall go now....You shall not touch Harry Potter," and > then.... > > "Lucius Malfoy had no choice.." Why? Why did he "have no choice"? > Dobby's just a house elf, right? Why couldn't LM just tell Dobby > to go bang his head on the wall and stay out of it? Did the fact > that Dobby was at that point free have anything to do with it? > Does being tied to a home/family make the HE's magic weaker - or > more controllable? > > There has to be something we're not being told about HEs and what > they can and cannot do and the strength of their magic skills. I'm > in the group that believes there will be a battle at Hogwarts and > HEs will have a role to play in defending it. SSSusan: These are great comments, following upon another excellent post by Demetra. You may be onto something key when you ask whether having the HEs enslaved somehow *weakens* their inherent magical ability. If they spend their lives "doing for" their masters and punishing themselves for any rebellious thought or action, then there may well be a built-in mechanism for controlling their powerful magical capabilities. It *is* noteworthy that Dobby could do what seems to be pretty advanced magic: apparating; sealing the barrier; charming the bludger; *wandlessly* causing the pudding to fall; and, as you noted, sending Lucius sprawling & causing him to back off. I think we're SUPPOSED to think it's just a *different* kind of magic from wizards - - 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. Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Sep 29 19:04:48 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:04:48 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catimini15" wrote: > > I am rereading PS again and I just came across the dream (the > talking turban) Harry has on his first night at Hogwarts - Chapter : > The Sorting Hat. At one point during the dream, Malfoy appears and > then turns - as it happens often in dreams - into Snape whose laugh > became high and cold... There is a burst of green light and Harry > wakes up. Harry does not remember the dream in this scene of PS/SS, > of course, but could this be foreshadowing ? Who laughed at Godric's > Hollow ? Voldy or Snape ? Since the first book, I have had the very > distinct feeling that Snape might be the key to the whole story... > Anyway. > > I am very please to reply to one of your posts Kneasy. I never miss > any of them especially Snapey's interviews on Radio Tbay. When will > Lord Voldemort be back in the studio for a follow up on his evil > dooings and whereabouts ? > > For a good laugh : post 93577. An interview not to be missed ! ;-) > After a bad day there's nothing so good as a boost to the ego. Thank you. But you're giving me an excuse to re-introduce a subject I've posted on before (twice!) and received almost no response - that dream. It is foreshadowing, it must be. It's intended solely for us, the readers. What other purpose could it possibly have? - the text states explicitly that Harry never remembers it! 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. We now know that behind that turban was Voldy; is it Voldy that wants Harry in Slytherin or is it a hold-over from the Hat's comments? Is the green light past or future? Malfoy becomes Snape - how? For a conspiricist it's almost all too much. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 19:06:03 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:06:03 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (was: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114167 frugalarugala wrote: > If the Dudley-Draco parallel continues, Draco might be beefed up as > a baddie next book. The way I see it, Dudley's main form of > indulgence was food--a diet forced his changes; Draco's main form > of indulgence is money--his father's arrest will like cause put him > on a monitary diet. (I doubt the Malfoys will be entirely broke-- > Narcissa is a Black after all.) SSSusan: This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your mention of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think Lucius has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that he doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or gain (of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not working? Siriusly Snapey Susan From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 19:19:45 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:19:45 -0000 Subject: The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: <> > What role will he play? > > 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. > ChrisT Doddie here: The one aspect of Malfoy in each of the books is that he has very loose lips, always tells everyone he is "in the know"...and to some degree or another he typically does know information that the other students do not. (even though it may not be ALL the information)Also there is the vicious gossip/slander about Harry and Hagrid, not to mention his incessant bragging. As for Draco's future...I would not be at all surprised if he was killed by LV or one of the DE's for "leaking" important secrets to someone on the "other side". JKR has already shown us via Bertha Jorkins and Rita Skeeter to the fate of those gossiping and spreading rumors. The fact that Lucious is in Azkaban may lead Draco down the death- eater path sooner rather than later. (Do you think Draco knows any secrets about Snape?) Doddie (who still wonders if Marrietta's spots are still upon her face) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 19:19:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:19:19 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114169 Matt: > Griselda Marchbanks. Tofty, who does Harry's charms exam, is > described as even older. Ollivander also seems to be pretty old. > Hagrid is 67 or 68 by the end of OP (more than middle-aged by Muggle > standards). McGonagall is "not exactly young" (OP ch. 25), although I > do not recall a specific indication of her age. She's around 70. Siriusly Snapey Susan From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 19:53:04 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:53:04 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (WAS the importance of being Draco Malfoy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114170 SSSusan wrote: >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your mention >of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think Lucius >has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that he >doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or gain >(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not >working? Leah: I don't think we do have any canon at all on this. He seems to be a frequent visitor to the MOM, but I don't think there's any indication that he works there. I assume he lives off his and Narcissa's inheritances, which would mean he has to invest to gain interest on his capital or take out loans on land and real property. Presumably his investments and loans are with Gringotts, and I wonder whether this is one of the reasons he is so thick with Fudge, who, according to the Quibbler, has his own designs on the bank. In fact one could equate the goblins with medieval Jewish moneylenders in terms of their vulnerability to the powerful who are in debt to them. (though currently the goblins seem to look after themselves more effectively ) As an off topic aside to an off topic aside, could the WW use timetravel as an investment tool- change your knuts etc to muggle money, nip back a hundred years, put it in the bank, and withdraw your interest in the future? Leah From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 19:46:37 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929194637.56555.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114171 Tina wrote in #114051: > There is something up with Hermione's memory. > I've generally considered her very intelligent and > able to comprehend and retain what she has read but > now I'm wondering if there is more to it than that. > [Discussion of Hr's quotation in OP from DD's speech > at the GF end-of-year feast.] Hermione has a trick that helps her remember things: she pays attention when people, especially teachers, are talking. Ron has a habit of blowing off what doesn't interest him at the moment. It's amazing how much more you remember when you listen in the first place. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Sep 29 20:10:31 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:10:31 -0000 Subject: Hermione's memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrs_sonofgib" wrote: > There is something up with Hermione's memory. > I've generally considered her very intelligent and able to > comprehend and retain what she has read but now I'm wondering if > there is more to it than that. [snipped] > Thanks, > tina Pat here: I can see what you are getting at. It is just the kind of thing JKR does--throwing in little bits of things that seem easily explained or even unimportant. But I do think, like most of the others, that she just pays attention and remembers what she hears. My youngest daughter had an incredible memory for things I said, when she was only 3. She would tell my mom something, sounding like it was her own idea, but my mom recognized my phrasing. She'd ask me later if I had told Laura--whatever it was--and of course, I had. She was repeating what I'd said nearly word for word at the age of 3. My own memory for things that I hear is fairly decent-- which tells me that I'm an auditory learner. Hermione of course is older and has been honing that skill or gift or whatever it is, so naturally she'd remember important things she hears. And Hannah, don't worry, your keys will turn up. I lost mine once for about a month before I found them under something. Or maybe it's just another example of muggle-baiting, and someone's put a shrinking charm on them. *g* Pat From ExSlytherin at aol.com Wed Sep 29 20:22:19 2004 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Mandy) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:22:19 -0000 Subject: Dream on. Back to the Dream. Was: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114173 > Kneasy wrote: > After a bad day there's nothing so good as a boost to the ego. > Thank you. > But you're giving me an excuse to re-introduce a subject I've posted on before (twice!) and received almost no response - that dream. > It is foreshadowing, it must be. It's intended solely for us, the readers.What other purpose could it possibly have? - the text states explicitly that Harry never remembers it! > 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. We now know that behind that turban was Voldy; is it Voldy that wants Harry in Slytherin or is it a hold-over from the Hat's comments? Is the green light past or future? Malfoy becomes Snape - how? > For a conspiricist it's almost all too much. Mandy here: I don't think it is foreshadowing but I do agree that the dream is gift for us. The only purpose I think it has is as a clue to the final solution to the whole saga. Namely what is the relationship between Harry and LV, and why and how did Harry survive GH. 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. The failed GH possession left remnants of LV in Harry's head and that is what is surfacing in his dream. Simply the remnants of LV, as the Heir of Slytherin, wanting to be in Slytherin House. 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. As for Malfoy becoming Snape well the only two explanations for foreshadowing that I've heard, I don't like. Firstly Malfoy becomes head of Slytherin House. No, not in a million years would a son of the House of Malfoy condescend to become a teacher. There is no compassion in the child and never will be. Secondly, that Malfoy will defect to the good side, like Snape. The hoped for good Slytherin. While I like this theory in general I don't know if there is enough room in the story for it to happen. We just don't know Malfoy well enough for any of us to care about him in a way that redeeming him would be worth it. So Malfoy becomes Snape in the dream because they both represent the first dark wizards Harry has met in the WW since leaving it as a baby. The WW is new to him and he's struggling to make sense of it all and meets this horrible child wizard, and then gets a feeling of similar discomfort from an adult wizard, it's logical for him to dream that Malfoy is going to grow up in to Snape. Boring, I know, but I just can't come up with a more interesting theory about that dream. Cheers Mandy From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Sep 29 20:39:17 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:39:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's House. Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040929155016.63794.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: bamf: > > Aren't we also told in Book 1 that Dumbledor was in > Gryffindor? I thought Hermonie on the train to > Hogwarts say that she wouldn't mind being in > Gryffindor, after all DD was. > Geoff: Yes indeed it does - or at least the implication is there. i mut admit I'd missed that in past readings. 5 points to Gryffindor for good memory work. "Do either of you know what house you'll in? I've been asking around and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear Dumbledore himself was one but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad...." (PS "The Journey from platform Nine and Three-Quarters" pp.79-80 UK edition) Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From red_rider4 at lycos.com Wed Sep 29 12:25:28 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:25:28 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114175 > Finwitch: > > Nah - the mirror tells us *nothing* of Harry's family. It tells us > what is his heart's desire. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not > truthful. It gives no information but the knowledge of what your > heart's desire is. Hester: I find it interesting, however that Harry had never seen even one picture of his folks at that point. It wasn't until the end of the year when Hagrid gave him the photo album that Harry knew what his parents looked like, and it was the same as what the mirror showed him months before. Thus the mirror does show some truth. Would the mirror be able to show non-magic folk? I assume so, but the immages did not come from Harry's head. Hester From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Sep 29 16:28:05 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:28:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <005c01c4a641$513920c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114176 >>Potioncat: One of my favorite threads...getting to argue with Neri and Alla at the same time...made my head spin! A host of posters participated in this one, providing everything from canon to scientific data. I'd like to suggest two more posts from the thread Pippen (pro Snape) 107919 and Neri (anti Snape) 108037. One view was that Snape wasted time by not responding faster. Either out of negligence or apathy. The other view is that he responded appropriately given information at the time.<< Kethryn - Now, just to add a bit of fuel to the fire. Last night, I had an epiphany while lying in bed, waiting for sleep to come (and I had to exercise severe self control not to leap out of bed, turn on the computer, and email it in) so let's see if I can recreate the thought process. And this is all about Snape and his attitudes and a couple of things that have been bothering me. 1. In the Sorcerer's Stone, all those "chats" Snape had with Quirrel are bugging me. Of course, we don't know a lot of what was said but, since Quirrel had Voldemort for a pet parasite, Snape took a real risk in speaking to Quirrel. 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. 2. Snape must act the way he does towards Harry in order to protect his [Snape's] life, which is kind of selfish but goes hand in hand with Slytherin doctrine. Wait, think about it for a second. Who is in Potions with Harry? Malfoy, right? And we all know that Malfoy carries home tales to his father - "everyone thinks he is so smart, wonderful Potter with his scar and his broomstick - [...] You have told me this at least a dozen times already" (CoS, American ed, p.62). So, with Voldemort out on the loose and with a Malfoy spy in his class, Snape must act like a jerk towards Harry (and he might enjoy it a little bit because of his hatred for James). Snape knows,also, that there are other DE children in Slytherin, those children are taking home tales to their parents (the ones that aren't locked up in Azkaban that is) so he has to assume that Voldemort (or at least the other DEs) is getting an earful from the kids. Those DE parents, to say nothing of Voldemort, could make life very unpleasant for Snape and maybe, in trying to go for Snape, they might kill a student or someone close to him. No, it would be much easier if Snape pretended to hate Harry in order to protect his identity and his position. I mean, if Snape dies, who would replace him in Potions? Sheesh, if Umbridge did, I wouldn't put it past her to poison the class or something (something Snape threatened to do but never actually did). 3. On the whole threatening to poison the class issue, I think Snape would be right to do so if he did poison the students. Snape would not let a student that he poisoned actually die, he would be testing their reactions to the attack, if you will. Kind of like throwing the child in the water to see if they can figure out swimming while the parent is right there to rescue the kid if he or she gets into trouble. Another thing too, since we know the WW is not a safe place by any stretch of the imagination, it is quite likely that one or more of his students will be poisoned sometime in their life. If Snape had poisoned the class and they knew how to react to the poison because they had already done it in a controlled enviornment, they would be much less likely to panic and would, theoretically, be able to get help before they died. Snape's teaching will stand between the students and Death, literally, and that is not an easy thing to impress upon students so he rides them harder than the other teachers do. Can you imagine how he might feel when word gets back to him that one of his former students died because of poison? 4. Snape really was in Slytherin House while he was at Hogwarts. I read that last night either in the Sorcerer's Stone or on the beginning of the Chamber of Secrets. Hagrid, I think, told Harry but I didn't write down the page number and I can't find it again (well, not with the few seconds I had to look at any rate, I have to go to class soon). So, therefore, Snape is acting as he must in order to retain the faith with the other Death Eaters and Lord Voldemort without arousing suspicion. I mean, it would look very bloody odd if Snape was actually nice to Harry, the boy who killed his master, after all. No, if Snape were really working for Voldemort still, he would treat Harry exactly the way he is treating him now which, if you notice, is merely an extention of how Malfoy treats him. Damn, Snape is a good actor. Kethryn - who is rather pleased with this particular theory even if it sounded better at 3AM. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 18:40:51 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:40:51 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging In-Reply-To: <001301c4a646$3b2a3580$b9c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114177 DuffyPoo: > > Mundungus smokes as well. In OotP Molly admonishes him for smoking his pipe in the kitchen. > cunning spirit: Indeed. I believe that I encountered a reference somewhere that said that "mundungus" is actually the name for a particularly stinky tobacco mixture once favored by some British lower classes. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 18:48:59 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929184859.332.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114178 Kim here, throwing in my two pennies: Kethryn wrote: >Theories abounding but, if the mirror shows Harry's true >heart's desire, is it as simple as wanting to see his family >(if so why were the Dursley's left out) or did he just want to >see the magic users or did he just want to see the ones he >would never get to meet (presumably because they are dead). >That's something to ponder, at any rate. To which Finwitch replied: >Nah - the mirror tells us *nothing* of Harry's family. It tells >us what is his heart's desire. Nothing more, nothing less. It >is not truthful. It gives no information but the knowledge of >what your heart's desire is. >So um.. Harry doesn't see the Dursleys in it, because he >doesn't WANT to see them, quite the opposite - he wants to be >RID of them! Of course the Mirror won't show him the >Dursleys... >I wonder if Ron will become the Head Boy AND the Quidditch >Captain as saw in the mirror to be his desire? At least, Ron's >in the team *and* a prefect,(and curiously enough, Harry's NOT) >so it's not so farfetched a thought for him to gain his heart's >desire! Kim now: I think the images in the Mirror must at least be true to some degree in that it does show his parents' real features (before he ever saw any photos of them) and so one could assume the images of the other dead relatives were somewhat close to true. I'd always assumed the people Harry saw in the Mirror were only his dead relatives (not actually them, but conjured by Harry's mind's eye), otherwise, wouldn't Dumbledore have sent him to live with any other living relatives besides the horrid Dursleys? I think it's in the books somewhere that Harry has no other living relatives but Dursleys. From your above posts (which make good points about what the Mirror shows), I had a scary thought: If Harry's heart's desire is to meet his relatives, and all his relatives worth meeting are already dead (add Sirius to that mix too if you like), how can Harry achieve his heart's desire, other than by dying himself? Of course Harry will die eventually like everyone else and no doubt at a ripe old age (at which time he can meet his dead relatives and achieve his heart's desire) which JKR will never include in a book because she's finishing the whole tale at book 7 with Harry very much alive.... Can anyone tell I shudder at the thought of JKR killing Harry off?? She can't, I won't have it... ;-) Wait, wait, I know -- Professor Trelawney will have a stroke of genius, hold a seance, and introduce Harry to his parents and all his wonderful ancestors... Kim From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 19:54:21 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:54:21 -0000 Subject: stopper death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114179 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). Anyway, that's all I have to say. Hope everyone is having a brilliant day, Beatnik24601 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:02:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:02:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <005c01c4a641$513920c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114180 > Kethryn - > > > 4. Snape really was in Slytherin House while he was at Hogwarts. I read that last night either in the Sorcerer's Stone or on the beginning of the Chamber of Secrets. Hagrid, I think, told Harry but I didn't write down the page number and I can't find it again (well, not with the few seconds I had to look at any rate, I have to go to class soon). Alla: Kethryn, I just want to make a quick comment, since I am posting from work, but I believe you are mistaken. Nowhere in the books it says directly that Snape was in Slytherin. I will be always happy to eat my words of course.:) From t.forch at email.dk Wed Sep 29 21:20:46 2004 From: t.forch at email.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:20:46 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040929230808.022aa6c0@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 114181 At 09:18 29-09-04 +0000, finwitch wrote: >I can think of several other reasons that wizards have longer life- >span - it's not JUST because they're magical: > >1. No wizard smokes (at least I have never seen one do so, and I >doubt JKR makes one), and thus they avoid several lethal (and painful) >lung-diseases. PS-5 'Diagon Alley' -- upon entering the Leaky Cauldron: " For a famous place, it was very dark and shabby. A few old women were sitting in a corner, drinking tiny glasses of sherry. One of them was smoking a long pipe." OotP-5 'The Order of the Phoenix' when Harry first enters the kitchen in the headquarters just after the meeting: " It was scarcely less gloomy than the hall above, a cavernous room with rough stone walls. Most of the light was coming from a large fire at the far end of the room. A haze of pipe smoke hung in the air like battle fumes, through which loomed the menacing shapes of heavy iron pots and pans hanging from the dark ceiling." At least Mundungus must have been smoking, but possibly other members of the Order did as well. >2. No fast food. (and therefore, not so many heart-failures & such?) > >3. No idealizing of being skinny, to go with wearing robes (so no >anorectics either) > >4. No traffic accidents leading to severe consequences (apparently >they can fix splitting for the apparating excelently, at least it's >not lethal). 1 through 4 were also true five hundred years ago, and they lived how much longer than today? >5. Some good Healing methods, even though they do have magical >diseases to balance that. (like phoenix tears vs. basilisk bites, or >Mansdrake Draught, Pepper-up potion...) That would account for an longer average life-span, but not for a higher maximum unless there is some way to 'heal' old age, in which case we should expect wizards to live indefinitely (there is, but it requires a Philosophers' Stone to make the Elixir of Life, and that is very rare and obviously not the reason for their generally longer life). >6. What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping them >alive? There is at least two or three other guesses that seem to me more likely as to what Snape meant. >7. Magical children can protect themselves effectively (like Neville >bouncing after such fall!), so much less children dying because of >nasty adults or unfortunate accidents... Again this would only explain a longer average life, not a higher maximum age. Troels Forchhammer From t.forch at email.dk Wed Sep 29 21:28:51 2004 From: t.forch at email.dk (Troels Forchhammer) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:28:51 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <20040929180951.88290.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040929000431.41657.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20040929232643.022c4480@pop3.norton.antivirus> No: HPFGUIDX 114182 At 11:09 29-09-04 -0700, sp. sot. wrote: >But the only thing I know about that death is death in H.P. is D.D.'s >answer to Sirius after L.V.'s return, that Lily and James came back or >something like that, I don't have the book with me, that there is no SPELL >that brings back the dead to life. The veil is not a spell, as far as I >know. If J.K.R. has anything in an interview, please correct me JKR: Well, it would be nice, but - I'll tell you something - you - you've raised a really interesting point there, Peter, because when I started writing the books, the first thing I had to decide was not what magic /can/ do, but what it /can't/ do. I had to set limits on it - immediately, and decide what the parameters are ... and one of the most important things I - I decided was that _magic__cannot__bring__dead__people__back to life; that' - that's one of the most profound things, the - the natural law of - of - of death applies to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're properly dead, you know, they might be able to save very close-to-death people better than we can, by magic - that they - that they have certain knowledge we don't, but once you're dead, you're dead. From the Boston radio show "The Connection", 1999-10-12 From maritajan at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:21:29 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929212129.83082.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114183 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > Kethryn, I just want to make a quick comment, since I am posting from > work, but I believe you are mistaken. Nowhere in the books it says > directly that Snape was in Slytherin. > I will be always happy to eat my words of course.:) > GoF, page 531 (Sirius talking)...."Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." Technically, it doesn't say Snape was IN Slytherin house, but that's certainly what's inferred here, especially since we're given to believe that most of the kids hang around with kids from their own houses. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:30:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:30:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040929212129.83082.qmail@web12105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Marita Jan wrote: snips GoF quote. > Technically, it doesn't say Snape was IN Slytherin house, but that's > certainly what's inferred here, especially since we're given to believe > that most of the kids hang around with kids from their own houses. Alla: Yes, of course I know this one, but as we discussed it quite a few times, this quote can be read both ways. It does not says specifically that Snape WAS a Slytherin. Therefore I think that surprises are possible Good example is Luna, which can be described after OOP as "part of the gang of Gryffindors" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:56:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:56:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's House. Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114185 > Geoff: > Yes indeed it does - or at least the implication is there. i mut > admit I'd missed that in past readings. > > 5 points to Gryffindor for good memory work. > > "Do either of you know what house you'll in? I've been asking around > and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best, I hear > Dumbledore himself was one but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too > bad...." > > (PS "The Journey from platform Nine and Three-Quarters" pp.79-80 UK > edition) > Alla: Yep again, it is there, but that is why I was asking in my original post whether we have anything more than "Hermione heard that" and Susan replied with the clue, which I think is more objective than the first one. It is about time for good Slytherin to show up. :) From maritajan at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:58:45 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929215845.77438.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114186 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Marita Jan > wrote: > > snips GoF quote. > > > Technically, it doesn't say Snape was IN Slytherin house, but that's > > certainly what's inferred here, especially since we're given to > believe > > that most of the kids hang around with kids from their own houses. > > > Alla: > > Yes, of course I know this one, but as we discussed it quite a few > times, this quote can be read both ways. > > It does not says specifically that Snape WAS a Slytherin. Therefore I > think that surprises are possible > > Good example is Luna, which can be described after OOP as "part of > the gang of Gryffindors" > MJ: But there are references to Snape being "..up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts..." and other similar statements, and we don't hear about any other House being so steeped in the Dark Arts but Slytherin. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I guess I just never thought, given the comments in the book about Snape, that he was anything BUT Slytherin when he was in school. Of course, that's just me. MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 22:05:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:05:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040929215845.77438.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114187 > MJ: But there are references to Snape being "..up to his eyeballs in the > Dark Arts..." and other similar statements, and we don't hear about any > other House being so steeped in the Dark Arts but Slytherin. If it walks > like a duck and quacks like a duck...I guess I just never thought, given > the comments in the book about Snape, that he was anything BUT Slytherin > when he was in school. Of course, that's just me. Alla: Yes, of course. Those references are there. But despite them I did think about possibility of Snape being somebody else besides Slytherin. About Dark Arts... Do I need to cite one specific Gryffindor as an example? :) Think about it, no matter how much JKR seems to dislike Slytherin house (and if we look at how she portrays it, I do agree with her), she cannot just leave it black and white at the end, don't you think? Slytherins are bad, Gryffindors are good? Primitive, I'd say. Yes, the Slytherin ideology is horrible, horrible, horrible, but all kids in Slytherin are horrible too? Besides, I so want to read about expression on Harry's face, when he learns that Snape was a Gryffindor. :o) Even better, McGonagall becomes Headmistress at the end and Snape gets to fulfill his dream - being a Head of Gryffindor House(HAHAHA!) From sad1199 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 22:20:57 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:20:57 -0000 Subject: Question on wizards aging. In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040929230808.022aa6c0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114188 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer wrote: > At 09:18 29-09-04 +0000, finwitch wrote: > > > > > > >I can think of several other reasons that wizards have longer life- > >span - it's not JUST because they're magical: > > > >1. No wizard smokes (at least I have never seen one do so, and I > >doubt JKR makes one), and thus they avoid several lethal (and painful) > >lung-diseases. > > PS-5 'Diagon Alley' -- upon entering the Leaky Cauldron: > > " For a famous place, it was very dark and shabby. A few old > women were sitting in a corner, drinking tiny glasses of > sherry. One of them was smoking a long pipe." > > OotP-5 'The Order of the Phoenix' when Harry first enters the kitchen > in the headquarters just after the meeting: > > " It was scarcely less gloomy than the hall above, a cavernous > room with rough stone walls. Most of the light was coming from > a large fire at the far end of the room. A haze of pipe smoke > hung in the air like battle fumes, through which loomed the > menacing shapes of heavy iron pots and pans hanging from the > dark ceiling." > At least Mundungus must have been smoking, but possibly other members of the > Order did as well. > > >2. No fast food. (and therefore, not so many heart-failures & such?) > > > >3. No idealizing of being skinny, to go with wearing robes (so no > >anorectics either) > > > >4. No traffic accidents leading to severe consequences (apparently > >they can fix splitting for the apparating excelently, at least it's > >not lethal). > > 1 through 4 were also true five hundred years ago, and they lived how > much longer than today? > > >5. Some good Healing methods, even though they do have magical > >diseases to balance that. (like phoenix tears vs. basilisk bites, or > >Mansdrake Draught, Pepper-up potion...) > > That would account for an longer average life-span, but not for a > higher maximum unless there is some way to 'heal' old age, in which > case we should expect wizards to live indefinitely (there is, but it > requires a Philosophers' Stone to make the Elixir of Life, and that > is very rare and obviously not the reason for their generally longer > life). > > >6. What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping them > >alive? > > There is at least two or three other guesses that seem to me more > likely as to what Snape meant. > > > >7. Magical children can protect themselves effectively (like Neville > >bouncing after such fall!), so much less children dying because of > >nasty adults or unfortunate accidents... > > Again this would only explain a longer average life, not a higher > maximum age. > > Troels Forchhammer sad1199 here: That is what I meant. Wizards don't just live longer. Their helath is much better than average. My grandmother is 94 and she has a walker and can only go for about 1/2 hour at a time without resting just around her house and she is considered to be in good health for her age. My original thought was that the more powerful wizards of magic live longer because of their magical skills. Maybe the more skills you have the more magical health energy you have as a wizard or witch. ...happy, caring, loving... sad1199 From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Sep 29 22:31:06 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:31:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's family (was: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114189 Kethryn wrote: > > > Theories abounding but, if the mirror shows Harry's true > > > heart's desire, is it as simple as wanting to see his family > > > (if so why were the Dursley's left out) or did he just want to > > > see the magic users or did he just want to see the ones he > > > would never get to meet (presumably because they are dead). > > > That's something to ponder, at any rate. > To which Finwitch replied: > > Nah - the mirror tells us *nothing* of Harry's family. It tells > > us what is his heart's desire. Nothing more, nothing less. It > > is not truthful. It gives no information but the knowledge of > > what your heart's desire is. > > Harry doesn't see the Dursleys in it, because he doesn't WANT to > > see them, quite the opposite - he wants to be RID of them! Of > > course the Mirror won't show him the Dursleys... Hester replied as thus: > I find it interesting, however that Harry had never seen even one > picture of his folks at that point. It wasn't until the end of the > year when Hagrid gave him the photo album that Harry knew what his > parents looked like, and it was the same as what the mirror showed > him months before. Thus the mirror does show some truth. Would > the mirror be able to show non-magic folk? I assume so, but the > images did not come from Harry's head. Yb: It's possible that he may have some memories of his parents stored in his subconscious. But Harry only knows what his parents looked like because Hagrid told him (on th eisland) "Yeh look a lot like yer dad, but you have yer mum's eyes." This would probably be enough for Harry to start imagining what they looked like. Harry sees his mother: "She was a very pretty woman. She had dark red hair, and her eyes-" and he thinks her eyes look like his. Now it's possible that Hagrid mentioned that Lily was a redhead, otherwise, Harry has a very good imagination. I could see Lily being a redhead, as bright green eyes seem to match with red hair. Harry's dad: "The tall, thin, black-haired man...wore glasses, and his hair was very untidy." Again, just what Harry has heard from Hagrid (you look like your dad). Plus, note how Dudley is becoming a miniature Vernon: same hair, same non-existent neck, etc. Harry would naturally think that all of his traits came from various family members. He's looking for things in common with the people he sees, something he inherited from them to prove he is family. He sees the others in the mirror with his eyes, his nose, and even his knobby knees. I think he is almost inventing these relatives, or at the very least, their appearances. And as for magical folk only? Some of the people in the mirror have Harry's eyes, thus they are blood relation to Lily (sinced he has *her* eyes). If Lily really is a Muggle-born (and I think she is), then those people would almost have to be Muggles. Kim wrote in another post: > I think the images in the Mirror must at least be true to some > degree in that it does show his parents' real features (before he > ever saw any photos of them) and so one could assume the images of > the other dead relatives were somewhat close to true. I'd always > assumed the people Harry saw in the Mirror were only his dead > relatives (not actually them, but conjured by Harry's mind's eye), > otherwise, wouldn't Dumbledore have sent him to live with any > other living relatives besides the horrid Dursleys? I think it's > in the books somewhere that Harry has no other living relatives > but Dursleys. Yb again: Yes, exactly my thinking. If these people were alive, Harry could live with them. I don't know if it's stated in canon flat-out, but I would assume that if there was ANY option besides the Dursleys, DD would have taken it. His "It's better this way, growing up away from his own kind" speech at the beginning of PS/SS is more a "making the best of the situation" line than "This is the best option." I feel that the more distant relatives /were/ sort-of conjured. Petunia never mentions any other sibling, just Lily, so there aren't any Aunts and Uncles on that side, and Sirius never mentions James having siblings, which he probably would have done if there were any, since he lived with them. I think Harry is seeing people he has something in common with. He's dreamed about these people for years, so he has ideas about what they *should* look like. As stated above, he is looking for people who look like him, the way Dudley looks like Vernon. He wants family he feels he has some visible connection with, not the Dursleys, who look nothing like him. Therefore, he wouldn't see the Dursleys in the mirror, just the "relatives" he hoped would take him away from there someday. Just a thought: what do you think Harry would see in the mirror now? Sirius? Voldemort being vanquished? Living to see his 18th birthday? JMO, TIOLI (take it or leave it) ~Yb From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Sep 29 22:31:38 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:31:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <005c01c4a641$513920c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114191 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. 2. Snape must act the way he does towards Harry in order to protect his [Snape's] life... No, it would be much easier if Snape pretended to hate Harry in order to protect his identity and his position. 3. On the whole threatening to poison the class issue... Snape would not let a student that he poisoned actually die, he would be testing their reactions to the attack, if you will. Can you imagine how he might feel when word gets back to him that one of his former students died because of poison? 4. Snape really was in Slytherin House while he was at Hogwarts. So, therefore, Snape is acting as he must in order to retain the faith with the other Death Eaters and Lord Voldemort without arousing suspicion. Dungrollin rolls up her sleeves: Firstly, the biggest problem with Snape is that his behaviour in cannon is compatible with a number of different hypothetical scenarios, which is why people like you (am I allowed to say `us' yet? :-)) argue a lot about him. As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: (I suspect that someone has already gone through this before and probably proposed their own names for the categories, and if so, I humbly apologise, beg forgiveness and - in fact, I'm so sure of it that I'll give the credit to everyone else before I start...) 1. ESE!Snape Snape never really left You Know Who, and is still working for him, or he did really leave but has since returned to being a real DE, at any rate: he's not *really* on Dumbledore's side now. 2. MoralConversion!Snape Snape did really leave the DEs and is genuinely working for Dumbledore, as a result of a moral decision he made, he's just very emotionally immature, unable to separate Harry from James in his mind, and after all the tough times he's gone through just can't help being a miserable b*****d. 3. ReluctantlyGood!Snape Snape is genuinely working for Dumbledore, but he doesn't want to. He was forced to switch sides by something beyond his control, (was set up/found out/owed someone, and had turning spy extracted as payment) knows that the DEs and You Know Who will never forgive him, and sees protecting Harry and making sure Dumbledore's plan triumphs over LV as the only way he'll ultimately survive; resenting it all the way. 4. Oscar-winner!Snape Snape is genuinely working for Dumbledore, did genuinely leave the DEs as the result of a moral decision, and is actually a terribly nice chap, but because he's spying for Dumbledore he can't blow his cover in front of anyone, and he's got to pretend to be a complete b*****d; to which end he performs admirably. I think that 2 is the position I've seen most frequently on this list (please, someone, do correct me if I'm wrong), but 3 is my personal favrourite. My suspicion is that he did really stop being a DE, although he didn't want to, agreed to work for Dumbledore as he had no other choice, and is hating every minute of it. Cheers, Dungrollin. Okay, (scanning the above rubbish and wondering whether to cut all of it out) `simplifico detritus!' (or should that be detriti?). There we go! (Trust me, it was much worse before...) From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 29 23:01:21 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:01:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's family (was: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > > I'd always > > assumed the people Harry saw in the Mirror were only his dead > > relatives (not actually them, but conjured by Harry's mind's eye), > > otherwise, wouldn't Dumbledore have sent him to live with any > > other living relatives besides the horrid Dursleys? I think it's > > in the books somewhere that Harry has no other living relatives > > but Dursleys. > > Yb again: > Yes, exactly my thinking. If these people were alive, Harry could > live with them. I don't know if it's stated in canon flat-out, but I > would assume that if there was ANY option besides the Dursleys, DD > would have taken it. I too think the relatives in the mirror must have been dead but even if they were not, the Dursleys were still the only choice, because of the blood protection: 1. He had to live with his mother's kin since it was her blood sacrifice that protected him, not his father's. Thus none of the Potters would do. 2. I imagine that the closer the relative the stronger the protection. A sister has more common genes than an aunt or uncle. Assuming that Lily had no other siblings nor live parents, the only choice was Petunia. 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 (don't have it here but believe it says something like "the Potters smiled and waved at him"). Either JKR made a mistake or not all of them were Potters. 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. Salit From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 23:32:39 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:32:39 -0000 Subject: Professor Snape (was DD's courtesy; was Re: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > What confuses me in all this is Petunia's howler. Dumbledore actually > calls her 'Petunia'. The feeling I get from the books, is that DD is > very old school in manners. If DD is talking about soemone in the > third person, he will always refer to them by their correct title > e.g. Always admonishing Harry for not giving Snape his correct title. This just inspired a wacky thought (hope it's vaguely original) ... Is there any other Snape, as opposed to *Profesor* Snape? It's not just polite Dumbeldore that picks Harry (and others?) repeatedly in the books on not using Severus' Hogwarts title. IIRC at least McGonagall and Lupin do it. Are these two equally polite or else thrown for a minute about which Snape Harry might be referring to and asking him to clarify without making it obvious that this is what they're doing? Wouldn't it be a shocker if there was another (even badder?) Snape that JKR has deliberately not told us about yet? (or are there already theories I haven't read/recalled? - I certainly recall some recent mutterings about Snape being a relative of Borgin's and changing his name in shame, or whatever). JKR likes her sn... words (snape, snake, sneak, snitch, snatch, snivel(lus), though I don't recall use of snide, sneaky, sneaking, snap, snappy or snip) From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 23:45:03 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:45:03 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114194 SSSusan wrote: >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your mention >of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think Lucius >has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that he >doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or gain >(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not >working? I really believe they aren't as wealthy as they want to appear--their money gives them powerful influence but they're too boastful about it. They act like nouveau riche. Fudge (if memory serves, it was Fudge) said the Malfoys were an old family, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were wealthy. Also great ambition is usually not found in people who grow up with privilege, and Lucius is ambitious. But regardless, if Lucius is sent to Azkaban, wouldn't Fudge and company seize his assets? From maritajan at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 00:28:03 2004 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (Marita Jan) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040930002803.822.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114195 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > Yes, of course. Those references are there. But despite them I did > think about possibility of Snape being somebody else besides > Slytherin. > > About Dark Arts... Do I need to cite one specific Gryffindor as an > example? :) > *covering my ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I sorta skipped over all the stuff about one of my favorite Gryff's and her maybe less than Gryffindor-like behavior, so I'm just going to continue my Hermy-worship and pretend I don't know what you're talking about. :) MJ ===== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a real estate professional? Visit my site at www.maritabush.com With Marita, great service comes first.....and lasts! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:07:45 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:07:45 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040929232643.022c4480@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer wrote: > At 11:09 29-09-04 -0700, sp. sot. wrote: > > > > JKR: Well, it would be nice, but - I'll tell you something - you > - you've raised a really interesting point there, Peter, > because when I started writing the books, the first thing I > had to decide was not what magic /can/ do, but what it > /can't/ do. > I had to set limits on it - immediately, and decide what the > parameters are ... and one of the most important things I - > I decided was that _magic__cannot__bring__dead__people__back > to life; that' - that's one of the most profound things, the > - the natural law of - of - of death applies to wizards as > it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're > properly dead, you know, they might be able to save very > close-to-death people better than we can, by magic - that > they - that they have certain knowledge we don't, but once > you're dead, you're dead. > > From the Boston radio show "The Connection", 1999-10-12 > mhbobbin: You have stopped the Quote from The Connection before the most interesting and controversial part: JKR: "I had to set limits on it immediately and decide what the perimeters are. One of the most important things I decided was that magic cannot bring dead people back to life. That's one of the most profound things. The natural laws of death applies to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're ***properly*** dead. You know, they might be able to save very close to death people better than we can, by magic. They have certain knowledge we don't, but once you're dead, you're dead. So, yeah, I'm afraid there will be no coming back for Harry's parents." (Emphasis was mine.) mhbobbin again: the key in this paragraph are the words PROPERLY DEAD. Controversial but she said it and posters are still debating it. What does it mean? The controversy won't be settled till Harry goes through the Veil like Orpheus or the last page is written without it. Like it or not, she has written a story with a Giant Three Headed Dog with apparent Greek origins, A pomegranate, and an entrance to death. Harry also has knowledge of how to pass the Three Headed Dog. I should mention for those who hope to see Sirius again, that negotiations for the Dead to come back to living rarely went well in Classical mythology. mhbobbin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:10:50 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:10:50 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040929232643.022c4480@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Troels Forchhammer it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you're > properly dead, you know, they might be able to save very > close-to-death people better than we can, by magic - that > they - that they have certain knowledge we don't, but once > you're dead, you're dead. > > From the Boston radio show "The Connection", 1999-10-12 > > mhbobbin: My apologies. This quote DID include properly dead. Time for me to turn it. Sorry about that. Mhbobbin From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 20:49:21 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929204921.85437.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114198 Carol responded: [snip] First, Barty in the Pensieve scene is a nineteen-year-old boy being guarded by Dementors, fiends that he knows can suck his soul away (a premonition?). He's terrified and hysterical. Second, like most DEs, he's probably a former Slytherin, and Slytherins, we're told, will use any means to achieve their ends. Barty's "end," or objective, in this instance is to be free, to avoid Azkaban and the Dementors at any cost. So he combines his very real terror with a lie, a desperate attempt to get his father to believe him. Bellatrix, notice, *wants* credit for her evil deed. If Barty hadn't helped her to do it, I think she'd have spoken then and there: "Get this coward boy out of here. Rodolphus and Rabastan and I Crucio'd the Longbottoms. He had nothing to do with it." But she says nothing of the kind. In fact, she sets an example of unwavering fanatical loyalty to her master that e later follows. [snip] ...Imperioing his own students and Krum, and AKing his father, an act of murder that parallels Tom Riddle's. Yet these curses are not only illegal but immoral "unforgiveable") in themselves because they take away another's life or self-determination. As far as we know, only an evil person like Crouch Jr. or Wormtail or Bellatrix can cast them correctly. (Even Crouch Sr. is corrupted by them, using evil means to attempt the destruction of evil and so becoming arguably evil himself.) Crouch Jr. also passionately hates Death Eaters who walked free (e.g., Snape and Karkaroff)--by implication because he was a Death Eater who did *not* walk free. His being a Death Eater before Azkaban is confirmed by his own account under veritaserum, where he states that he had to be controlled by his father after his recovery from his near-fatal illness: "My father had to use a number of spells to subdue me. When I had recovered my strength, I thought only of finding my master. . . of *returning to his service*" (GoF Am. ed. 684-85, my emphasis). So is his hatred of Death Eaters who walked free: "We heard the Death Eaters [at the QWC]. The ones who had never been to Azkaban. The ones who had never suffered for my master. They had turned their backs on him. They were not enslaved, as I was. They were free to seek him, but they did not. . . . I was angry. I wanted to attack them for their disloyalty to my master. . . . I wanted to show those Death Eaters what loyalty to my master meant, and to punish them for their lack of it. I used the stolen wand to cast the Dark Mark into the sky" (686-87). Pretty conclusive evidence, I'd say, that Barty Jr. was as loyal a Death Eater as Bellatrix Lestrange and had been since before his arrest. Yes, he should have had a trial (minus Dementors) in which he could plead his innocence if he dared to do so in front of Bellatrix, but I suspect that a fair trial would have found him just as guilty as his older companions. In the face of the Dementors, cowardice overcame fanaticism, but once he's away from the Dementors, fanatical loyalty to Voldemort is his defining trait. If Luna is the antithesis of Hermione, the boy in the Pensieve is the antithesis of Regulus Black. Kelsey: I agree with all you said up there, Carol. I would even go further in the argument that BCJ was/is a Death Eater during the Pensieve scene. Sigh, character motivation. BCJ is a Death Eater because he's rebelling against all that his father obsessively goes against (the Dark Arts). Someone in GOF says that Crouch, Sr. should have spent more time at home than at work, otherwise his son wouldn't have turned. Whether this is accurate is up to debate, but it makes sense. Sort of like the anti-Sirius. In this respect, adolescence would be the precise time that BCJ would want to go to the Dark Side. Maybe, in the beginning of his turn to DA, he wanted his father's attention. Failing to get it, he instead found Voldemort's attention (meaning that Voldemort became a father-figure for BCJ). This is why, despite years in Azkaban and under a spell, he is still obsessively loyal to Voldemort ("I alone!" sounds like sibling rivalry). I like the idea that BCJ was crying and screaming throughout the Pensieve scene because he was doing anything possible to escape and return to Voldemort (someone mentioned that it in fact worked, since his mother arranged his escape). But I think that his pleas were genuinely emotional (lies, though). Maybe it was a last-ditch effort to get his father's attention (his original motivation for being a DE). Sort of like saying, "I'm your son! For once, choose me over your obsessive hunt against the Dark Arts!" It must have been maddening to think that, even as he sits there on trial with his father sentencing him, he's still not really getting his father's attention. Whether or not Crouch, Sr. choosing to save his son would have redeemed him, we'll never know. But once daddy sent him to Azkaban, I'm sure BCJ became even more loyal and fixated on Voldemort. Revenge was a motivation. Kelsey, who remembers acting the brat for paternal attention --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 30 01:27:12 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:27:12 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "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 From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Wed Sep 29 22:03:00 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:03:00 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TEH Half-Blood Prince (WAS: Re: The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) References: Message-ID: <00ac01c4a670$70a5d280$f8f595c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114200 From: "samnanya" To: > 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...... Well... there are two people I can remember from the top of my head that are half-blood - Seamus Finnigan and Dean Thomas. I'd need some research to find others. But anyway, I've always been under the impression that Seamus Finnigan's family is kinda country-sideish. He doesn't seem to be particularly well-off, and we don't hear much about his family, so I don't think his witch mother is from a famous family or she'd be mentioned more often. But it's different with Dean Thomas. His father kept the secret about his wizarding powers and his "involvement" with Voldything from his [new] family till death. 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. But then again, if she wanted to reveal Dean Thomas as the Half-Blood Prince, maybe she'd have kept secret the fact that he was a half-blood at all. What do you guys think? Elanor Pam, who needs to study loads of kanji From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:30:54 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:30:54 -0000 Subject: Petunia and DD (was DD's courtesy; was re: petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > 'During the Edinburgh Book Festival Q&A JKR states the following, > regarding Petunia: "No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but..." > then she trails off onto some other tangent. She is a *Muggle* > according to JKR. Straight out of her own lips. A "Muggle*' > > What confuses me in all this is Petunia's howler. Dumbledore actually > calls her 'Petunia'. The feeling I get from the books, is that DD is > very old school in manners. If DD is talking about soemone in the > third person, he will always refer to them by their correct title > e.g. Always admonishing Harry for not giving Snape his correct title. > However, when he speaks to people directly, he will always use their > first name e.g. Harry, Severus, Cornelius etc. The only example I can > think of where DD has spoken directly to someone and used their > correct title is Madame Maxine - which shows how polite DD really is. > My point...finally....is that I do not think DD would address Petunia > in such a way unless he knew her. If they had never met face to face, > he would have called her Mrs. Dursley. So the question is 'When and > where have Petunia and DD ever met previously. A very stimulating post. This is what it has inspired (dons flame- proof clothing and disappears to JKRs holiday destination post-Mark Evans debacle - since I have no phoenix of my own)... This post made me re-read 'a peck of owls' (Ch2 OotP) and, as usual, try in my own mind to explain what might be going on. I recall that when first I read the 'remember my last, Petunia' howler message and then later found out it was from DD (though had half suspected this anyway), I had interpreted it as meaning that Petunia and DD were in corresponsence with one another, perhaps because of the way DD is being so intimate in using her first name. However, if DD is to admonish a student (or wayward adult wizard) then he also reverts to first name use (Bertha in the pensieve in GoF, Sirius, Cornelius etc, as you so rightly point out): this is what I think is going on with the howler - he's trying to speak *directly* to Petunia and no- one else in the room because they (DD & P) share a secret, one that DD suspects she won't have shared with Vernon and certainly not Harry. So, what does 'my last' mean? My last (of several messages)? - this, as I said, was my original thinking, but no, not now. OK then, .. my last letter (meaning the one we saw him leave in PS/SS) - odd if it *is* since we know of no other letters from DD to the Dursleys - there *was* only one so why call it my last letter rather than my (only) letter. Or does he mean my last something else? hmmm what though. Aha! my last sentence, point or paragraph in that all important letter left with baby Harry on the Doorstep at number four Privet Drive. So, what is DD reminding Petunia of? Why does she look so oddly at Harry in an almost caring/synpathetic way that he's never (or can't recall ever having) seen before but reminds him suddenly and strongly that she is his mother's sister? Hopefully we will find out very soon from JKR's website FAQ poll, but here's MY take: There has to be some compelling reason in DD's letter as to why the Dursley's should accept baby Harry - appealing to Petunia, not Vernon (who if this interpretation, below, is correct, hasn''t even read the letter - which is fine because Petunia is the more likely to have been first to open the door that next morning). The 'reason', to work requires some backplot assumptions, but here goes... Voldemort discovers the prophecy. Harry becomes the chief immediate target (Neville isn't considered in this post, i.e. whether he needs taking out too, or not, though I do think yes that Neville would have been next). This gives Voldy yet another reason to gun for those more than pesky, positively obstructive, Potters (Lily and James - or maybe just James, because of the GH stuff about Lily 'not having to die', though I don't think so). So, Voldy does all he can to kill James even before HP is born (or during that first year of his life) but fails, repeatedly. James is way too clever to be 'got' and is DD's main man. Not so all his family - parents, any siblings and 'significant' ('blood') relatives. Hence they died before James did, at the vindictive hands of the DE's (mafia style - if I can't get you or get you to do what I want, I'll get your family) and the chief reason they don't figure in the book and aren't around is because they were among the many casulaties of wizard/DE war I. Remember, we are often told 'whole families' died. Having taken out all of James' relatives and yet this nuisance *still* won't yield/heel, Voldy goes for Lily but likewise can't get her either. So, he takes out all *her* family too, one by one, parents first (they have to have been far too young, even as muggles, to have 'died of natural causes' by the time of GH - they are alive during Lily's schooldays and dead within a few years thereafter). Petunia, completely unknowingly, was next. This is one of the points made in DD's letter perhaps - but for Lily's sacrifice and Harry's power LV *would* have wiped out Petunia, Dudders and Vernon (maybe their survival was prolonged by Lily's charming Privet Drive against detection by Voldemort, that and/or Lily keeping the existence of a sister a tightly guarded secret). So DD also plays the 'honour' card (Lily helped ensure you/your family didn't die) - perhaps the reason Petunia hates her - just like a wizard debt this unrequested and unknown (at the time) action places Petunia in her sister's debt, as Snape was in hated James' 'debt'. Next DD makes the point that Voldy is gone, but not dead and maybe lists just some of the things Voldemort did to muggles which Petunia will have seen on the news (odd murders etc) and previously thought were caused by 'the nasty way the world is'. Then, like in the film terminator (1) he tells her Voldy isn't dead and he isn't satisfied and that he *absolutely will not stop*. Her ONLY hope is to protect and nurture, willingly or otherwise, the only weapon the world (WW or muggle) has against this irresistable evil, it's only salvation. DD reminds her that she is the only one able to do this because of blood ties and that if she refuses then she must accept the consequences - Harry is left unprotected, dies and Voldy then is free to murder the last remaining Evans (Petunia) - the bloodline and possibly last descendent of Gryffindor even? so including HER SON (Dudders) who she very much DOES care about, especially since he's just a baby then at the time of the letter. So, DD's last (point, sentence, whatever) was probably something along the lines of 'only YOU Petunia can save the world, and only by raising this child and doing what is necessary to keep him protected until such time as he can stand and fight for himself (and all the rest of us)'. This is neat because it doesn't matter whether or not they tell harry he's a wizard (I believe DD hoped they wouldn't) and although this outrages Hagrid when it emerges, it doesn't bother DD who knew to send letters once harry hit age 11 and, moreover, to 'the cupbord under the stairs' (leaving him surely in little doubt about the intervening 10 years' treatment by the Dursleys). So, Petunia also knows (as DD and JKR do), long before Harry does, that this is a fight to the death and that Harry is the 'magic bullet'. Hence her 'ice-melting' moment when looking at Harry (she may hate what he stands for, but still can't stop herself from admiring the tragic figure he potentially represents, unknown to himself at this stage) AND her clinging to her real 'most precious object' Dudders. Indeed, the recent attack by the Dementors on not just Harry, but on Dudders too*, rams this all home only too clearly for her and the howler is an, as ever timely, reminder that perhaps she forgets what this is 'all about'. *Does anyone out there who thinks Umbridge (Fudge too?) isn't working (knowingly or otherwise) on a DE-sponsored agenda wish to change their mind at this point, bearing in mind that it might make LV very happy indeed to see all of Harry's family, valued by him or otherwise, dead as dodos, finito, end of line? From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 21:55:56 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Mirror of Erised (Was: Petunia In-Reply-To: <20040929184859.332.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040929215557.11278.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114202 Kim now: I think the images in the Mirror must at least be true to some degree in that it does show his parents' real features (before he ever saw any photos of them) and so one could assume the images of the other dead relatives were somewhat close to true. I'd always assumed the people Harry saw in the Mirror were only his dead relatives (not actually them, but conjured by Harry's mind's eye), otherwise, wouldn't Dumbledore have sent him to live with any other living relatives besides the horrid Dursleys? I think it's in the books somewhere that Harry has no other living relatives but Dursleys. From your above posts (which make good points about what the Mirror shows), I had a scary thought: If Harry's heart's desire is to meet his relatives, and all his relatives worth meeting are already dead (add Sirius to that mix too if you like), how can Harry achieve his heart's desire, other than by dying himself? Of course Harry will die eventually like everyone else and no doubt at a ripe old age (at which time he can meet his dead relatives and achieve his heart's desire) which JKR will never include in a book because she's finishing the whole tale at book 7 with Harry very much alive.... Can anyone tell I shudder at the thought of JKR killing Harry off?? She can't, I won't have it... ;-) Wait, wait, I know -- Professor Trelawney will have a stroke of genius, hold a seance, and introduce Harry to his parents and all his wonderful ancestors... Kelsey: Good points. The Mirror (sort of like the Pensieve) seems to fill in the gaps. Ron might not know what Head Boy looks like, but he sees himself as Head Boy (maybe himself older, which he wouldn't have a clue as to it's appearence). Maybe it fills in the gaps of Harry's desires, too. Fills in his loving family members, which is what he wants. I don't think that the Mirror shows what will happen (for instance that Harry will be with his dead relatives or that Ron will be Head Boy). But that would be awesome if it did have some portent-abilities (meaning that it's telling Harry he'll join his dead relatives). The portent abilities might be on the same level as a self-fullfilling prophesy. The way Dumbledore talks to Harry in that scene, it seems like he's warning Harry about wanting the image in the Mirror too much. In fact, it sounds like Harry's desire to have a loving family is his weakness. It's what sends him after Sirius in OOP, only to lose him. He, like other archytypical heroes, is unwilling to sacrifice his friends/family (Luke and Anakin Skywalker). It's a strength for him during the Tournament, but maybe it's impractical as a practice. Does this mean that Harry will succum to his "weakness" and die? I don't think that Harry will die at the end of the series. What would be the point? Evil/Voldemort would win! I just can't wrap my mind around that. It would negate the entire series. But, it would certainly be the ultimate surprise ending, if he did. Kelsey, who loves Harry, but wants to see him die, if only in revenge to those who call it a "children's" book From irishwynch at aol.com Wed Sep 29 22:00:12 2004 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:00:12 EDT Subject: The Prank on Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114203 While my radio has been out in my car these past few months I've been listening to PoA (over and over again :) ), One of the things that stood out for me, and this goes to some current threads, is the whole "Prank" incident and Snape's interputation. I hope I'm not rambling here but stay with me. First we hear about Snape having a debt to James because he saved Snape from Lupin. Then Snape elaborates the tale by telling Harry that James only did it to save his own skin. Later still we hear a more complete version from Lupin in the Shrieking Shack where he also adds how Snape particularly hated James of the four of them. 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? If it were I, Sirius would be the most hated one. 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. Oh oh oh oh, and one more thing. Where was Ms Pomfery while all this is going on. The book reads that Snape followed them both to the Whomping Willow but it doesn't mention her returning before Snape enters. Do you suppose she just leds Lupin to the entrance or does she take him all the way to the Shack? Thanks for letting me vent. Marla [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 22:10:25 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia;well adjusted Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040929221025.51087.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114204 Hannah: > I agree with Leah on this one. I'm not exactly standing > up for Petunia - it is undeniable that the Dursleys treated Harry > badly - but they must have provided at least some care for Harry, > for him to have survived. Bear in mind that Petunia is obsessed > with appearances and what the neighbours think. She isn't going to > be too cruel to a baby in her care. > > I agree that Petunia took in Harry as a baby, when he was at least > quite cute. She probably had some sort of vicious pleasure in > thinking that she was taking over her sister's role, and that she > could bring the boy up, squashing the magic out of him. As he grew > up, she realised that it wasn't going to be as easy as all that. > > She's a lot like Snape, in that she seems unable to put aside her > feelings about someone long dead (in her case Lily) and behave in > an adult way towards that person's child. Kelsey: I agree with Hannah that Petunia has a lot in common with Snape. Although I never thought about it, it makes perfect sense. Niether Petunia nor Snape are overly rational people that are able to separate their emotions from their actions. Both of them are motivated (in part) by fear. Petunia keeps Harry around because she's afraid of the consequences (Dumbledore). Yet, she's also afraid of the danger inherent in harboring the arch-nemesis of the Dark Lord (she knew about Dementors, she must know about this, even if she hates the wizarding world). Harry is a danger to her family (Vernon and Duddley). She's mean because she's nervous and upset. Snape has to show animosity to Harry for the sake of keeping up appearances. He's afraid that Harry might inadvertently reveal his identity as a spy. Harry makes Snape feel uncomfortable and nervous. For both of them, Harry is a real danger because of his position with Voldemort. The fact that Harry reminds them both so strongly of his parents, whom both Snape and Petunia strongly disliked, is another reason that he becomes an outlet for their discomfort. Plus, we don't yet know how much James and Lily may have put Snape and Petunia in danger. Yet maybe both Petunia and Snape realize Harry's importance (his future of destroying Voldemort). Petunia knows of the danger of Voldemort (her sister was blown up) and may realize that if Harry succeeds, she won't have to live in fear any more (in the very least, from Dumbledore). Kelsey From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:11:40 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <20040929180951.88290.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040930011140.70201.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114205 Kelsey wrote, in part: >And when JKR uses these traditional themes and formulas, she puts a spin on them. Look at her version of the labyrinth (solving the puzzle didn't solve the problem), and even the prophesy is different (it doesn't say who will win the conflict). I cannot even imagine how she would do the descent into the underworld. Considering Voldemort's obsession with avoiding death, I think it might be significant. >Because JKR treats death differently than most paralleled writer/storytellers (in that people don't come back in her world like they do in Tolkien's or Homer's), who knows how she'll do it. >On the point of the room itself and the veil, because so little of it is explained in OOP, I wonder if it was a teaser or an introduction because of its future importance. Then Griffin wrote: >But the only thing I know about that death is death in H.P. is D.D.'s answer to Sirius after L.V.'s return, that Lily and James came back or something like that, I don't have the book with me, that there is no SPELL that brings back the dead to life. The veil is not a spell, as far as I know. If J.K.R. has anything in an interview, please correct me.< >And about J.K.R. not following usual twists, why some fellow members have said that Harry will die because in other books, like "The Chronicles of Narnia" the hero dies, so will Harry?< Kim now (also, forgive me if this is a rehash of previous posts): Maybe JKR is following two possible lines of reasoning about killing Harry off: Either she wants to kill him in order to "kill" the series once and for all so that she can stop writing about Harry and start writing something new. Or, she won't kill him, will end the series anyway, but leaving him alive at the end will give her the option of writing (or not) new stories about him in the future. (I think I only read her saying that she doesn't like prequels, but nothing about sequels.) IMO, killing Harry would be too final and too depressing, almost gratuitous. It would seem most mean-spirited of JKR to kill dear Harry and I've never gotten the impression that she's mean-spirited. I mean, he's suffered enough in life, why kill him too? Can't heroes live a nice, long time and then die? She's not exactly avoiding the topic either since Cedric died, Lily and James died, maybe Dumbledore will die, etc. And she'd have to try really hard to come up with an inspirational message for her readers (mainly children) by killing Harry, the inspiration of his defeating Voldemort notwithstanding (it goes without saying that Voldemort will be defeated...?) As Kelsey suggests, there's more to Rowling's imagination than following the examples of earlier authors she admires. My guess is that Harry is the Heir of Gryffindor (someone else has surely come up with this idea already), born to counterbalance the Heir of Slytherin. The Heir of S. (Voldemort) will be defeated (perhaps killed, perhaps not) and the Heir of G. (Harry) will live to continue Gryffindor's line... 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? Then again, it makes sense to think that DD and other old timers like him would know how the Veil works, know of others who have passed through it, and thus know they won't be back. Oh well, it's a puzzlement. Kim (who wants Sirius to come back so Harry can go live with him after he defeats Voldemort... ;-)) P.S. Thanks to the person who came up with the idea of saying silly things after signing your name From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:44:17 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:44:17 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Kim wrote: > > But it was a wand spell that marked Harry, etc. I found this > paragraph (Ch. 2, p. 20 of GoF, US Scholastic edition) which retells > what happened at GH the night Harry got his scar. It's the narrator > speaking, not a character, so one would suppose it's meant to be the > correct history of what happened: > > > Hannah now: This reminds me of a post I wrote about a week ago, on > how trustworthy the narrative can be. It's natural to believe what > the narrative says, at least more than information from characters, > but I've actually come to the conclusion that the narrative isn't > more reliable than any other source. > > Take this from PS/SS, p27 UK paperback; 'He'd lived with the > Dursley's for ten years, ten miserable years, as long as he could > remember, ever since his parents had died in that car crash.' > > This quote is from the narrative, and it states that Harry's parents > died in a car crash. Obviously it's not true, but at that point, > that's what Harry believes. The narrative only ever gives us facts > from Harry's point of view, with the exception of the first chapter > of PS/SS, and the quidditch match in PS/SS when Quirrel jinxes the > broom. The narrative is not omniscient. It can relate events as > Harry sees them, and while it describes Harry's emotions and > thoughts, it can't tell us what's going on in other characters' > heads (more's the pity). > > So when the narrative says what happened at Godric's Hollow, it > tells the accepted version of events, as Harry believed it > happened. That may not be what actually occurred (almost certainly > isn't, IMO). If the narrative only told the truth, the whole truth > and nothing but the truth, it would be a very dull book with no > surprises. > > JKR has said that the first scene of HBP is going to be something > she's thought of putting into other books, or words to that effect. > That makes me think that it might be a retrospective chapter, a bit > like the first in PS/SS, maybe the actual events at GH, or some > other important past incident. > > Hannah Mac: Very nice post Hannah, I entirely agree - the narrative is about what Harry 'knows'. On your last point, I suspect the backplot of GH will have to wait until book 7 (damn!) because there are too many secrets in there about character's motives, allegiances and who was/wasn't there and why and what they did*, but she has promised more on Riddle's backplot (birth, childhood, how'd he get to be so evil? etc)and that would have made sense to put in CoS but then as the book developed would have looked like foreshadowing the entire CoS story and had to go (though can't see where Riddle backplot might also fit as starter for OotP, as claimed). *there's a very interesting discarded character mentioned at JKR's website " ... Opening Chapters of Philosopher's Stone There were many different versions of the first chapter of 'Philosopher's Stone' and the one I finally settled on is not the most popular thing I've ever written; lots of people have told me that they found it hard work compared with the rest of the book. The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a Harry Potter book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal even more. There were various versions of scenes in which you actually saw Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the Potters and in early drafts of these, a Muggle betrayed their whereabouts. As the story evolved, however, and Pettigrew became the traitor, this horrible Muggle vanished. Other drafts included a character by the name of 'Pyrites', whose name means 'fool's gold'. He was a servant of Voldemort's and was MEETING SIRIUS in front of the Potters' house. Pyrites, too, had to be discarded, though I quite liked him as a character; he was a dandy and wore white silk gloves, which I thought I might stain artistically with blood from time to time. ..." Meeting Sirius? hmmmm when? before or after the destruction? hmmmmm From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Sep 29 21:09:43 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:09:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114207 > Alla: > > Kethryn, I just want to make a quick comment, since I am posting from > work, but I believe you are mistaken. Nowhere in the books it says > directly that Snape was in Slytherin. I will be always happy to eat my words of course.:) Kethryn: Since I am posting from school, I don't have the books with me atm so I can't prove or disprove it. ARGH! Of course, I might have dreamed it last night but I do remember reading it. Kethryn who is also content to be proven wrong since she can't locate it right now. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 01:53:17 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:53:17 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor and Dark Arts . Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: <20040930002803.822.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114208 Marita: > *covering my ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala > > I sorta skipped over all the stuff about one of my favorite Gryff's and > her maybe less than Gryffindor-like behavior, so I'm just going to > continue my Hermy-worship and pretend I don't know what you're talking > about. :) Alla: LOLOL! Marita, breath! :o) I actually had the different Gryffindor in mind. I like Hermione and very very far from considering her to Be a Dark Arts lover, despite her reading the books in the forbidden section. :) I don't think we have clear proof yet that the books are put int he Forbidden section strictly because these are Dark arts books. I was actually thinking about Peter. Sorry about that. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:09:16 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:09:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's timeline in OoP (Was: Snape's part in death of Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114209 Carol returns to the debate between Neri and Pippin to comment on a single point: > Pippin wrote: > He [Snape] would have to dehex the Slytherins and/or get them to the > Hospital Wing before they could tell him anything. That could > take an hour or two all by itself. > > Neri: > Pippin, I'm really surprised you are not familiar with this useful > spell: > ----------------------------------------------- > GoF, Ch. 35 : > Dumbledore forced the man's mouth open and poured three drops inside > it. Then he pointed his wand at the mans chest and said, "Ennervate." > Crouch's son opened his eyes > ------------------------------------------------ > So simple and quick. And Crouch Jr. was hit with "Stupefy", which is > the same that Ron used on several of the I-Squad. And when DD does > this spell, Snape is standing right beside him. Can you see our dear > Severus failing to master it? (even if he has to train on poor > Filch). In fact, the DEs must know that one too, because they recover > so quickly after getting hit at the DoM battle. And Snape was a DE > too. Carol responds: Oops. "Ennervate" is the countercurse for "stupefy." It would not work for the variety of hexes that the DADA kids used on the Inquisitorial Squad. Yes, of course, Snape would know all those countercurses (or counterhexes), but it would take some time to unhex everybody, especially if multiple hexes had been used on the same person. Then he would have had to question the whole group--probably with all of them talking at once and all of them angrily demanding punishment for the Gryffindors. It would not have been easy to get a straight story out of them. He might even have had to resort to threats or a calming draft. We don't know what happened, but it was assuredly not as easy as a single mass "Ennervate!" Thanks to Alla and Potioncat for pointing me to this thread. Unfortunately, I don't have much to add except to note that Dumbledore considered Snape's actions to be satisfactory, so Snape must have done the best he could under the circumstances. I do hope we'll learn where Dumbledore was and how Snape contacted him, as he must have done *before* he contacted the Order a second time because he knew when Dumbledore was arriving at GP. I had wondered how Snape managed to enter the forest without being attacked by the centaurs. Thanks, Neri, for the suggestion that he could have used a disillusionment charm. Carol, who otherwise agrees with Pippin and will go back now to catching up on *recent* posts! From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 20:22:58 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves' enslavement Parallel with Dogs, Sirius In-Reply-To: <001c01c4a5af$7022df90$292f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: <20040929202258.33023.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114210 Susana wrote: [snip] I'm about to compare elves to... dogs! No, really, I'm not! I want to make this very clear: I will compare some similarities of the dog-human relation with the elf-wizard relation. I am *NOT* saying elves are like dogs in *ANY* way! Having cleared that out, the reason for my comparison is simple: dogs have evolved to serve humans. There are no wild-dogs - wolfs are not dogs. Most dog breeds don't have the ability to form a society without humans - some can't reproduce, some can't hunt, some can't create bounds with other dogs, etc. If you want to free the dogs (send them into the wild) you'd have to rebreed them, i.e. make them evolve back into independence. If this is comparable to elves (we don't know) you'd have to do it over centuries (we don't know how long elves live). If someone asked me to join a Society for Promotion of Dogs Freedom (SPDF) I'd have a reaction very similar to Hagrid's about SPEW: "Free the elves? What a mean thing to do!" (paraphrased from memory) Kelsey: I like the parallels here between dogs and house-elves. But this description of dogs reminds me of someone who is associated both with dogs and house elves. That is, Sirius Black. You're interesting description of dogs talks about them going insane without humans (Sirius in Azkaban, and then on the loose). Sirius basically can't function without other humans. He can't even convince Harry of his innocence without Remus (his "packmate"). "Most dog breeds were developed to have a will to serve humans. Dobermans, for example, go literally insane (and have to be put down) if they don't have a human alfa-leader giving them orders all the time (comparison to Kretcher, anyone?). Collies and Labradors are extremely unhappy if they sit around all day with nothing to do." Literally, Sirius is very unhappy having to sit around all through OOP. But he does it because he's obeying his alpha-leader (Dumbledore). Obviously, Sirius' animagi form is representative of his personality. Maybe Sirius just doesn't understand how to own a house elf. He knows how to be loyal and to work hard, but he doesn't know how to have someone loyal to him or work for him. He's a dog with a "dog". It doesn't work for him. Kelsey From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 20:17:01 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:17:01 -0000 Subject: FF: Origins of the Magical Brethren In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114211 There's been a fascinating ongoing discussion of the house elves and the nature of their enslavement unfolding in this board. I was especially taken by Dungrollin's recent post about the surprising conflicts involved in the political enfranchisement of Swiss women during the 1960s and the parallels in house elf attitudes towards the concept of "freedom". Wow. Interesting grist for the mill. Anyway, on a slightly different tack, I have long puzzled over the whole matter of the so- called "magical brethren" and the nature of their relationships to one another. It has been mentioned elsewhere on this board that the house elves, for instance, are a separate species. Nevertheless, I would maintain that this does not preclude a potential blood tie existing between house elves and otherwise "normal" humanity. And as any thorough reader of Rowling's books knows by now, blood connections count for a lot. I wrote the following riff on a possible explaination for the origins of centaurs as a part of a faux-scientific essay on the centaurs of the Forbidden Forest, but the basic concepts -- that the magical brethren are all decendants of ancient magical accidents involving human mages would hold for all the other magical "hominids" like house elves, goblins, and so on: ************************* The origin of centaurs is probably the best documented among the magical human- kin. Around 1000 BC, in the Central Asian steppes to the northeast of the Caspian Sea, a tribe of nomads, no doubt kin of the Scythians who later lived in the same territories, prepared to commune with their totem spirits. As the Greek historian Herodotus later observed of Scythian practices, their methods were comparatively simple. The entire tribe retired to a large leather tent, where they proceeded to smoke themselves silly on cannabis, during which time the tribal shamans guided their fellow tribes folk in a spirit journey to the Other-realms to commune with their tribe's totem animal, the horse. All well and good. Unfortunately this time something went horribly wrong with the magics raised by the shamans. Nobody noticed the problem at first, but when the next day dawned and sobriety returned, it became obvious to all what a fix they were now in. Where the day before they had all laid down to make their vision quests with two honest human's legs as their lower extremities, they now arose with four legs of a very different sort. They were now the first of the centaurs. Nowadays, when such accidents occur there are of course trained healers and others who can help sort things out and set all aright again, but this was not possible for those unfortunate souls of three thousand years ago. They were forced to go on and make the best of their new forms. The most obvious lesson from all this is that it is best not to work magic while stoned. It invariably leads to disaster. In simpler magical accidents where a single individual suffers the affects of a mis- sprung spell, the consequences are comparatively brief, that is, limited to the lifespan of the original victim. At most, the affected soul spends the rest of their days with unusual features, extra appendages or whatnot. But when a botched spell affects a mass population as in this case, the results continue for generations. The student should be made aware that magical beings that bear the marks of humanity, be it facial features, or nimble hands, or bipedal stance, or intelligence, or speech are possible kinsfolk, the descendants of survivors of ancient accidents...... *************************************** Anyway, I am not sure how this idea would play out fully, except that it makes the relationships between the WW and the other magical beings seem more like that of an enormous, complex, and highly dysfunctional family. Rowling has not overly brought up the issue of karma in the HP novels. But I think a strong argument can be made while the level of karmic responsibility that humans bear toward animals we have domesticated, like dogs for instance, is great -- if indeed there is actually a blood bond between wizards and other magical beings, then there appears to be some tremendously heavy payback due for the WW's arrogant stance toward the rest of the magical brethren. -cunning spirit From shalimar07 at aol.com Wed Sep 29 20:09:32 2004 From: shalimar07 at aol.com (mumweasley7) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:09:32 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (WAS the importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114212 SSSusan wrote: > >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your mention > >of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think Lucius > >has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that he > >doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or gain > >(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not > >working? Mary here: In COS when Lucius and Arthur Weasley part ways in the bookstore Arthur says to Lucius "See you at work". It doesn't say what he does. Mary From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:11:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:11:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114213 > Dungrollin rolls up her sleeves: > > Firstly, the biggest problem with Snape is that his behaviour in > cannon is compatible with a number of different hypothetical > scenarios, which is why people like you (am I allowed to say > `us' yet? :-)) argue a lot about him. Alla: What do you mean - am I allowed? Of course you are one of us the minute you joined this group. :o) Welcome! Dungrollin: > As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: > (I suspect that someone has already gone through this before and > probably proposed their own names for the categories, and if so, I > humbly apologise, beg forgiveness and - in fact, I'm so sure of it > that I'll give the credit to everyone else before I start...) snips the description of possibilities for Snape character :) Alla: The way I see it - two or three are the most likely to happen. Something make Snape to change the sides - whether he hates it or likes it, whether it was a single dramatic event or gradual conversion, which made him see the light, I don't know. I also do not doubt the fact that he is pathetic and emotionally damged human being. ESE! Snape is also possible, if Rowling decides to drop a bomb at us in the end. I love your name for Actor!Snape . This is the one which I am keeping my fingers crossed never come to light. I dislike it passionately, because I just don't see how one can disregard that Snape gets his emotions be in the way of his judgement so very often. (Shrieking Shack and Occlumency failure are the best examples, IMO) From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 30 02:13:37 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:13:37 -0000 Subject: ESE!Gryffindor (was Snape and Harry again.) In-Reply-To: <20040930002803.822.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114214 > --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > Yes, of course. Those references are there. But despite them I did > > think about possibility of Snape being somebody else besides > > Slytherin. > > > > About Dark Arts... Do I need to cite one specific Gryffindor as an > > example? :) > > > Marita Jan wrote: > *covering my ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala > > I sorta skipped over all the stuff about one of my favorite Gryff's and > her maybe less than Gryffindor-like behavior, so I'm just going to > continue my Hermy-worship and pretend I don't know what you're talking > about. :) > kmc adds: I did not think of Hermione. I thought of one little silver hand rat... kmc From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:16:36 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:16:36 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <20040930011140.70201.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114215 -- > 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 agrees: Sirius is the focus of the entire third book. It just makes no sense to me to write an entire book in the series around Sirius and then just kill him off. It also seems cruel (I realize life can be cruel, but Harry has suffered enough loss in my opinion) to allow Harry to discover Sirius and then lose him that way. And to leave him still without a parent/guardian at the end of the series? That just doesn't work for me, either. I think the veil is a teaser because of what Luna said to Harry about hearing the voices. What other reason would there be for her to say that, unless she's just off her rocker, and I don't think she is. I guess it could be a red herring, but I would hope JKR would be above that with regard to this particular subject. It's true that DD plainly said, "It's my fault that Sirius died," but I think DD wants everyone, especially Harry and Voldemort, to believe that Sirius is dead, so that Voldemort can't use Sirius against Harry (and maybe he could also work for the Order). Remember, DD doesn't know for sure how much of Harry's thoughts Voldemort has access to. So, Harry must be made to think that Sirius is dead. Just had a thought: I wonder if Harry could use the "Reparo" spell to fix the broken mirror? We don't know if Sirius had it on him when he went through the veil. Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:25:15 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:25:15 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114216 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: Because Voldemort has gained the ability to touch Harry without it hurting/killing him, I believe this is an indicator that the protection gained by Lily's sacrifice may be diminished, if not eliminated. I can see Voldemort trying to attack Harry at the Dursleys' house. He knows from OOP that Harry will defend those he cares about. While Harry may not care about the Dursleys in the way he cares for his friends or Sirius, I believe he would feel an obligation to defend them (remember in SS when he worried something happened to Neville in the Dark Forest? He said it was their fault that Neville was there.). Of course, the attack will be thwarted because Harry will not have the final showdown with Voldemort until Book 7. I'm sure DD has lots of people looking out for Harry and they, if not DD himself, will arrive to provide protection. The question arises: if the Dursleys' house isn't safe anymore, where will they stay? The only safe place I could think of besides Hogwarts would be DD's estate. Angie (steeling herself for the onslaught) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:29:18 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:29:18 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" 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 agrees: >> > It's true that DD plainly said, "It's my fault that Sirius died," > but I think DD wants everyone, especially Harry and Voldemort, to > believe that Sirius is dead, so that Voldemort can't use Sirius > against Harry (and maybe he could also work for the Order). > Remember, DD doesn't know for sure how much of Harry's thoughts > Voldemort has access to. So, Harry must be made to think that Sirius > is dead. > mhbobbin: How much does DD know anyway? About this particular ancient artifact? And just where is Sirius's body? In GOF, at the Quidditch World Cup, Arthur briefly speaks to two Unspeakables who work in the Dept of Mysteries. One is Bode who is cruelly used by LV and then mysteriously throttle by the killer plant. 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. mhbobbin From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:33:32 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:33:32 -0000 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114218 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? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:38:28 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:38:28 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114219 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 (although it would make sense). But, if that is the case, couldn't Harry have been practicing a hovering charm in COS or the Patronus Charm in OOP? How does the MOM distinguish b/w homework/practice and violations? I assume someone will say the MOM knows what spells are taught at each level of school, but does that mean a student can't practice more advanced magic, if he's able? Angie From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 02:48:27 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:48:27 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Lucius work? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114220 Frugalarugala asked: >But regardless, if Lucius is sent to Azkaban, wouldn't Fudge and >company seize his assets? I don't see why. The Ministry of Magic didn't seize Sirius's assets when he went to Azkaban -- his gold was still in Gringott's and Grimmauld Place was still available for him and the Order to hide in. With Lucius Malfoy in Azkaban, his assets are presumably in the hands of his wife and, eventually, his son. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:53:15 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:53:15 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: > Finwitch wrote: > What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping them > alive? > > Beatnik24601 replies: > 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). > > Angie offered: Can't you put a stopper in something to prevent it from being used? Don't ask me why, but I've always thought it meant bringing someone back from the brink of death, sort of like the artificially-produced equivalent of unicorn's blood (but without causing someone to live a half-life). After all, Snape says, "bottle fame" not "bottle death." From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:57:18 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:57:18 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Gringotts, & the Firebolt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114222 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 From karen at dacafe.com Thu Sep 30 03:11:56 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:11:56 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > 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 (although > it would make sense). But, if that is the case, couldn't Harry have > been practicing a hovering charm in COS or the Patronus Charm in OOP? > How does the MOM distinguish b/w homework/practice and violations? I > assume someone will say the MOM knows what spells are taught at each > level of school, but does that mean a student can't practice more > advanced magic, if he's able? > kmc adds: And what is cause of the bangs coming from Gred & Forge's room? How did they make Ton Tongue Taffey and the rest of their inventory if they didn't use magic during the summer? With the students who are Muggle-born and Harry it's easy to know who is doing magic but what about the students who live in the magic households? Magic is used to do almost everything from cooking to knitting. Does this mean once you enter Hogwarts you aren't allowed to help with household chores? - kmc From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 30 03:27:39 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:27:39 -0000 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114224 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? 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. Just a possibility. Siriusly Snapey Susan From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 03:30:56 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:30:56 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114225 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. Annemehr: I hope this is what happens; it would be very exciting, and I'd love to see the Dursleys' reactions. I think the attack would be carried out by DEs only, without Voldemort himself being present. I do wonder whether at the beginning of book 6, Voldemort would be quite ready to stage such an overt action, though. Another possibility would be for Dumbledore to order Harry, Ron, and Hermione to headquarters to receive some real information and some training. He's certainly never done anything like that before, apart from Occlumency lessons, but doesn't it seem like it must be time? At least to get started? I think one thing HRH need is a reliable way to communicate with the Order in case of an emergency. Naturally, Dumbledore would still keep most of the Order's doings a secret from the trio. I just don't think he can rely on their being at Hogwarts to provide all the safety they need from Voldemort anymore. Finally, in the lead-up to the OoP release, there was speculation that Harry would see the inside of St Mungo's as a patient or Azkaban as a prisoner. I'd still love to read a chapter like that. Since, on her site, JKR answered 'alas no' to the query about Arthur being the next MfM, I'm expecting somebody worse than Fudge -- an actual DE, maybe. Perhaps Dumbledore will have a little more difficulty protecting Harry from the next Ministry attack on him. Oooh, Angie, you're really whetting my appetite for HBP -- where, oh where is that publication announcement? *pines* Annemehr From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 03:49:46 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 03:49:46 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: > 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). Annemehr: 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? Annemehr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 04:05:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:05:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114227 Gregory wrote: > > No, I'm not suggesting [that Snape uses a time-turner to leave Hogwarts and assume Mr. Borgin's identity]. We have no idea whatsoever how much time Borgin spends in the shop. It's obviously often enough that Malfoy can become familiar with him but beyond that we know nothing. > > > > Once people have the ability to apparate, all travel concerns are eliminated so it is completely possible for there to be some sort of sensor that informs Snape when certain people enter the shop so Snape can apparate there, transform, and come out from the back. > > That's probably stretching things, but he needn't necessarily be there all the time. After all, Borgin has a partner doesn't he? > Siriusly Snapey Susan responded: > True enough, he has a partner. But I can't imagine Snape could be > there often at all. I mean, he CAN'T apparate out of Hogwarts; he'd > have to leave the grounds and then apparate; or use the floo > network. He'd have to have an instant-acting potion which would > change his appearance for those quick "pop-ins" to the shop. And, > presumably, business hours at B&B would overlap a lot with classroom > time at Hogwarts. I just think if this were happening fairly > routinely--or even just a couple of times a month--the kids would > notice that Snape was missing from the Head Table again, or there'd > be a substitute in Potions class, or etc. > > Unless Mr. Burkes is pulling the vast majority of the duty, I don't > see how Severus could be swinging this. But it *would* be a good way to gather that information if he could manage it! > > Carol adds: I agree with SSS on all points--you can't apparate from Hogwarts and Snape is burdened with duties, especially during the school year, which would make an alter-identity as Mr. Borgin or anyone else extremely difficult--though I do concede that this particular encounter between Mr. Malfoy and Mr. Borgin occurred before the school year began, so it's at least possible that Snape was assuming the role of Borgin in this one instance. But I don't think, for one thing, that Snape would have muttered to himself after Malfoy left, a habit that would be dangerous for any spy. And I don't think that Snape would want his activities restricted, trapped in a shop when he'd rather be out risking his life for the Order. Also Snape has a distinctive speaking style and I catch no echo of it in Borgin's words. OTOH, I do think that Mr. Borgin was introduced for a reason and that we're supposed to remember him and his muttered words in CoS. (The ads in the Daily News section of JKR's site are also probably intended to remind us of him and his shop, as I said in another post.) It's quite possible that Professor Snape and Mr. Borgin are working together in some way, that Borgin is collecting information and passing it on to Snape, who no doubt has to spend time in Knockturn Alley between school terms to buy potion ingredients. IOW, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mr. Borgin were another of Dumbledore's "useful spies," as Fudge calls them in PoA. And Mr. Ollivander may serve the same role in Diagon Alley. Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 30 04:07:57 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:07:57 -0000 Subject: Origin of the word "Muggle" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114228 My husband found this in "The Borders" a history of that region of Scotland by Alistair Moffat. --- Abbot Walter Bower, the author of the Scotichronicon, repeats a widely held belief that the English had tails and were blighted with them for showing disrespect to St Augustine and, later, to St Thomas a Becket. The tails were called 'muggles'. --- (The Scotichronicon is a 14th century work in Latin.) My husband thought instantly of Dudley's tail. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 05:13:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:13:48 -0000 Subject: ESE! Ludo? (Was: Was Crouch Junior a DE? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114229 > mhbobbin wrote: > > Could the description [of the Third Death Eater] fit anyone else? Well, Ludo Bagman was once accused of being a DE, was very suspicious, and he fits the description at the time LV makes the statement. He's at Hogwarts. He has helped deliver Harry. And he is AWOL during Book Five. > > And how about Fudge? He's one of the judges for the final Task, at > Hogwarts when LV describes the third DE. > > Could Bagman be the First DE? Possibly. I like the words "he will > pay" as a clue. Then Karkoroff could be the second DE. Maybe he's > already dead. Carol responds: Without getting into the actual argument here, since my view that the three DEs are exactly who they seem to be (Barty Jr. the loyal one, Snape the one who's left forever, and Karkaroff the coward) is probably well-known here and I don't want to bore anybody, I think there's new evidence that Ludo Bagman is not one of the three and is in fact nobody very important, just a former Quidditch player who was once duped by Rookwood. (Sure, we'll find out what the goblins did to him in Book 6, but that may be the end of it.) I know the movies aren't canon, but JKR does have a say in them, and Ludo Bagman does not appear among the numerous characters listed at the IMDb or The Pensieve, which is rather odd since (from a moviegoer's perspective) it narrows the number of suspects who could have put Harry's name in the Goblet. Here's a scene from the script of the First Task that seems to confirm his absence: http://www.pensieve.net/gofscript1.htm Note that Ludo Bagman's role as the person in charge of distributing the dragons has been given to a noticeably ailing Mr. Crouch, and some of Ludo's lines have been given to the Twins (who aren't even present in that part of the book). I know that discussion of the film itself belongs in the Movie list, but I just wanted to mention Ludo's apparent absence from the script as a fairly strong indication that he's probably not one of the missing Death Eaters. If he were destined to play an important role in the later books, JKR would surely have insisted on keeping him in the film. Carol, hoping that this post is sufficiently book-related to placate the Elves From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 05:36:01 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:36:01 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114230 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. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 06:34:40 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:34:40 -0000 Subject: What's the point? (was RE: making up our own book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > OoP, Chapter 37 "The Lost Prophecy" (p737 UK hardback) > Dumbledore says: "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, *there* you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort." > (emphasis mine) > > I took this to mean that it's only in the house that he can't be > touched or harmed by Voldemort (though I suppose he could also be > safe in the garden... :-)). > > Dungrollin Tonks: Blushing... oops.. you are right. I thought he only had to be there once a year and call it home. I forgot the *there* part. Tonks_op (tripping backing into the shadows now) From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Sep 30 06:51:41 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 06:51:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's family (was: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114232 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "slgazit" wrote: Bex: > > > I'd always > > > assumed the people Harry saw in the Mirror were only his dead > > > relatives (not actually them, but conjured by Harry's mind's eye), > > > otherwise, wouldn't Dumbledore have sent him to live with any > > > other living relatives besides the horrid Dursleys? I think it's > > > in the books somewhere that Harry has no other living relatives > > > but Dursleys. Yb: > > Yes, exactly my thinking. If these people were alive, Harry could > > live with them. I don't know if it's stated in canon flat-out, but I > > would assume that if there was ANY option besides the Dursleys, DD > > would have taken it. Geoff: This got discussed at some length way back when Mark Evans was in the frame, before JKR torpedoed the poor mite. In message 85255, I wrote this in the question as to whether the Dursleys were Harry's /only/ relatives.... "Going back to the night when James and Lily were killed, there was a conversation between Dumbledore and Minerva McGonagall. `I've written them a letter.' `A letter?' repeated Professor McGonagall faintly 'Really, Dumbledore, you think you can explain all this in a letter? There people will never understand him! He'll be famous ? a legend - .' `Exactly', said Dumbledore .. `It would be enough to turn any boy's head . Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?'" (PS pp.15-16). Reading between the lines, I seem to sense that, at some point, possibly quite early, Dumbledore went to see Petunia personally to underline the importance of Harry's protection; this would also be borne out by the Howler which he sent to her early in OOTP. Does it appear that he had to go to her as the only surviving relative? Possibly the only one close enough to invoke the protection of family blood. I have mentioned on a couple of occasions that when my father died in 1994 and I went through his address book to notify people, I "discovered" a family relative about whom I knew nothing; the lady concerned was a first cousin of my father and the link led back to my great grandparents. It is fairly obvious that Dumbledore was very close to James and Lily Potter. "'Naturally,' said Professor McGonagall. `James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potter's Secret-Keeper himself.'" (POA p.153). This implies very close friendship. So Dumbledore would know from conversations with Lily that Petunia was her nearest relative. But would it follow that he knew there were /no/ other relatives? Would the matter of more distant relatives of Lily have surfaced in conversation with Dumbledore? Do we discuss distant and half- forgotten family members with close friends? Not often. Dumbledore is intelligent and knowledgeable but not omniscient. To be fair, he may not be aware of the existence of other family members. Let's consider a similar situation to the one I experienced personally. Petunia's comments imply that the Evans were a magical family. "'But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family'" (PS p.44). If you go back to, say, Lily's great-grandparents and trace back down other arms on the family tree, there are probably members of the family who Lily may not have remembered or who were distant enough either genealogically or geographically to not register consciously with her; hence the possibility of Mark Evans being a distant relative." Obviously, the last comment is no longer valid but the general view that there could be other relatives holds good. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 07:40:14 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:40:14 -0000 Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114233 This may have been mentioned by someone before, but I have never seen it. So here goes: I noticed the similarities between Petunia and Lily as flower names and the names of the characters in a British Sit-com that appears in the U.S. on PBS. "Keeping Up Appearances". I wonder if JKR was influenced by that show. Makes sense since Petunia is always trying to do the same. Tonks_op From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Sep 30 07:59:38 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:59:38 -0000 Subject: Was Crouch Junior a DE? (was Re: ESE!Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114234 Carol wrote: >>First, Barty in the Pensieve scene is a nineteen-year-old boy being guarded by Dementors, fiends that he knows can suck his soul away (a premonition?). He's terrified and hysterical. Second, like most DEs, he's probably a former Slytherin, and Slytherins, we're told, will use any means to achieve their ends. Barty's "end," or objective, in this instance is to be free, to avoid Azkaban and the Dementors at any cost.<< HunterGreen: Or another Slytherin trait of always choosing to save themself. At that point, being a strong brave DE may have lost its appeal. He was rather young at the time (even compared to Bellatrix who wasn't old either), so perhaps he joined the DEs and didn't really think about getting caught (sort of like Regulus joining and finding out later what a bad idea it was). At the time of the pensieve, I don't think he was acting (lying, but not faking his emotions), but desparately trying to save himself. However, as Bookworm pointed out: >>This is exactly what makes me question him being the "most faithful". Lying to save his own skin (soul?) is understandable but doesn't show much fidelity to his master. IMO, Bella is the one who should get that description.<< HunterGreen: That action, unless its only a ploy to get himself released and find Voldemort is not all that loyal. However, since when does Voldemort always tell the truth? He was faced with a group of people who betrayed him and were *definitely* disloyal, he wanted to further highlight their deceit. Whether or not Barty Jr. was *truly loyal* at the time of his DE days is immaterial. Also, there's no way that Voldemort knew about that. Bellatrix is still in Azkaban at this point, and Voldemort has only been conversing with Wormtail, who wasn't there either. Unless Crouch Sr. told him (and I doubt the two of them had any deep conversations), he only knows what Barty Jr. has said and what he learned from Bertha, which is that Barty has been *unable* to leave the house and *unable* to contact Voldemort for ten years. And as soon as he's able, he does (including throwing the dark mark in the air), which would appear very loyal, even if that wasn't how he felt when he was arrested. Carol: >>Bellatrix, notice, *wants* credit for her evil deed. If Barty hadn't helped her to do it, I think she'd have spoken then and there: "Get this coward boy out of here. Rodolphus and Rabastan and I Crucio'd the Longbottoms. He had nothing to do with it." But she says nothing of the kind. In fact, she sets an example of unwavering fanatical loyalty to her master that he later follows. Also, despite having spent a year dying in Azkaban and another twelve years under the Imperius Curse, conditions under which he could not have learned any new spells (or developed any new loyalties), Crouch, when he recovers his own personality, is a fanatically devoted follower whose first act after stealing Harry's wand is to cast a Morsmordre (Dark Mark), a spell only a Death Eater would know how to do. << HunterGreen: As someone who originally was suggesting that it was possible that Barty Jr. wasn't a DE in the past, I see now that that's impossible. There is *no* way that Barty Jr. could have learned the dark mark unless he was a death eater at some point. However, I still cling to my belief that Barty was not *evil* before he spent ten years under the imperious curse (although its hard to defend being party to crucioing the Longbottoms, so perhaps I should just give in). I disagree, though, that his personality was the same after those ten years. He spent a decade hating his father more and more every day. Unable to act under his own will, hidden under an invisibilty cloak, never going outside, basically there being no point to his life at all. In GoF, he has an uncanny ability to impersonate Moody. Is that because he's a fantastic actor, or because he's been stripped of his own identity? The only bit of his actual personality we see is extreme anger at the free Death Eaters (true anger that they didn't see out Voldemort, or jealousy?), and his strange opinion of Voldemort. He thinks he's going to be honored above all other Death Eaters, being "closer than a son", when from what we've seen, Voldemort is not the type to treat *anyone* that way. I see him as being reduced to obsession and hate, and nothing else. Everything else was just him playing Moody (and furthering the Voldemort- kidnapping-Harry plan). Carol: >> In the face of the Dementors, cowardice overcame fanaticism, but once he's away from the Dementors, fanatical loyalty to Voldemort is his defining trait. << HunterGreen: Again, that may have been a result of his ten-year imprisonment. Who else would he have to be loyal to? He's been rejected by regular society (by his own fault, nevertheless though, it gives him no reason to be loyal to them), and his father imprisoned him. Since serving Voldemort is the way he got into that mess, than serving Voldemort is the only way to get out of it. He could have gone either way, either hating Voldemort (and his allegiance to him) for ruining his life, or hating his father for the imprisonment and wanting to return to Voldemort who "accepts him". >>Carol, who wonders if the Dementor who sucked his soul somehow recognized him and realized that he and his fellow guards had been deceived<< Interesting theory. I never thought of that. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Sep 30 08:35:27 2004 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:35:27 -0000 Subject: Petunia and DD (was DD's courtesy; was re: petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114235 Interesting theory! Mortal danger does seem to be the most likely reason for Petunia to protect Harry. There are some holes there though. 1. Petunia does not recognise Voldemort's name when Harry mentions it even though she does recognise Azkaban. Strangely it does seem that she is aware of what Voldy being back might mean! 2. Voldy was perfectly willing to spare Lily. Therefore why would he be interested in murdering any of Lily's blood relatives (unless DD has been misleading Petunia) 3. IF the letter has been their only correspondence, why would DD refer to her as Petunia - surely he would call her Mrs. Dursley. Also, Petunia seems to recognise DDs voice. I think they must have been introduced at some point. Maybe, even before Harry came along. I wonder if at some point Petunia considered dumping Harry. DD intervened - i.e. remember my last HOWLER!! Brothergib From greatraven at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 10:00:18 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:00:18 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (WAS the importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mumweasley7" wrote: > SSSusan wrote: > > >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your > mention > > >of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think > Lucius > > >has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that > he > > >doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or > gain > > >(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not > > >working? > > > > Mary here: > In COS when Lucius and Arthur Weasley part ways in the bookstore > Arthur says to Lucius "See you at work". It doesn't say what he > does. Sue here: I don't have the book to hand, but I'm pretty sure this was only in the film. In the novel, the two of them have a fight. I'd say that no, Lucius probably doesn't have to work. Inherited wealth and investments would make sure he didn't. At the same time, if the WW works like ours economically, he's probably on some board of directors or another because of owning a majority of shares in something (broomsticks, perhaps? :-D). > > Mary From greatraven at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 10:07:23 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:07:23 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Gringotts, & the Firebolt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114237 --- 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. :-) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 10:24:48 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:24:48 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (WAS the importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mumweasley7" wrote: > SSSusan wrote: > > >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your > mention > > >of a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think > Lucius > > >has to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that > he > > >doesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or > gain > > >(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not > > >working? > > > > Mary here: > In COS when Lucius and Arthur Weasley part ways in the bookstore > Arthur says to Lucius "See you at work". It doesn't say what he > does. > > Mary mhbobbin: I can't find it in the book. Can you point to it? mhbobbin From kethryn at wulfkub.com Thu Sep 30 03:21:12 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School References: Message-ID: <012a01c4a69c$8b7005a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114239 > kmc adds: And what is cause of the bangs coming from Gred & Forge's room? How did they make Ton Tongue Taffey and the rest of their inventory if they didn't use magic during the summer? With the students who are Muggle-born and Harry it's easy to know who is doing magic but what about the students who live in the magic households? Magic is used to do almost everything from cooking to knitting. Does this mean once you enter Hogwarts you aren't allowed to help with household chores? Kethryn now - Well, maybe the reason that George and Fred get away with it is because their parents are magic users? It kind of makes sense if you remember that Harry got the letter in COS warning him that a hoover charm had been used in his home and that he would be expelled if he used any more magic...so presumably, the MoM cannot tell who is actually the person doing the magic just that magic is being performed. Maybe. Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Thu Sep 30 03:02:46 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:02:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does Lucius work? (WAS the importance of being Draco Malfoy) References: Message-ID: <011f01c4a699$fade5b60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114240 >>Mary here: In COS when Lucius and Arthur Weasley part ways in the bookstore Arthur says to Lucius "See you at work". It doesn't say what he does. Kethryn - He is one of the governors of Hogwarts in COS and presumably SS as well. I don't remember if he stepped down from that or was kicked off or is still a governor. Kethryn From empooress at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:56:12 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Petunia In-Reply-To: <1096428571.28375.82778.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040930025612.37170.qmail@web52108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114241 >>> Hester now: >>> >>> JKR has stated >>>pointedly that Petunia is not a Squib, (snip) >>Tonks here: >> As I said before and will say again.. I think that >>Petunia is a person born with the gift to be a witch, >>but CHOSE not to use it. >>She chose to live as a Muggle. You know, I've consider the same thing that Petunia is in fact a witch who chooses to live as a muggle. What really got me to thinking this was two things first that JKR has stated (sorry don't remember where) that someone who was thought to have no magic ablities would be reveled. And secondly thjat scene in OotP where Petunia knows about the demetor and Azkaban. It's not so much that she knows this but that she heard "that boy" talking to her sister about it. If she really thought her sister was such a huge freak, would she have been hanging around Lily and James?? It has also been pointed out in several post that Petunia must have met Dumbledore, or at least recieved more than the two letters we know he sent to the Dursleys. What if she attended Hogwarts, met Vernon at some point, fell in love and renouced the magical world to be with him?? I think Petunia knows a lot more about the magical world than she lets on. Empooress From empooress at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 03:06:12 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Barty Jr and the DE's mark In-Reply-To: <1096438053.3125.7516.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20040930030612.41907.qmail@web52108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114242 macfotuk at y... wrote: >>Anyways the point is that either LV wasn't around to >>give BCJr the mark or never got round to it with what >>was a relatively fresh recruit before being taken >>out at GH. Thus BCJr didn't ever have, and may not >>even know about, the mark. He 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. From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 05:49:30 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:49:30 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114243 > Annemehr: > 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. Beatnik24601: Ha ha...point taken. Maybe ((desperately trying to think of something that would make poisons interesting))...maybe, the poisons make people die in really interesting ways! Like, in Moste Potente Potions (CoS), the pictures of people being turned inside out... 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. Beatnik: They were... > > 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? Beatnik: Yes, that's very nice of you. I still stand by my original interpretation, but the more I think about it, the more I like the alternative...it does lend it's self to more interesting potion classes and practical applications of these potions that 'control death', doesn't it? Beatnik24601 From zinaya_z at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 09:33:57 2004 From: zinaya_z at yahoo.com (zinaya_z) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:33:57 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114244 > > 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). Hi all, this is my first time posting but I wanted to jump in on this one. I have a friend in the UK and we were discussing this same topic when she tactfully pointed out that the US version of the book differs from the UK in this case. While the US says "stopper death" the UK version says "even put a stopper in death". This is a reference to a cork basically, boring as that is... Peace! Zinaya From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 11:03:01 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:03:01 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zinaya_z" wrote: > > > 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). > Hi all, this is my first time posting but I wanted to jump in on > this one. > > I have a friend in the UK and we were discussing this same topic > when she tactfully pointed out that the US version of the book > differs from the UK in this case. While the US says "stopper > death" the UK version says "even put a stopper in death". This is > a reference to a cork basically, boring as that is... > > Peace! > Zinaya Dungrollin: My UK paperback version doesn't, it says 'even stopper death'. Anyone else...? I've been through this every which way, and now I think he was talking through his hat, trying to intimidate the ickle firsties, and JKR wasn't paying attention to all the possible interpretations of her words... Although it is, admittedly, suspiciously ambiguous... From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 30 11:06:14 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:06:14 -0400 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? Message-ID: <002d01c4a6dd$822766a0$acc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114246 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?" DuffyPoo: My personal theory on this is that it is an old law on the books that doesn't get used, for the most part, unless there is someone watching you to know what you've done or someone reports it. Hermione and Ron both lit their wands in GoF, F&G set off Filibuster Fireworks (at home), improve Percy's Head Boy badge, make all kinds of explosions in their room, Hermione's "I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all worked for me" the first day on the train, yet no owls, no warnings. The two times HP got caught, IMO, were because someone was informed. When Dobby 'did magic' at Privet Drive, what he did was also inform the Improper Use of Magic Office. Dobby was trying to keep him from going back to Hogwarts, remember, and since he wouldn't stay home on his own, he tried to get him expelled by informing IUMO. When HP was caught using magic to repel the Dementors, it is because he was being watched. The Dementors knew exactly where he was; he was being tailed by more than just the OotP. HP received no owl the night he shattered Aunt Marge's wine glass nor three days later when he blew her up. No one knew until, IMO, Mrs. Figg informed the Ministry that 'something' had happened at four Privet Drive - after she'd seen HP dragging his trunk up the road. She informed the Knight Bus, and she informed the Ministry to go and check on the situation, as she felt something very serious had happened there. Some folks believe the Dursley residence was monitored which is how the IUMO found out about Dobby's smashed pudding and attributed it to HP. However, when the Avanced Guard shows up in OotP, there is lots of magic going on (cage cleaning, wand lighting, truck packing and moving, disillusioning) and again, no owls, although the Ministry would believe, if we believe it, that only one wizard lives at number four so it must be him doing all the magic. IMO, the notes handed round at the end of first year, warning students not to do magic, to Fred's dismay, are warning them not to perform magic in front of non-magic-related Muggles. Harry, Hermione, Justin, Colin, Dennis, etc., could do magic at home without being in trouble because their parents know they are magical. Magical children can as well. The problem with the Flying Car is that non-magic-related Muggles saw the car and it risked exposure of the magical world to them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinainfay at msn.com Thu Sep 30 11:11:22 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:11:22 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114247 > > > 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! ~tina, who would love to re-read the series looking for names alone From sophierom at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 11:33:16 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) Message-ID: <20040930113316.52247.qmail@web51801.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114248 Susana: > I agree the wizarding society is completely racist... but elves are not another race! > As for 'equals'... maybe... er... elves don't want to be equal? > Muggle society has an 'equality complex'! You're anthropomorphising elves. Dungrollin: > After the analogy with American slavery, I also thought about an analogy with dogs, which sums up nicely the element of House Elves wanting to serve humans. But House Elves are not dogs (as has been pointed out). They are emotional and reasoning beings (okay their grammar's a bit dodgy I'm not going to say I think they're superintelligent, but you get my point) and that's where the analogy with dogs breaks down. > An analogy which strikes me as perhaps more understanding of Hermione's side (and indeed my own) would be with Swiss women in the 1970s (bear with me). I still find it shocking that in Switzerland > women didn't get the vote until 1974, and (I believe) there is still > one Canton in which they don't have the vote. My boyfriend is > Swiss, and I bring this up from time to time when he's complaining > about British politics, and he says "You can't blame the men, a lot > of women didn't *want* the vote! They held a referendum and loads > of women voted against getting the vote!" > The point about freedom is the ability to make one's own choices. > If house elves want to serve people and it makes them happy, then fine, let them. But magically forcing them to serve wizards they despise is wrong wrong wrong. While the majority of house elves may be happy, we have already met two who aren't/weren't Dobby and > Kreatcher. The only way to get rid of this injustice is by giving > them the choice, and at the moment, they don't have that choice. > No matter how willing the slave, slavery is slavery. Finwitch: And to add: Where house-elves are like dogs, the goblins are like wolves... Sophierom: Some great points by Susana, Finwitch and Dungrollin here. Susana and Finwitch's posts made we wonder: what if we compared house elves to other sentient, but non-human species in the wizarding world? Of the magical creatures that figure in the MoM fountain, the other two are centaurs and goblins, neither of which are enslaved (though admittedly both groups have very tense relationship with humans). We learn through bits and pieces of information in canon that neither of these creatures have maintained their freedom without a struggle: goblins have fought many wars in order combat what they've seen as wizarding discrimination, and centaurs have had to isolate themselves from witches and wizards in order to maintain their autonomy. So, while house elves may be attached to humans because of some "natural" magical bond inherent in their species, there is precedent among other, non-human but sentient creatures of humans attempting to dominate them. Indeed, Lupin warns in OotP that if goblins are "offered the freedoms we've been denying them for centuries they're going to be tempted" to join LV. (OotP, p.85, Am. Ed. ) I think, ultimately, this debate about the house elves revolves around the question of how we view them. Is it more important that elves are a separate species or is more important that elves are sentient beings who share key characteristics with humans? In a fantasy world like Potterverse, the species separation might be really important because different species have different powers. House elves apparently have some strong magic of their own (for example, Dobby is able to pop into Hogwarts, which, according to Hermione and Hogwarts, A History, is supposedly guarded against Apparition). And there may very well be other magic that house elves have that wizards do not have. And if, in order to maintain their unique forms of magic, house elves and human wizards need each other, then perhaps there is some validity to the idea that house elves should be attached to humans and that humans need to recognize their own dependence on the elves and treat them better. However, if you recognize the house elves' similarities with humans, the species differences don't seem to be so important. Yes, house elves and human wizards might have different magic, different purposes, but they do seem to share a lot of similarities. For example, Dobby has a remarkable ability to differentiate between one who feeds him, so to speak - Malfoy - and one with whom he's never had any contact but considers a hero- Harry. Susana is exactly right when she says that I anthropomorphise the house elves; but so does JKR, giving them characteristics that animal species, like dogs, often don't share. True, a dog might learn to bite or harm a human that abuses it, but it most likely wouldn't go out of its way to save a human it's never met. (Though I have to admit - not many humans would be willing to do what Dobby did for Harry, knowing that they were risking the severe disapproval of their only source of food, shelter, etc.) Kreacher's sneakiness, as well as his passive-aggressive behavior, is also very reminiscent of human behavior, though I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about other species, dogs or otherwise. Dungrollin's analogy of women's suffrage is really apt here because one of the major arguments against women's equality was and has always been women and men's physiological differences. But feminists argue that these differences aren't nearly as important as the similarities men and women share, and in fact, many of the supposed differences between the sexes might indeed be social constructs. For example, are men more aggressive than women? Well, there might be some physiological explanation to support an affirmative, but much of the difference between men and women's behavior has to do with how men and women are actually raised differently. So, getting back to house elves, I think there are indeed distinct differences between the elves and wizards, perhaps even differences so important that there must be some sort of reciprocal relationship that invalidates my admittedly simplistic call for "equality." Still, I can't help but feel that for all the differences between house elves and human wizards, the similarities between these two groups make the enslavement of house elves wrong. This is especially true considering the themes of the books, not only the cruelty of racism, but also, as Dungrollin pointed out, the importance of choice, a theme prominent in the series. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 12:56:40 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:56:40 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114249 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. Annemehr: I hope this is what happens; it would be very exciting, and I'd love to see the Dursleys' reactions. Another possibility would be for Dumbledore to order Harry, Ron, and Hermione to headquarters to receive some real information and some training. Naturally, Dumbledore would still keep most of the Order's doings a secret from the trio. I just don't think he can rely on their being at Hogwarts to provide all the safety they need from Voldemort anymore. Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: On the first chapter of PS/SS: "The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a Harry Potter book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal even more. There were various versions of scenes in which you actually saw Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the Potters..." On the first chapter of HBP: "I have come close to using a chapter very like this in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing." Dungrollin's thoughts on the opening of HBP: If the first chapter of HBP could have fitted into PS/SS, PoA or Oop aswell as HBP, then it *must* be referring to a time before Harry knew he was a wizard, mustn't it? It's unlikely that a present-day-Harry situation would have been applicable to the overall plot over a 5 year time span. If HBP opens with an attack on Privet Drive... I don't see how that could have happened in all these different places throughout the story (though chapter 2 of HBP could easily feature a surprise group of DE's at number 4). I'm thinking more along the lines of the opening of GoF, a retrospective scene. What it could be however... My pitifully scarce ideas are rounded up and forced to present themselves below: 1. More about the events of Godric's Hollow I can see how this would fit into the first chapter of PS/SS, and indeed somewhere in PoA. I must admit though, I have difficulty with where it could fit into OoP ? unless it's information that Dumbledore could have revealed at the end, information that could be revealed through a memory that Harry didn't know he had which came out in the Occlumency lessons, or something that Voldemort himself said in the MM ? though none of these ideas really allow for a whole chapter. Perhaps this is why it didn't work there. 2. More about You Know Who's past. This could fit in practically anywhere in the series, but why think of putting it into PoA and OoP and not into CoS or GoF? 3. Something entirely different that I haven't thought of. Er... that's it. :-) Frankly, my money's on number 3. From ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 13:01:56 2004 From: ajhuflpuf at yahoo.com (A.J.) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:01:56 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: [JKR] > On the first chapter of HBP: > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing." What about the unused opening chapter she described where Hermione's dad sees and explosion out to see, goes to the source, and finds the Potters' bodies? Does this count as one of the similar-to-nearly- used-first-chapter possibilities? A.J. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 30 13:20:56 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:20:56 +0100 Subject: Gilding the Lily Message-ID: <902DA87A-12E3-11D9-8F21-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114251 It's not uncommon when discussing the HP books that new information surfaces, or a new insight is thrown on existing canon and a re-assessment of a character or situation becomes possible, even advisable. Sometimes this is within a single volume (Crouch!Moody, Sirius) or it may take a while to become evident, only raising it's head above the parapet and leering at us long after we've become comfortable with a well-worn consensus (James, Remus). We like to think that we've got the characters well sussed, we must be correct - after all, our analyses, theories and predictions are based on what we've come to believe and we'd be back to square one without them. So we'll cling on like grim death, kicking and screaming when confronted with contrarian ideas until a new paradigm becomes ineluctable or until JKR prises them from our sweaty little mitts by dumping something totally unexpected into our eyeballs. So why not jump the gun? A little pre-emptive posting; a look at personae whose images seem settled, immutable and see if there are hints in existing canon that will in retrospect be seen as the warning minor tremors preceding the main earthquake. Such was my thinking - hopefully a short series of posts offering a tour d'horizon. Unlikely to be greeted with universal approbation of course, but into every life a little rain must fall and today the one caught without the umbrella is Lily. Now I'm under no illusions here, I'm well aware that for some Lily has almost iconic status, symbolic of motherhood and all that other good stuff, but posters don't seem to mind rubbishing Molly or Tom's mother, so what the hell; they're all fictional constructs, right? Besides, analysis is fun, and it's intention is to make you *think*. Most of what we know about Lily (and frankly we don't know all that much) comes from others - Hagrid and Petunia most of all. Information has been doled out in penny-pieces, a bit here a dribble there with very little connection between them. The only really complete and unabridged episode we see is from the Pensieve - and even that has aspects that generate yet more questions. She's not from a wizarding family, or at least that's what JKR wants us to believe for the present, though posters of a suspicious nature note the authorial hints that it might not be as cut and dried as all that, particularly where Petunia is concerned. Petunia's view of Lily is entirely negative, nothing but spite and bile. It's possibly significant that she never mentions anything about Lily or her life before Lily went to Hogwarts. The antipathy is palpable; these two are so different that if such great play weren't made of the blood connection/protection I'd wonder if one of them weren't a cuckoo in the nest. We can't deduce a great deal about what Lily thought of Petunia - true, she was invited to the Potter matrimonials but as the sole living relative it wouldn't be unusual if form and family overcame feelings of "Oh, do we have to?" Still, before all that we have descriptions of Lily coming home from school, pockets full of frog-spawn (frog-spawn? Why frog-spawn? Toad-spawn I could understand - it'd give us a clue where Trevor came from) and being the life and soul of the dinner table by transfiguring teacups. Were the under-age magic regulations suspended? I was under the impression that the only households where junior could get away with dabbling in a bit of magic were wizarding homes. And her parents were delighted. Why would Muggles who know nothing of magic, the WW or Hogwarts be delighted? My brain starts to itch when little anomalies like these surface. Apprehension would seem a more natural reaction. And any feelings of apprehension could well be felt justified if they'd seen the episode replayed to Harry from the Pensieve. The sequence of events is straight-forward; a confrontation - James and Sirius vs Snape. Words and spells are exchanged, Lily intervenes, is rebuffed by Snape and she exits stage left. All well and good. To the supporters of LOLLIPOPS this was grist to their mill; at last! A credible scenario for Snape adoring Lily! 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. Whatever. But it's the intervention that matters. Before OoP was published JKR said it would provide a lot of information about Harry's parents. Certainly it opened our eyes about James, but not so much about Lily - unless it's all in the detail. Lily intervenes on Snape's behalf - why? Many suggest it's her love of fair play, dislike of bullying, opposition to violence etc. etc. Possibly true, but boring. Two things in this scene interest me; first if she's agin fighting and for fair play, why no protest when Snape hits James with a spell that gashes his face, spattering blood onto his robes - a spell cast when James was otherwise occupied? Secondly James and Sirius are very wary of Lily's wand; have they been on the wrong end of it before? Or have they seen what she's capable of when angry? Oh, for a bit more backstory. Eventually all becomes sweetness and light. She brings James home to meet Mum and Dad. That must have been fun - "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? It's generally accepted, though not entirely certain, that James and "that horrible boy" are one and the same, but it is possible to construct a scenario that can cast doubt on this viz- in OoP we're told that James started going out with Lily in their seventh year - their last at Hogwarts. 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. How much time would Petunia (who now has her own house and hubby to occupy her) spend in her parents home during the school holidays, knowing Lily (someone she despises) will be there? The description "horrible" indicates some personal experience of the person so described, but if Petunia (and her character would support this) avoided meeting James then who is she describing? Was there someone before James? 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. 'Cos I have this feeling that Voldy might have been putting the pressure on them for some time. Blame Hagrid for this one - "Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side before...." Before? Was GH a recruiting drive gone wrong? Nah, don't think so, but it can be construed to mean that Voldy had made at least one less lethal approach to the Potters and a not-so-polite refusal led to a performance that brought the house down. Just a little more on this, another interpretation of Lyn's. Voldy's phrasing - "Stand aside you silly girl...stand aside now.." Seems almost as if it's couched in familiar terms somehow, as if Lily was personally known to him already. Not quite the vocabulary of a murderous villain finally achieving his goal, is it? Not even any exclamation marks, could even be read as more in sorrow than in anger. A request, not an instruction. Is that the Voldy we boo and hiss? Harry has these flashbacks of GH, but he sees nothing except the green flash; it's all words - and as we all know words don't always give us the whole or even the true story. All of us want the pictures, the actions that reflect the words. What else would they show? Even in the PS film the scene was deliberately made obscure. Can Harry's 'visions' really be as simple and straightforward as they sound? After this all is screams and green lights - apart from the Mirror. And that I don't trust. I think it shows what DD *wants* people to see, despite all his explanatory flannel. The only accurate bit of his whole spiel was ".... this mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth." So why believe a damn thing it shows? Kneasy From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 30 13:33:21 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:33:21 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114252 > SSSusan wrote: > >This is almost totally off the topic of your post, but your mentionof a "monitary diet" for Draco struck me. Do folks here think Luciushas to work? I somehow thought his wealth was inherited and that hedoesn't have to work beyond anything he chooses to do for fun or gain(of power). Do we have any canon support for his working or not working? > Hannah now: Sorry to weigh in a bit late in this thread, but I've always been interested in what Lucius actually does all day. I don't believe he works. The 'see you at work' comment from CoS is only in the film (well, at least it isn't in any of my copies of Cos (UK editions) or the French edition). Also, wading through OotP, you find various references that suggest he doesn't have any official, 9-5 sort of job. After the hearing when Harry and Arthur meet Lucius in the MoM, Harry asks what Lucius is doing there, and Malfoy replies it is none of his business. He doesn't say 'I happen to work here' which I think he would if it was true. Arthur says he'll have to tell DD that Lucius was talking to Fudge again, which I'm guessing he wouldn't if Lucius was an employee of the ministry. Later on in OotP, when the trio are discussing the fate of Bode and Podmore (p518 UK hardback) Hermione says of Malfoy; 'never out of the ministry, is he?' and they go on to say how he's always hanging round there. Now that seems to me to indicate that Malfoy doesn't work there, or that comment wouldn't make sense. But since he's in the MoM so much, I doubt he has a full time job anywhere else either. He is removed from the Hogwarts board of governors at the end of CoS. I think Malfoy has a lot of inherited wealth (and I do think he really is very rich, not just making himself out to be - look at all those donations). IMO, he spends his time sucking up to people in power (Arthur Weasley remarks about his being 'well connected'), playing whatever the WW equivalent of golf is, signing big cheques to charitable institutions and attending dinners in his honour, and of course polishing his dark arts memorabilia (thanks to whoever coined that wonderful phrase!). Hannah, who is reminded of a very funny essay in the HP Lexicon in the style of Lucius' diary. It's worth reading for a laugh! From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 30 13:37:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:37:52 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor and Dark Arts . Was: Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114253 Alla wrote: > > I don't think we have clear proof yet that the books are put int he > Forbidden section strictly because these are Dark arts books. > > I was actually thinking about Peter. Sorry about that. :) Potioncat: If you mean, that isn't the only reason, you could be right, but we are told in SS/PS that the restricted section is where the dark arts books are kept. I am away from home, and cannont check, but doesn't Hermione comment that the book with polyjuice potion is full of dark magic? From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 13:48:18 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:48:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > 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 (although > it would make sense). But, if that is the case, couldn't Harry have > been practicing a hovering charm in COS or the Patronus Charm in OOP? > How does the MOM distinguish b/w homework/practice and violations? I > assume someone will say the MOM knows what spells are taught at each > level of school, but does that mean a student can't practice more > advanced magic, if he's able? > > Angie IIRC Hogwarts homework is mostly essays. We've never seen Harry have a practical homework lesson (such as "practice wingardium leviosa") though he did have History of Magic essays in PoA. So maybe that's how they get around that one. Meri From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 13:43:32 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:43:32 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114255 > Dungrollin: > > > As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: > > (I suspect that someone has already gone through this before and > > probably proposed their own names for the categories, and if so, I > > humbly apologise, beg forgiveness and - in fact, I'm so sure of it > > that I'll give the credit to everyone else before I start...) > snips the description of possibilities for Snape character :) > > Alla: > > The way I see it - two or three are the most likely to happen. > Something make Snape to change the sides - whether he hates it or > likes it, whether it was a single dramatic event or gradual > conversion, which made him see the light, I don't know. I also do > not doubt the fact that he is pathetic and emotionally damged > human being. > > ESE! Snape is also possible, if Rowling decides to drop a bomb at > us in the end. > > I love your name for Actor!Snape . This is the one which I am > keeping my fingers crossed never come to light. I dislike it > passionately, because I just don't see how one can disregard that > Snape gets his emotions be in the way of his judgement so very > often. (Shrieking Shack and Occlumency failure are the best > examples, IMO) Dungrollin again: Yes... Sorry, Kethryn (who suggested this in post 114176), Oscar- winner!Snape is my least favourite too. There are just too many occasions where Snape treats Harry terribly when there are no witnesses to be impressed, where (if he were really a nice chap) he could get away with being at least indifferent rather than nasty. I'll just briefly underline why I'm supporting ReluctantlyGood!Snape. Leaving the DEs as the result of a moral change-of-heart is a big big step (whether the realisation is gradual or sudden). That's a BIG about-face. IMO people who consider ethical questions and make huge and humbling ideological changes to their lives as a result of them generally have their characters affected (even if only slightly) by that way of thinking. Snape shows nothing like that. He does not ever in any of the five books apologise for any of his behaviour. And then... No. I *did* say I'd be brief... Cheers, Dungrollin. From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 13:51:33 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:51:33 -0000 Subject: Does Lucius work? (was: the importance of being Draco Malfoy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114256 Kethryn wrote; >He is one of the governors of Hogwarts in COS and presumably SS as >well. I dont'know if he stepped down from that or was kicked off or >is still a governor. Kethryn Leah: In the UK, being a school governor is a purely voluntary bit of service to the community, so while it gets Lucius' fingers in yet another pie, it wouldn't be paid work. As to the MOM, in COS, Lucius says to Arthur that he understands things are busy at the ministry, which indicates to me that he doesn't work there. Leah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 30 14:01:03 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:01:03 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114257 > > > 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 (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). Zinaya replied: > > I have a friend in the UK and we were discussing this same topic > > when she tactfully pointed out that the US version of the book > > differs from the UK in this case. While the US says "stopper > > death" the UK version says "even put a stopper in death". This is a reference to a cork basically, boring as that is... > Dungrollin added: > My UK paperback version doesn't, it says 'even stopper death'. > Anyone else...? > I've been through this every which way, and now I think he was > talking through his hat, trying to intimidate the ickle firsties, > and JKR wasn't paying attention to all the possible interpretations of her words... Hannah now: I've always thought the same as Beatnik, that Snape is referring to sticking a cork in your freshly brewed bottle of lethal poison. He is talking very poetically here (I bet he gives an identical speech to his first years every year) and it just sounds better than saying 'oh and if you're really good you'll be able to make poison too.' Snape has a fondness for these start-the-year speeches - I'm sure he makes that OWL speech to the fifth years in the first lesson every year as well. My UK paperback, hardback, and special edition all say 'even stopper death' (I have a lot of copies because they keep falling apart). I think (though this is just from memory now) that Alan Rickman says 'even put a stopper in death' in the Forbidden Media. Maybe this is where the different phrasing came from? Hannah From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 14:17:40 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:17:40 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > After a bad day there's nothing so good as a boost to the ego. > Thank you. You're welcome ! ;-) > But you're giving me an excuse to re-introduce a subject I've posted > on before (twice!) and received almost no response - that dream. > > It is foreshadowing, it must be. It's intended solely for us, the readers. > What other purpose could it possibly have? - the text states explicitly > that Harry never remembers it! > > 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. > > We now know that behind that turban was Voldy; is it Voldy that > wants Harry in Slytherin or is it a hold-over from the Hat's comments? > Is the green light past or future? Malfoy becomes Snape - how? > > For a conspiricist it's almost all too much. What follows is a very patchy piece of work. I tried to put together morsels of a puzzle that I am not sure fit together.... What I like in what you are saying, Kneasy, is that at the time of the dream, Harry does not know Snape. Why, in his subconscious, does he substitute Snape for Voldy (high pitch laugh and green light) ? Forshadowing or just one of JKR's mechanism to let us believe that Snape is the baddy in the PS/SS adventure ? At this point, either one proposition could be right. But the dream echoes what the hat is saying during the sorting ceremony. The hat says :? Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness.?. Which Slytherin ? The House or Sally the wizard himself ? But this is not news to you is it ? Where is Sally Slytherin ? Where is Tom Riddle ? I know you are a huge possession theorist and I think your theory is an excellent piece of work. The two posts about the turban you are referring to are 108286 and 108414. In the latest, you talk about how little of Tom Riddle is left inside Voldy. Maybe just enough to recognise the boy from the 40's he once was into The Boy Who Lived. I guess Dumbledore sees what is left of Tom in Voldy as well otherwise he would not have called him Tom in the MoM. According to this, your assumtion that it is DD's hope to ?split? Tom from Voldy makes sense. I like this sort a redemption theory very much. Maybe the ?in essence divided? comment is about Sally and Voldy after all. The two little snakes dancing in DD's silver instrument symbolizes them better than Harry who is a true Gryffindor hence the summoning of GG's sword in CoS. If Dumbledore is engaged in a good vs evil battle, maybe Voldemort is only a lieutnant, a powerful lieutenant yes, but just an ?aide de camp? to an even more powerful wizard ? entity ? ? another theory of Kneasy - that has been disturbing the Wizarding World for the last 1000 years. A Half-Blood Prince maybe ? Has it been that chaotic for the last 1000 years ? I don't know ! The only other dark wizard known to us is Grindewald 50 years back. But I ask myself : why would have Sally needed to possess Voldy if his blood is already flowing in Voldy's veins ? Is Voldy just a symbolic descendant ? I doubt it. A lot of importance is given to blood in the series... Sometimes I think that the so called ?split? has already occured... Here's why... A couple of months ago, I posted a theory about the missing ingredient in Voldy's back to life potion at the end of GoF. I hate quotting my own posts but here it is (post 104523) : ?Voldy needed three powerful ingredients : (1) Flesh given by a servant; (2) His father's bone and (3) The blood of a foe. What bugs me is that his father, Tom Riddle Sr., was not a wizard. The Salazar Slytherin's blood that used to flow in Voldemort's old body came from his mother and I presume that that body was destroyed in Godric's Hollow. Somehow, the ?new? Voldemort seems to be walking around minus the old Salazar Slytherin component. Maybe that is the explanation for the look of triumph in DD's eye.? Unless Voldy was, in deed, possessed by Slytherin, maybe now Voldy is left with what he thinks is his old body and the powers and knowledge he gathered through his years as an evil overlord wannabe. He was a powerful wizard to start with anyway. But according to the potion brewed in the cemetery, he is slightly different from who he was before G'sHollow. Something else to ponder : There has been a lot of importance given to father-son relationships in the books. The Potters, the Riddles, the Crouches, etc. Isn't it about time that we are told about mothers ? I think the next two books will deal with this topic. I see something coming on Alice's front as well as Lily's with her green eyes... And what about Tom Riddle's mum ? JKR has suggested that we should ask ourselves why Voldemort did not die in Godric's Hollow. I have pondered this and here is what I suggests : what if Voldy received a protection from his mother too ? I hate theories without solid canon basis but didn't JKR said that we would learn more about Tom Riddle's birth ? Is it farfetched to think that a percentage of Voldemort's powers ? before Godric's Hollow - came solely from his mum ? Harry is, of course, The Boy Who Lived but on that fatal night, at Godric's Hollow, Voldemort survived too. Could it be that Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is also a boy who lived ? I appologize for my rambling. It is probably filled with grammar mistakes and weird syntax. Sorry about that ! So fire on ! Nadine From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 30 14:34:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:34:33 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114259 >Marla wrote: First we hear about Snape having a debt to James because he saved Snape from Lupin. >Then Snape elaborates the tale by telling Harry that James only did it to save his own skin. Later still we hear a more complete version from Lupin in the Shrieking Shack where he also adds how Snape particularly hated James of the four of them. 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? If it were I, Sirius would be the most hated one. 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. Oh oh oh oh, and one more thing. Where was Ms Pomfery while all this is going on. The book reads that Snape followed them both to the Whomping Willow but it doesn't mention her returning before Snape enters. Do you suppose she just leds Lupin to the entrance or does she take him all the way to the Shack? Thanks for letting me > vent. Hannah now: Snape clearly thought that James did have some part in sending him to the willow, from what he says to Harry. He refers to James and his friends playing a trick on him that would have got him killed. Perhaps Snape really did believe that James was part of it, or perhaps James was initially in on some less serious prank, but then Sirius took it a step further? Although Lupin and Black seem to be saying that James had nothing to do with it, Snape obviously thinks he did. I actually think Snape would have preferred to be eaten by Lupin than have to be grateful to James Potter. His hatred of James was already six years old as this point. Some theorists would suggest that James marrying Lily Evans was the final straw for Snape. I would say from his behaviour in PoA, GoF and OotP that Black came a close second to Potter on Snape's blacklist. As for the whereabouts of Madam Pomfrey, she would have to have got out of the shack before Lupin transformed, or she'd have been in danger. By the time Snape goes along the tunnel, Lupin is a 'fully grown werewolf.' So Pomfrey has no doubt already made heself scarce. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 30 14:48:18 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:48:18 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114260 > -- > > 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 agrees: > Sirius is the focus of the entire third book. It just makes no sense > to me to write an entire book in the series around Sirius and then > just kill him off. It also seems cruel (I realize life can be cruel, > but Harry has suffered enough loss in my opinion) to allow Harry to > discover Sirius and then lose him that way. And to leave him still > without a parent/guardian at the end of the series? That just > doesn't work for me, either. > > I think the veil is a teaser because of what Luna said to Harry about > hearing the voices. What other reason would there be for her to say > that, unless she's just off her rocker, and I don't think she is. I > guess it could be a red herring, but I would hope JKR would be above > that with regard to this particular subject. > > It's true that DD plainly said, "It's my fault that Sirius died," > but I think DD wants everyone, especially Harry and Voldemort, to > believe that Sirius is dead, so that Voldemort can't use Sirius > against Harry (and maybe he could also work for the Order). > Remember, DD doesn't know for sure how much of Harry's thoughts > Voldemort has access to. So, Harry must be made to think that Sirius > is dead. > > Just had a thought: I wonder if Harry could use the "Reparo" spell > to fix the broken mirror? We don't know if Sirius had it on him when > he went through the veil. > Hannah: If Sirius turns out to be alive after all, or comes back from the dead, I will be very, very disappointed in JKR. Not because I don't like Sirius; I think he's a good character and cried when he died, but because it would undermine the power of the books for me. JKR has made much of the fact that she is unafraid to write about death, and hopes to help children confront and deal with death. Many people have said that the stories have helped their children deal with the death of a loved one. If she then turns round and says 'it's OK, he's not dead after all!' it would be such a let down for all those children whose RL dead relative *isn't* going to suddenly pop back from behind the veil. I don't belive JKR will do that. I think when we 'see Sirius again' it will be as a memory, either in a retrospective scene not from Harry's pov, or in a pensieve. As for Harry dying, I'm not sure whether he will or not. If all his friends are dead, maybe a long life wouldn't be such a great thing in his opinion? I think it's pretty obvious he will defeat LV, but that doesn't mean he will survive. Hannah, who felt LoR was rather undermined by the treatment of the death (or implausible survival/ return) of certain characters. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 30 14:50:23 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:50:23 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Hannah now: Snape clearly thought that James did have some part in > sending him to the willow, from what he says to Harry. He refers to > James and his friends playing a trick on him that would have got him > killed. Perhaps Snape really did believe that James was part of it, > or perhaps James was initially in on some less serious prank, but > then Sirius took it a step further? Although Lupin and Black seem > to be saying that James had nothing to do with it, Snape obviously > thinks he did. > 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. Snape was the means to an end. If Snape gets injured the solids hit the rotating air circulator. That being so, why should Snape feel gratitude if James's thoughts were centred on others? Kneasy From ellydan at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 15:10:50 2004 From: ellydan at yahoo.com (Melete) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040930151050.11322.qmail@web40801.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114263 --- dungrollin wrote: > Angie wrote: > > Just wondered what half-baked theories anyone had > about how Book 6 > > will open. > > > Annemehr: > Another possibility would be for Dumbledore to order > Harry, Ron, and > Hermione to headquarters to receive some real > information and some > training. > > > Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: > > On the first chapter of PS/SS: > "The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a > Harry Potter > book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal > even more. > There were various versions of scenes in which you > actually saw > Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the > Potters..." > > On the first chapter of HBP: > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the > discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the > Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's > all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's > been about > thirteen years in the brewing." > > Dungrollin's thoughts on the opening of HBP: > If the first chapter of HBP could have fitted into > PS/SS, PoA or Oop > aswell as HBP, then it *must* be referring to a time > before Harry > knew he was a wizard, mustn't it? Certainly, I immediately thought when she said this on her site that she must be finally revealing the Godric's Hollow events in full. If you think about how GOF opens with the Riddle house and then goes to Harry at the Dursleys. IF the book were to open with the events of Godric's Hollow then it would certainly be understandable if there is less time spent on describing Harry's stay at the Dursleys and more of a quick plot movement towards Harry returning to Hogwarts. This is of course an unsupported opinion. But events 13 years in the making I can certainly only think of a toddler Harry during or directly after the Godric's Hollow incidents (doing the math at least.) If so, then my own excitement level over this next book has to be lassoed in again so I don't boil over : ). But perhaps JK will have something entirely new to reveal to us instead. She can be very difficult to predict. Cheers, Ellyddan _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From ujs31415 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 29 19:01:13 2004 From: ujs31415 at yahoo.com (ujs31415) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:01:13 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > 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. 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) "ujs31415" From klevasseur at earthlink.net Thu Sep 30 15:08:16 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:08:16 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans (Re: Harry's family (was: Petunia)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114265 > Geoff: > This got discussed at some length way back when Mark Evans > was in the frame, before JKR torpedoed the poor mite. > Karen L. here, 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. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 15:53:35 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:53:35 -0000 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? In-Reply-To: <002d01c4a6dd$822766a0$acc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > 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?" > > DuffyPoo: > My personal theory on this is that it is an old law on the books that doesn't get used, for the most part, unless there is someone watching you to know what you've done or someone reports it. Hermione and Ron both lit their wands in GoF, F&G set off Filibuster Fireworks (at home), improve Percy's Head Boy badge, make all kinds of explosions in their room, Hermione's "I've tried a few simple spells just for practice and it's all worked for me" the first day on the train, yet no owls, no warnings. Annemehr: I do think the law gets used. I think the MoM keeps tabs on the homes of Muggleborn students. However, in households with at least one wizarding parent, I believe the MoM expects the parent(s) to monitor the children, because I agree that the MoM probably can't tell *who* is doing the magic. Underage wizards are apparently allowed to *use* magical items, such as Filibuster Fireworks and broomsticks. When Harry questions the twins' and Ron's use of the Flying Ford Anglia in CoS, Ron replies, 'Oh, this doesn't count. We're only borrowing this, it's Dad's, /we/ didn't enchant it.' I don't believe we've ever seen any of the underage students doing magic in view of Mr. or Mrs. Weasley, have we? Fred and George seem to always do it in secret, and the bangs from their room in GoF could have been more fireworks as far as Mrs. Weasley knew, couldn't they? The lit wands and 'improved' HB badge are done in places full of wizards, so the MoM would have no way of knowing it was underage magic. When the of-age F&G levitate trunks and stews in OoP in front of their parents, it certainly seems to be a new state of affairs. 'JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO USE MAGIC NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WHIP YOUR WANDS OUT FOR EVERY TINY LITTLE THING!' -- a little CAPSLOCK!Molly there. As for Hemione tyring a few simple spells before going to Hogwarts, I know this can be argued about, but I have no trouble believing that the MoM wouldn't monitor a Muggleborn child's house before the child ever starts Hogwarts. First of all, the magical quill that JKR mentioned in a chat somewhere, which writes the names of all magical students when they are born, is at Hogwarts, and it is Professor McGonagall who checks the names and sends letters to the ones turning eleven. The MoM may not even know there is a magical child there at all until they show up at Hogwarts. Even if the MoM did know of the Muggleborns before they start Hogwarts, they probably would just assume they couldn't do any magic yet, until they were taught at school. Hermione is especially good at learning spells quickly, after all. Finally, I don't think we ever hear of Hermione doing any more magic at home, do we? Duffypoo: > The two times HP got caught, IMO, were because someone was informed. When Dobby 'did magic' at Privet Drive, what he did was also inform the Improper Use of Magic Office. When HP was caught using magic to repel the Dementors, it is because he was being watched. The Dementors knew exactly where he was; he was being tailed by more than just the OotP. > > HP received no owl the night he shattered Aunt Marge's wine glass nor three days later when he blew her up. No one knew until, IMO, Mrs. Figg informed the Ministry that 'something' had happened at four Privet Drive Annemehr: I still think the MoM detected the hover charm themselves because they keep an eye on Privet Drive. It may also be that they were able to tell that this (unlike, say, Harry shrinking a sweater) was deliberate magic. Skipping to the wine glass incident, it is at least possible that Harry was not responsible for that, as Marge had just done the same thing herself just days before, at Colonel Fubster's, and Harry just assumed it was him. You could also allow for the MoM realising some minor uncontrolled magic is bound to happen anywhere and a broken wine glass is nothing to get worked up about. Blowing up Aunt Marge is, of course, huge . Since Harry left the house right afterwards, there's nothing to say the MoM didn't detect the magic and send someone out ASAP. It would take *some* time. Then they wouldn't know where Harry was before he'd flagged down the Knight Bus and was off. By the way, that bus journey took all night. When Harry arrived at the Leaky Cauldron, the sky was already lightening. There had been plenty of time for the MoM to detect Aunt Marge's inflation and wipe all necessary memories, and to realise (if they didn't already know) that Harry hadn't done it deliberately. If they knew Harry was on the bus, they could have flagged it down themselves and taken him off, so I'm thinking that a wizard's bus journeys are his own business and the MoM didn't know. The dementor attack is easier to consider along with your point about the Advance Guard: Duffypoo: > Some folks believe the Dursley residence was monitored which is how the IUMO found out about Dobby's smashed pudding and attributed it to HP. However, when the Avanced Guard shows up in OotP, there is lots of magic going on (cage cleaning, wand lighting, truck packing and moving, disillusioning) and again, no owls, although the Ministry would believe, if we believe it, that only one wizard lives at number four so it must be him doing all the magic. Annemehr: First off, we do know that the Dursleys' residence is especially watched by the MoM. As Madam Bones observed during Harry's hearing in OoP, 'That situation has always been closely monitored, given...given past events.' One of the things this tells us is that we can't judge their usual monitoring policies by how they handle Harry Potter. I think it's quite possible that the MoM knew that certain other people were watching Harry. If so, they probably knew they were friends of Dumbledore's. The Order members must have apparated to and from Privet Drive, and they did it in regular shifts. Mundungus certainly apparated *away* from Privet Drive, and we know no owl was sent to Harry about that. If the MoM knew about (and was content to allow) Dumbledore's guard on Harry, it would explain two things. First, it would explain how Dolores Umbridge might have known to send the Dementors during the shift when Harry was left unguarded. Second, it would explain how the Advance Guard could arrive and do all sorts of magic without Harry getting the blame. Actually, it's even more probable that Dumbledore informed the MoM that he was having Harry removed to the magical world, since the MoM was bound to notice he was gone, anyway. Either way, there's no question of blaming Harry for their uses of magic that night. So that's what I think -- underage magic is not allowed. The MoM probably* keeps an eye on underage Muggleborn Hogwarts students, while magical parents are expected to monitor their own children. Small outbursts of uncontrolled magic are to be expected and are tolerated, and children are allowed to use magical items such as broomsticks. Harry is much more closely watched than others in Muggle households. Though the MoM can detect magic, they probably can't tell who did it if more than one magical being is present. *There's actually no proof of that, it just seems it would be a huge breech of security not to. This does mean we need an explanation for the magic Lily did on holidays during her Hogwarts years. Possibilities: the MoM already had their hands full with Voldemort to worry so much about underage magic, the law was less strictly enforced in those days, the MoM keeps Harry on a much shorter leash than anyone else, Lily lived in a neighborhood that contained other witches and wizards so her activity was masked by theirs, or JKR had not thought it through when she wrote in the first book about Lily's magic done at home. That last one is no fun at all, of course! Annemehr From klevasseur at earthlink.net Thu Sep 30 15:33:40 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:33:40 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114267 Angie wrote: > JKR has said that Harry's stay at Privet Drive will be the > shortest yet. > > Here's my half-baked theory: > Because Voldemort has gained the ability to touch Harry > without it hurting/killing him, I believe this is an > indicator that the protection gained by Lily's sacrifice > may be diminished, if not eliminated. > Of course, the attack will be thwarted because Harry will not > have the final showdown with Voldemort until Book 7. I'm sure > DD has lots of people looking out for Harry and they, if not DD > himself, will arrive to provide protection. > > The question arises: if the Dursleys' house isn't safe anymore, > where will they stay? Karen here, My question is if the Dursley's house isn't safe, why does DD allow him to return? There must be some level of protection around Harry that LV has not been able to breach, even with his "coming back to life" potion. Although it would be a great opening scene to see Privet Drive under attack, I can't imagine that she would open her book that way, it would be too high a level of intensity to keep going on with. I read a few other posts and in them they said that JKR said she was going to use a scene she had thought about using in PS, GoF and OoP. So to me, that means that she will open with a more in depth scene regarding GH. I'm hoping that the opening scene will somehow introduce the HBP or give huge clues as to who he is, and if he will be a friend or foe to Harry. From claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 16:11:42 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:11:42 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114268 > Dharma wrote: 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. > -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? > Hiding facts, telling lies and > ignoring evidence have been done commonly in history to > maintain "noble" family reputations. Chris now: I was under the impression that Tom Riddle hid his ancestry so that no one save Dumbledore knew his true background. Now if Tom Riddle can do it so can Lucius Malfoy. I agree that the omission of the word "wizarding" from POA (some one else pointed this out - sorry cant remember your name) is pretty important. Therefore Draco MAlfoy could well be the HBP and support my theory that Harry will have to go through Malfoy Jr, to get to Riddle. Two additional points: When I started this thread (TIOBDM) I said Harry may have to confront Malfor Jr before Riddle. SOmeone replied that this would not happen as Draco Malfoy was not up to Harry's standard - two things a) we do not actually know the extent of Malfoy's prowess and b) I never said that he would be a threat or even a rival to young Mr Potter. Secondly; Malfoy is a French name, not English. ChisT From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 16:16:44 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:16:44 -0000 Subject: Origin of the word "Muggle" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > My husband found this in "The Borders" a history of that region of > Scotland by Alistair Moffat. > --- > Abbot Walter Bower, the author of the Scotichronicon, repeats a > widely held belief that the English had tails and were blighted > with them for showing disrespect to St Augustine and, later, to St > Thomas a Becket. The tails were called 'muggles'. > --- > (The Scotichronicon is a 14th century work in Latin.) > > My husband thought instantly of Dudley's tail. > cunning spirit: Cool! I sort of remember reading in a book of Scottish folklore too many years ago that the English were cursed with tails after offending some saint or other, but I never learned that the offending appendages actually had a name! ;-) BTW: is the Scotichronicon like the older Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (ie. a running record of the current events of its time kept by monks or similar learned folk)? I'm more familiar with that work from my ill spent youth in Dark Ages historical reenactment..... In "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable", (which George Beahm's "Muggles and Magic" notes as a reference JKR often turns to when looking for ideas for names) lists the word 'mug' or 'muggin' as gypsy terms roughly meaning a fool or dupe. I think I read somewhere recently that JKR derived the term 'muggle' from a word meaning a fool. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 16:26:20 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:26:20 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114270 > Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: > > On the first chapter of PS/SS: > "The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a Harry Potter > book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal even more. > There were various versions of scenes in which you actually saw > Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the Potters..." > > On the first chapter of HBP: > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. What it could be however... My pitifully scarce ideas are rounded up > and forced to present themselves below: > > 1. More about the events of Godric's Hollow > > 2. More about You Know Who's past. > > 3. Something entirely different that I haven't thought of. > > Er... that's it. :-) > > Frankly, my money's on number 3. Annemehr: Thanks, Dungrollin, I had forgotten that it was one of the discarded *first* chapters of PS/SS. That certainly makes me think it's most likely to be about Godric's Hollow -- perhaps Harry dreams it, either as a long-forgotten memory of his own, or because Voldemort is thinking about it and the vision invades Harry's sleep. It'd be one way JKR could insert a fully-written old chapter of PS into sixteen year old Harry's head. But you've got a fair point there in your number 3... Okay, but I still hope the second, third and fourth chapters are about an attack on Privet Drive, Dumbledore actually explaining things (GH maybe?) to Harry in the *beginning* of a book, and Harry's arrest and incarceration in Azkaban! ;) Annemehr From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 16:47:45 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:47:45 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > > Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: > > > > On the first chapter of PS/SS: > > "The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a Harry > > Potter book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal even > > more. There were various versions of scenes in which you > > actually saw Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the > > Potters..." > > > > On the first chapter of HBP: > > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. > > > What it could be however... My pitifully scarce ideas are > > rounded up and forced to present themselves below: > > > > 1. More about the events of Godric's Hollow > > > 2. More about You Know Who's past. > > > 3. Something entirely different that I haven't thought of. > > Er... that's it. :-) > > > > Frankly, my money's on number 3. > > Annemehr: > Thanks, Dungrollin, I had forgotten that it was one of the > discarded *first* chapters of PS/SS. That certainly makes me > think it's most likely to be about Godric's Hollow -- perhaps > Harry dreams it, either as a long-forgotten memory of his own, or > because Voldemort is thinking about it and the vision invades > Harry's sleep. It'd be one way JKR could insert a fully-written > old chapter of PS into sixteen year old Harry's head. But you've > got a fair point there in your number 3... > > Okay, but I still hope the second, third and fourth chapters are > about an attack on Privet Drive, Dumbledore actually explaining > things (GH maybe?) to Harry in the *beginning* of a book, and > Harry's arrest and incarceration in Azkaban! ;) > > Annemehr Oh! The joys of unfettered optimism!!! Harry's life in peril from the Dark Side and a Dumbledorean explanation at the *beginning* of a book?! For me the whole fun of a new HP book is taking the day off work specially and then racing through it as fast as I can to get to the Harry-in-peril and Dumbledore-explanation at the end... No, hang on, that means you're right - it'd be far better to get the exciting bit over and done with at the beginning so we know what's going on, and then leisurely peruse the last 80% of the book feeling smug and picking up on the details once we know what all the clues mean... Dungrollin With most humble apologies for this thoroughly insincere post. :) From ryokas at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 17:32:21 2004 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:32:21 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans (Re: Harry's family (was: Petunia)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > > Geoff: > > This got discussed at some length way back when Mark Evans > > was in the frame, before JKR torpedoed the poor mite. > > > > Karen L. here, > 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. This one's simple. JKR needed a name for the person Dudley beat up off-page in the beginning of book five, so she chose "Mark Evans" completely failing to realize that people would consider the surname a Clue. When asked enough, she revealed this. The info is (or more likely was) on her web site. - Kizor, who's hoping JKR will put a nod to the fan community's insane theorizing in book 7 like she put a nod to fans wondering about the pronounciation of "Hermione" in book 4. From claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 17:50:45 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:50:45 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114273 How about him meaning either making antidotes. (Stops death from poisoning) Or was it a reference to the Philosopher's Stone which then had just arrived at Hogwarts and, as a potions master, Snape would have realised that the Philosopher's Stone stops death. Flamel was still going strong at 665+. ChrisT From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 18:01:10 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:01:10 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114274 Dharma wrote: 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. -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? Hiding facts, telling lies and ignoring evidence have been done commonly in history to maintain "noble" family reputations. Chris now: I was under the impression that Tom Riddle hid his ancestry so that no one save Dumbledore knew his true background. Now if Tom Riddle can do it so can Lucius Malfoy. Dharma replies: In "The Very Secret Diary", chapter 13 of CoS, Riddle tells Head Master Dippet his family history. Riddle tells the Head Master that he is a half blood, and specifies "Muggle father, Witch mother." Riddle also goes into the history of his name. " Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather. Also, in chapter 18 of CoS, "Dobby's Reward," Dumbledore tells the Waesleys, McGonagall and Harry that many people, but not all, failed to recognized that Riddle and Voldemort where the same person because Voldemort underwent many dangerous transformations. Dumbledore says, "Hardly anyone connected Lord Voldemort with the clever, handsome boy who was once Head Boy here. Barty Crouch Jr. posing as MadEye, says that both he and Voldemort had very disappointing fathers. He goes on to explain that they both had the pleasure of killing those father. Those passages can be found in chapter 35 of GoF, "Veritaserum." There seems to be plenty of evidence that information on Voldemort's lineage was available. I don't think that his family history was a secret at all really. It seems more likely to me that if a fanatic was under the impression that Voldemort was a pure blood, he just let him/her carry on with that idea. If an omission of truth could aid in having someone like Bella to submit to his will, what point would there be, from Voldemort's perspective, not to use that power? From mnaperrone at aol.com Thu Sep 30 18:15:01 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:15:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114275 > Dungrollin rolls up her sleeves: > > As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: > > 1. ESE!Snape > 2. MoralConversion!Snape > 3. ReluctantlyGood!Snape > 4. Oscar-winner!Snape Ally: Poking my head in here, perhaps a little belatedly. I think you left out 1 possibility: 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 what he really wants is to get that darned tattoo off his wrist AND maybe get a measure of revenge against Voldemort in the process. It just so happens that the best chance of doing that is fighting for good, but if there was no DD and instead was an even darker wizard trying fighting V for power, Snape would probably be spying for him as well, at this point. I seriously disbelieve ESE!Snape, just cause JKR has put such effort into making Snape complex, and it would ruin that if Snape was just always ESE. Moral conversion - maybe. Possible. Perhaps a combination of 2 and 5? ReluctantlyGood - also a possibility, although not as interesting to me for some reason. 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. Ally From manawydan at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 30 18:50:39 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:50:39 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gilding the Lily References: <1096561574.107326.77220.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002b01c4a71e$61918240$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 114276 Kneasy noted: >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. Not only the Evanses but also the Potters died in the same time frame. Very young it would seem for both. Losing one grandparent at an early age would be sad but far less remarkable than losing all four. I did wonder whether one or both sets of deaths had been at the hands of DEs (and even whether it was Snape's revenge) - if the Evanses had been killed by wizards it would certainly explain Petunia's attitude to the WW. But then JKR spoiled it all by saying that there wasn't anything remarkable to tell about Harry's grandparents. Still don't _quite_ understand how there could be nothing remarkable about all four dying untimely, but there you go Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From susanadacunha at gmx.net Thu Sep 30 18:58:01 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:58:01 +0100 Subject: House Elves' enslavement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114277 Dungrollin wrote: "(slightly OT, and pedantic to boot!): Dogs were *bred* to serve humans by humans, they did not evolve to do so, natural selection had no hand in it, it was artificial selection." ------------------- Well, we don't know if elves weren't breed, do we? I'm not saying they were - I added this to the 'what we don't know' list, remember? But if they evolved by natural selection, one or two millenniums are enough to adapt to a situation in such a way you'd have to *evolve* out of it. ------------------- Susana previously: "But, you see, paternalism is not totally out off place here. If you say elves have human intelligence I agree; But if you say elves have human *capabilities* I'll say I've seen no proof of that in canon (maybe they do, I don't know)." Dungrollin: "Erm. What's the difference? And why is their equal intelligence so obvious?" ------------------- I didn't say *equal* intelligence; I said *human* intelligence (meaning human-like or human-type). Humans have all the same type of intelligence and they certainly don't have all the same capabilities. ------------------- Dungrollin: The point is having the *choice*! If house elves want to serve people and it makes them happy, then fine, let them. But magically forcing them to serve wizards they despise is wrong wrong wrong. While the majority of house elves may be happy, we have already met two who aren't/weren't - Dobby and Kreatcher. The only way to get rid of this injustice is by giving them the choice, and at the moment, they don't have that choice. No matter how willing the slave, slavery is slavery. Certainly, trying to set the school elves free against their will is wrong, and Hermione is not thinking straight when she does this. But I don't think the reaction of everyone else in the WW (Hagrid etc) is a good enough argument against trying to get the elves freedom. I can imagine talking to a Swiss man in the 60's about women's suffrage and him saying "But they don't *want* to vote! It'd be doing them an unkindness!" --------------------- Excellent analogy (now, why didn't I think of that?). For the record, I love Magda's suggestion that elves were supposed to be given clothes but wizards twisted that. Also for the record, I *completely* agree with your analogy and that's *exactly* what I meant! I just have a more practical view of things. Let me try to explain: Swiss women, with individual exceptions, were offended that *any* women would vote. So much they voted against women's vote! So, in a way, to allow women's vote *was* unkind (I consider unkind to offend people, don't you?). People with broader horizons then them saw the injustice in their situation and, through argument, 'educated' them into seeing it too. I agree a Swiss man of the time would reply as you propose, but I imagine that if you had asked a Swiss woman of the time she'd answer: "Oh, you're one of those very-modern women who think they're equal to a man, right? Do you think we Swiss women are s**ts? We're proud to have men who make decisions for us! They do their job and we do ours." My point is, if you're dealing with that kind of reasoning you can't say "elves should be free". You loose credit if you do. People just assume you're an insane radical and stop listening! Instead you should say: "a recent study concluded that 30% of the elves are emotionally abused and 12% are physically abused. Also, 19% admitted they wish the entire family they serve would die." Think of how much more effective your speech would be; what larger impact in society. I have the "get me out of this movie" reaction when someone tells me bull fights should be prohibited. We're talking about thousands of people just in Portugal who depend on that economy (probably a million or two in Spain). I immediately think of those people starving with no money to turn their 'ganadaria' (where bulls are raised in the wild) into intensive cattle raising farms. I start defending bull fights straight away. *BUT* if someone asks a simple innocent question like "do you think the bull suffers in the arena?" (as opposed to "you're stupid if you don't see that they suffer!") I immediately enumerate at least 10 disgusting and completely unnecessary things done to bulls in the process. For example, in Portugal they cut off the tip of the bull's horns before going into the arena, to protect the 'brave' bullfighters (that's not done in Spain). So, concluding, if Hermione's objective is to free the elves, SPEW's declaration of intentions should be to change the mentalities and create the conditions for... Elves' Welfare. Because if she mentions elves' freedom no one will listen. Cheers, Susana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 30 19:15:17 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:15:17 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catimini15" = wrote: > > But I ask myself : why would have Sally needed to possess Voldy if > his blood is already flowing in Voldy's veins ? Is Voldy just a > symbolic descendant ? I doubt it. A lot of importance is given to > blood in the series... > > Sometimes I think that the so called ?split? has already occured... > Here's why... A couple of months ago, I posted a theory about the > missing ingredient in Voldy's back to life potion at the end of GoF. > I hate quotting my own posts but here it is (post 104523) : ?Voldy > needed three powerful ingredients : (1) Flesh given by a servant; > (2) His father's bone and (3) The blood of a foe. What bugs me is > that his father, Tom Riddle Sr., was not a wizard. The Salazar > Slytherin's blood that used to flow in Voldemort's old body came > from his mother and I presume that that body was destroyed in > Godric's Hollow. Somehow, the ?new? Voldemort seems to be walking > around minus the old Salazar Slytherin component. Maybe that is the > explanation for the look of triumph in DD's eye.? > > Unless Voldy was, in deed, possessed by Slytherin, maybe now Voldy > is left with what he thinks is his old body and the powers and > knowledge he gathered through his years as an evil overlord wannabe. > He was a powerful wizard to start with anyway. But according to the > potion brewed in the cemetery, he is slightly different from who he > was before G'sHollow. > Kneasy: I agree that physically he can't be the same person, not unless there's some trickery involving his old body (we never did find out what happened to it, did we?). That being so Salazars blood no longer runs in Voldy's veins. Perhaps, and this is where I believe your suggestion would lead us, once the blood link is broken, so are the ties between Salazar and Tom weakened. Where once there was a blood-bond, a physical juncture between Sally and Tom, it has now been reduced to two minds thinking alike - a situation where it might be much easier for DD to drive a wedge between them. Would that be enough to make his eyes gleam? Conversely using Harry's blood may be a way to gain either Harry's powers or power over Harry. Many primitive societies believed that drinking the blood of an enemy or eating parts of his body transferred his strength to you. Does this account for the sudden susceptibility of Harry to Voldy mind intrusions as well as allowing physical contact? Voldemort certainly states that it will make him more powerful than Harry. If it's true there will need to be a corrective before the terms of the Prophecy are fulfilled - because right now Harry is not Voldy's equal. But I believe that the Salazar entity needs a physical form to be able to exercise its power. Until it enters a living mind it has only one ability - that of possession. > Nadine: > Something else to ponder : There has been a lot of importance given > to father-son relationships in the books. The Potters, the Riddles, > the Crouches, etc. Isn't it about time that we are told about > mothers ? I think the next two books will deal with this topic. I > see something coming on Alice's front as well as Lily's with her > green eyes... And what about Tom Riddle's mum ? JKR has suggested > that we should ask ourselves why Voldemort did not die in Godric's > Hollow. I have pondered this and here is what I suggests : what if > Voldy received a protection from his mother too ? I hate theories > without solid canon basis but didn't JKR said that we would learn > more about Tom Riddle's birth ? Is it farfetched to think that a > percentage of Voldemort's powers ? before Godric's Hollow - came > solely from his mum ? Harry is, of course, The Boy Who Lived but on > that fatal night, at Godric's Hollow, Voldemort survived too. Could > it be that Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort is also a boy who lived ? > Kneasy: Remembering that we have an author who gives considerable time and support to single parent family charities, I'd say it was a racing certainty that we'll learn more about Tom's mum. But powers inherited from her I'm not so sure about. At school Tom was clever, but how powerful a wizard was he before he entered the Chamber? I'd rate him as perhaps equivalent to Hermione; ahead of his cohorts but not a candidate for taking over the world. Well, at GH Voldy was hardly a boy; at a rough estimate he was between 60 and 70. And he himself doesn't consider that he lived, he merely existed. But too many people have pointed out too many parallels between the two for casual dismissal to be a comfortable option. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Sep 30 19:29:10 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:29:10 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <002b01c4a71e$61918240$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114279 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > > But then JKR spoiled it all by saying that there wasn't anything remarkable > to tell about Harry's grandparents. > > Still don't _quite_ understand how there could be nothing remarkable about > all four dying untimely, but there you go > Possibly. In her March webcast JKR said that they were all dead and not particularly important to the story, though we will find out a little more about them. Now does she mean not important to the story or the backstory? And if they're not important why are they turning up again? Suspicions, suspicions. Kneasy From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:32:01 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:32:01 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: <012a01c4a69c$8b7005a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114280 --- > 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! :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:38:12 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:38:12 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > 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? > ...edited... > > Angie bboyminn: This open the door to my making some points I've made before. First, as someone already pointed out, summer holiday homework is in the form of research and essays, not actual spells. Second, underage use of magic outside of school is governed by several different rules and laws. First, is the school rule that no magic is allowed outside of school. Second, is the Ministry law that underage wizards are not allowed to use magic except under special circumstances, and I will add, unsupervised; Restriction of Undeage Wizardry. (somewhat generalized and paraphrased) Third, the Statue of Secrecy Law, forbids revealing the magic world to muggles, although there are exceptions, which reasonably implies not using or making magic in front of muggles. Next, based on the second and third items, I draw a distinction between underage magic in the wizard world and any magic in the muggle world. Underage magic in the wizard world, if it is contained to a safe area and/or supervised by an adult qualified wizard is so minor as to be of little or no concern to the Ministry. Techincally a violation, but very low priority. Underage magic in wizard's public space disturbs the peace and order of the wizard world, but is still more of a mischief law than a hard and fast criminal law. I think as a simple matter of priorities, the Ministry doesn't concern itself that much with underage magic in the wizard world unless it literally becomes a public nuisance. So, Fred and George, who are in their own home, away from muggles, and under the somewhat supervision of their parents don't rate very high on the michief scale. Harry, on the other hand, appears to have performed magic in the muggle world and in front of muggles (the hoover charm, COS and Patronus, OotP). THAT is the greatest breach of wizarding law. JKR said in one of her interviews the the Ministry of Magic's primary purpose is to keep knowledge of magic and the magic world away from muggles. So, Harry's apparent actions rate very high on the Ministry's priority scale. It is a breach of one of their most important and fundimental laws. In addition, magic in locations associated with the wizard world flood the Ministry's magic detectors with indicators. Magic occurs all the time at the Weasley house, a few more minor spells here and there would go largely unnoticed. However, magic at the Dursley, which I believe is very heavily and closely monitored, would stand out dramatically. In conjunction with this, I believe the higher ups in the Ministry and key players in the wizard world know that Harry wasn't simply 'The Boy Who Lived', but that there were indicators that Harry would eventually play a very big role in the future of the wizard world, and because of this his safety and wellbeing were of paramont importance to the wizard world as a whole. Note, that while I believe that Dumbledore has keep the goverment informed of Harry's destiny, as always, Dumbledore is very selective with the exact details. For example, I believe that many key players inside and outside the Ministry know of the existance and importance of the Prophecy, they don't necessarily know the exact details. There is a Prophecy that says Harry will be instrumental in defeating Voldemort, if he should ever return, but very little beyond that. Perhaps the Prophecy itself isn't even mentioned, Dumbledore may have simply conveyed that Harry will be important if Voldemort returns. >From Dumbledore's perspective, they only need to know as much as the need to know, and this is only as much as Dumbledore need convey in order to get what he wants. This applies even to people in the Order. They may know more than most, but I don't see Dumbledore being very free with the exact details. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:53:15 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:53:15 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114282 > > Annemehr: > > Okay, but I still hope the second, third and fourth chapters are > > about an attack on Privet Drive, Dumbledore actually explaining > > things (GH maybe?) to Harry in the *beginning* of a book, and > > Harry's arrest and incarceration in Azkaban! ;) Dungrollin: > Oh! The joys of unfettered optimism!!! Harry's life in peril from > the Dark Side and a Dumbledorean explanation at the *beginning* of a > book?! For me the whole fun of a new HP book is taking the day off > work specially and then racing through it as fast as I can to get to > the Harry-in-peril and Dumbledore-explanation at the end... No, hang > on, that means you're right - it'd be far better to get the exciting > bit over and done with at the beginning so we know what's going on, > and then leisurely peruse the last 80% of the book feeling smug and > picking up on the details once we know what all the clues mean... > > Dungrollin > With most humble apologies for this thoroughly insincere post. :) Annemehr again: Silly! Why be so moderate? Let's have Peril and Explanations at both ends! 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. So tell me, did you peruse the last 80% of that book feeling smug and picking up details? Because, truth be told, I spent it thinking "Eh? What just happened here?" :)) Annemehr still hoping to see the inside of Azkaban through Harry's eyes From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:55:03 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:55:03 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114283 --- > > -- > > >Angie wrote: I think DD wants everyone, especially Harry and Voldemort, to > > believe that Sirius is dead, so that Voldemort can't use Sirius > > against Harry (and maybe he could also work for the Order). > > Remember, DD doesn't know for sure how much of Harry's thoughts > > Voldemort has access to. So, Harry must be made to think that > Sirius > > is dead. > > > Hannah: If Sirius turns out to be alive after all, or comes back > from the dead, I will be very, very disappointed in JKR. Not > because I don't like Sirius; I think he's a good character and cried > when he died, but because it would undermine the power of the books > for me. > > JKR has made much of the fact that she is unafraid to write about > death, and hopes to help children confront and deal with death. > Many people have said that the stories have helped their children > deal with the death of a loved one. If she then turns round and > says 'it's OK, he's not dead after all!' it would be such a let down > for all those children whose RL dead relative *isn't* going to > suddenly pop back from behind the veil. > > 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. I also think that James' and Lily's death serves the function to help children cope with death, at least for those who had people die before they had any memory of them. I guess we could question whether JKR is doing the right thing for kids even in allowing for the possibililty of a reappearance or continued contact if Sirius is dead -- I mean, that doesn't happen, either, at least not in my world. But again, it is fiction. Finally, if Sirius isn't dead, and DD knows it and keeps it from Harry, is there not a lesson in that for kids -- that its OK to not always know what goes on and that sometimes we have to trust the adults in our world? It would be a harsh way to teach that lesson, I admit, but it's a lesson Harry has yet to learn (can't say that I blame him, though). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:57:02 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:57:02 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114284 --- 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. The Dursleys obviously know about the wizard world, and Petunia claims to have witnessed magic in her youth. The Dursleys have even witnessed magic, such as when the Weasleys came to the Dursleys via the Floo Network, the ton-tongue toffee and the Mr. Weasleys spell to reverse the effect. 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, but didn't take that opportunity to erase the Dursley's as well. 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. Another example, Hermione's parents, they are pure muggle, yet they not only know about the wizard world, they have actually entered it. If Harry were of legal age and performed magic in front of the Dursleys, I don't think that would be a breach of the Statue of Secrecy because the magic world is not a secret to the Dursleys. So, there are reasonable exceptions to the Statue of Secrecy. And for the record, I did see the 'smiley face' at the end of your statement. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:04:37 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:04:37 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114285 -Angie wrote > > > I can see Voldemort trying to attack Harry at the > > Dursleys' house. > Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: > > On the first chapter of PS/SS: > "The trouble with that chapter was (as so often in a Harry Potter > book) I had to give a lot of information yet conceal even more. > There were various versions of scenes in which you actually saw > Voldemort entering Godric's Hollow and killing the Potters..." > > On the first chapter of HBP: > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing." > > Dungrollin's thoughts on the opening of HBP: > If the first chapter of HBP could have fitted into PS/SS, PoA or Oop > aswell as HBP, then it *must* be referring to a time before Harry > knew he was a wizard, mustn't it? It's unlikely that a > present-day-Harry situation would have been applicable to the > overall plot over a 5 year time span. If HBP opens with an attack on > Privet Drive... . > I'm > thinking more along the lines of the opening of GoF, a retrospective > scene. > > 1. More about the events of Godric's Hollow > > Angie (rubbing her hands together gleefully): See, this is why I started this post -- I knew there were those who knew more than I! I didn't know JKR had said that (it's all I can do to keep up with this page!) I personally would love to find out more about the events in Godric's Hollow and it has to happen sometime. I can readily see that fitting in the opening of HBP. What I can't imagine is how an explanation of those events would relate to Harry having his shortest visit ever at the Dursleys. But that's what makes it so much fun! From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:16:10 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:16:10 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > Angie wrote: > > JKR has said that Harry's stay at Privet Drive will be the > > shortest yet. > > > > Here's my half-baked theory: > > Because Voldemort has gained the ability to touch Harry > > without it hurting/killing him, I believe this is an > > indicator that the protection gained by Lily's sacrifice > > may be diminished, if not eliminated. > > The question arises: if the Dursleys' house isn't safe anymore, > > where will they stay? > > > > Karen here, > My question is if the Dursley's house isn't safe, why does DD > allow him to return? Karen wrote: Although it would be a great > opening scene to see Privet Drive under attack, I can't imagine > that she would open her book that way, it would be too high a > level of intensity to keep going on with. > Angie again: Well, I though the Dementor attack in the opening scenes of OOP was pretty intense, and JKR wrote her way around that! :) > I read a few other posts and in them they said that JKR said she > was going to use a scene she had thought about using in PS, > GoF and OoP. So to me, that means that she will open with a > more in depth scene regarding GH. Angie replies: I agree that this is more likely, given what JKR said about the scene (info I was not privy to, obviously, when I started this thread!), and nothing would please me more. Karen wrote: I'm hoping that the opening > scene will somehow introduce the HBP or give huge clues as to > who he is, and if he will be a friend or foe to Harry. Angie replies: I don't know, this to me seems to be a end of the book type revelation, like the identity of the heir of Slytherin. But I certainly wouldn't object to finding out early on! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:19:39 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:19:39 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" > wrote: > > Finwitch wrote: > > What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping > > them> alive? > > > > Annemehr: > I completely agree with Beatnik24601 that the sense of the words > certainly seem to imply brewing up a flask of something lethal. > > ...edited... > > 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? > > Annemehr bboyminn: I will weigh in again on this issue, now seem a good time since we have a few people who seem to be on the same track as myself. One interpretation is obviously to create a bottle of poison, to stopper/cork a death causing agent in a bottle. But I always took it to mean to inhibit, retart, stave off, contain, or restrain the coming of death. This doesn't imply bringing someone back from the dead, but keeping imminent death at bay until healer can cure or heal the patient. This also doesn't imply immortality either, since a medicine like this is likely to be short term and not really be a cure for the main problem. Example, it's not the difference between cancer and no cancer, but more like the difference between being almost dead from cancer and being dead from cancer. The potion may keep you alive, but you still have a miserable case of cancer. However, if they can hold death off for a while, they may be able to find a cure for the cancer and save you. Side Note: I have this vision of a muggle doctor staring down at a dead patient and say, 'too bad he died, we could have saved him'. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 30 20:19:51 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:19:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114288 Hannah: > > If Sirius turns out to be alive after all, or comes back > > from the dead, I will be very, very disappointed in JKR. Not > > because I don't like Sirius; I think he's a good character and > > cried when he died, but because it would undermine the power of > > the books for me. > > > > JKR has made much of the fact that she is unafraid to write about > > death, and hopes to help children confront and deal with death. > > Many people have said that the stories have helped their children > > deal with the death of a loved one. If she then turns round and > > says 'it's OK, he's not dead after all!' it would be such a let > > down for all those children whose RL dead relative *isn't* going > > to suddenly pop back from behind the veil. > > > > Angie responded: > 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. 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. 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. 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 is "just beyond the veil," learning that Harry & Luna can hear voices "from the other side," 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,* i.e., that we live on in some fashion in the afterlife. I think Harry's talk with Nearly Headless Nick supports this view. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:33:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:33:55 -0000 Subject: Snape as Borgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > --- Gregory Lynn said: > > > > > I was listening to Chamber of Secrets last night, and I think Mr > > Borgin may be Professor Snape in disguise. > > > > There's very little direct evidence to support the conclusion, I > state > > that at the outset. What prompted my little theory is merely the > fact > > that Mr. Borgin is described as having greasy hair as is Snape. > > > > [snip] From what I can tell, we get the > following > > out of that scene: > > > > 1) The downside of floo powder > > 2) An introduction to the seedier side of wizard commerce > > 3) An introduction to the Hand of Glory > > 4) An introduction to Lucius Malfoy with characterization as an > > arrogant snothead > > 5) Evidence that Draco Malfoy has an unnatural obsession with > Harry > > 6) Introduction to Mr Borgin > > 7) Evidence that the Malfoys are dark wizards with nasty > secrets to sell > > > Karen L., > Have you considered that Mr. Borgin may be one of the DE's that > LV doesn't name in the circle in the graveyard? Borgin, being in > the trade of Dark art "memoriabillia" and his comment regarding > pure bloods. " 'It's the same all over,' said Mr. Borgin, in his oily voice. 'Wizard blood is counting for less everywhere-'" (COS, UK > ed. page 80) IMO, This indicates that he at least agrees with LV > about Pure blood. I find it highly unlikely that Snape is Borgin, or vise versa. Carol responds: OTOH, he clearly doesn't like "*Mr. Malfoy*" and is only buttering up a rich customer (note the "oily" voice), saying what Malfoy expects him to say. After the Malfoys leave, he reveals his real feelings (in Harry's hearing, though of course he doesn't know that Harry is there). While I agree that it's most unlikely that Borgin is Snape or vice versa, I think Borgin is ideally placed to be one of Dumbledore's spies. (If he's not going to play some role against Malfoy, why were we privileged to hear that bit of anti-Malfoy monologue at the end of his speech?) I certainly don't think that such an obscure character would be one of the three missing DEs, however. He seems to be more like the Black family, a believer in the pure-blood ethic but not in Voldemort's means of achieving it. And even that belief may be a front. He's certainly ideally placed for contact with all sorts of unsavory characters, DEs and otherwise, from Malfoy to Mundungus Fletcher. Carol From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 20:47:29 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:47:29 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114290 > ------------------- > Susana previously: > "But, you see, paternalism is not totally out off place here. If > you say elves have human intelligence I agree; But if you say > elves have human *capabilities* I'll say I've seen no proof of > that in canon (maybe they do, I don't know)." > > Dungrollin asked: > "Erm. What's the difference? And why is their equal intelligence so > obvious?" > ------------------- > Susana replied: > I didn't say *equal* intelligence; I said *human* intelligence > (meaning human-like or human-type). Humans have all the same type > of intelligence and they certainly don't have all the same > capabilities. Dungrollin now: (Great post, btw.) Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't really understand what you mean by capabilities. I hope you don't mean magical powers, because discriminating on the basis of that is what the DEs who torture muggles do... > ------------------- > Dungrollin previously: The point is having the *choice*! > > If house elves want to serve people and it makes them happy, then > fine, let them. But magically forcing them to serve wizards they > despise is wrong wrong wrong. While the majority of house elves may > be happy, we have already met two who aren't/weren't - > Dobby and Kreatcher. The only way to get rid of this injustice is > by giving them the choice, and at the moment, they don't have that > choice. No matter how willing the slave, slavery is slavery. > > Certainly, trying to set the school elves free against their will > is > wrong, and Hermione is not thinking straight when she does this. > But I don't think the reaction of everyone else in the WW (Hagrid > etc) is a good enough argument against trying to get the elves > freedom. > I can imagine talking to a Swiss man in the 60's about women's > suffrage and him saying "But they don't *want* to vote! > It'd be doing them an unkindness!" > --------------------- > Susana replied: > Excellent analogy (now, why didn't I think of that?). > For the record, I love Magda's suggestion that elves were supposed > to be given clothes but wizards twisted that. Dungrollin: For the record, me too. Susana: > Also for the record, I *completely* agree with your analogy and > that's *exactly* what I meant! Dungrollin: Oh good! I think I was mostly reacting to the implication that it wasn't worth fighting for elves' freedom because they didn't want it, but it was worth fighting for their better treatment. Susana: > I just have a more practical view of things. Let me try to explain: > Swiss women, with individual exceptions, were offended that *any* > women would vote. So much they voted against women's vote! > My point is, if you're dealing with that kind of reasoning you > can't say "elves should be free". You loose credit if you do. > People just assume you're an insane radical and stop listening! > Instead you should say: "a recent study concluded that 30% of the > elves are emotionally abused and 12% are physically abused. Also, > 19% admitted they wish the entire family they serve would die." > Think of how much more effective your speech would be; what larger > impact in society. Dungrollin: You're absolutely right, of course. Hermione's not going about it in a way at all sensitive to the society in which she's acting. But then, I suppose, she's never been shy of speaking her mind when others disagree with her, has she? Susana: > So, concluding, if Hermione's objective is to free the elves, > SPEW's declaration of intentions should be to change the > mentalities and create the conditions for... Elves' Welfare. > Because if she mentions elves' freedom no one will listen. Dungrollin: I *still* think she should be fighting for them to have the power to withdraw their services - which means freedom. But that's just a difference of opinion on strategy rather than underlying aims, I think. I also see clearly what you mean about rubbing people's noses in issues that seem (to them) absurdly extreme. Cheers, Dungrollin From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Thu Sep 30 21:25:51 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:25:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's family (was: Petunia) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114291 Salit wrote: > I too think the relatives in the mirror must have been dead but > even if they were not, the Dursleys were still the only choice, > because of the blood protection: > > 1. He had to live with his mother's kin since it was her blood > sacrifice that protected him, not his father's. Thus none of the > Potters would do. > > 2. I imagine that the closer the relative the stronger the > protection. A sister has more common genes than an aunt or uncle. > Assuming that Lily had no other siblings nor live parents, the > only choice was Petunia. > > 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 (don't have it here but believe it > says something like "the Potters smiled and waved at him"). Either > JKR made a mistake and not all of them were Potters. 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. Yb's back: Well, on the "Potters" comment, well, GOOD EYES! I read that section half a dozen times or better and missed it every time. It is probably a mistake, but of course, one could argue this: Did Harry ever know his mother's maiden name? He would probably refer to the "family" he saw in the mirror as the Potters since that is his surname. I think the passage shows how much Harry wants to distance himself from the Dursleys, and have a family of his own he could call "family" that wasn't the Dursleys, thus, the Potters. Never mind that some of them are obviously Evans' (by the eyes), that would imply less of a connection to Harry and more to the Dursleys (because Petunia was an Evans). Do you see what I'm saying? I also think that if there were any option that would provide *any* protection (read: any significant amount of Lily's blood), DD would have used it. Plus, I still find it a little hard to believe that Petunia wouldn't have desparately tried to pawn Harry off on a relative, at least for most of the year. She would have tried to convince DD to use someone else (if there was one available) and if that didn't work, she'd do sort of what she does now: takes care of Harry (grudgingly) for a very short time of the year, then send him somewhere else. When he was younger, this would probably mean shipping him off to a relative's place. The only way she wouldn't do that (assuming she doesn't want Harry to die, i.e. she wants to keep the protection in place) is if she thought she *couldn't* get rid of Harry for any amount of time. But then the only way she'd let him go to Hogwarts is if she thought he was protected there too. If she thought the protection didn't work when Harry wasn't at the house, that would mean the when DD told her that Harry *had* to stay with her for his protection, he had exaggerated the truth at least a little. I'm not sure I like that theory. So Petunia knows that Harry is protected, even if he spends only a small part of the year at her home. Thus, the only way she wouldn't have shoved Harry onto someone in the family (someone she trusted enough to either know about his "strange" behavior or who knew about Lily), is if there wasn't any family available. What I want to know is: 1) What was in the letter? Maybe Petunia kept it for all these years! 2) What in heaven's name did she tell Vernon? Especially when she found out that she *had* to keep Harry, and not ship him off to an orphanage? ~Yb From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 16:56:57 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:56:57 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114292 Meri wrote: > IIRC Hogwarts homework is mostly essays. We've never seen Harry > have a practical homework lesson (such as "practice wingardium > leviosa") though he did have History of Magic essays in PoA. So > maybe that's how they get around that one. And yet it doesn't explain him getting away with Lumos charms under the covers (assuming that movies can be taken as canon). It would seem more reasonable to look at it from a location/intent aspect. Magic done away from home in the muggle world would be strictly forbidden... magic done with a particular intent would be strictly forbidden... seems that since magic is intent and formula that they could monitor for intent as well. Distaiyi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 21:27:23 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:27:23 -0000 Subject: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Alex wrote: > > > > And it's > > hard to believe that the maroon set were the *least* offensive set > of > > used dress robes available. > > > Angie replies: > Even if Maroon was all she could get, couldn't they have dyed it? > Surely, they know about dyes! Carol responds: Here's a thought. Maybe Molly has assigned each child a color in her mind as he (or she) is born, and she has specific reasons for not using certain colors. Orange, for example, would "clash" with her children's flaming red hair. (Anyone raised in the same era I was will surely be familiar with this concept. You don't wear orange and any shade of red together, any more than you wear stripes and plaids together.) She would probably eliminate white because it gets dirty so easily, black because it looks funereal (and the robes are black, anyway), green because it's associated with Slytherin, pink because it's for girls, etc. So she's fairly limited in the colors she can choose by the time Ron is born, having already assigned all the "good ones" to his five older brothers. She may also actually *like* maroon and think Ron looks good in it, and since it's been "his" color since he was born, she can't help associating him with it. In any case, he may not have been color-conscious at all until about age eight or nine and then may have hesitated to say anything about it. Or she just tuned him out as part of the constant babble all around her. I for one wouldn't want the job of raising seven kids, all of them magical, six of them boys, and two of them exceedingly mischievous, and homeschooling them myself, much less keeping up with that big, rickety ghoul-inhabited house on a limited income. I do think there are more effective ways of rearing children than constantly yelling at them or sending them Howlers, but the WW is clearly not aware of modern Muggle child-rearing methods (which have their drawbacks, too, if Dudley is any indication) any more than Hogwarts operates on modern Muggle educational principles. Being a mother isn't easy under any circumstances and being a perfect mother of seven wizard kids is impossible. IMHO, maroon sweaters are just a fact of life that Ron should learn to live with--like classes with Snape or Trelawney and having five older brothers. The dress robes, I agree, were a bit much: Molly should have trimmed the lace whether or not they were maroon. But her budget and her time were both limited, Ron didn't make that request. He just says he'd rather go "starkers" than wear that robe--a bit of comic mother/son interaction that is (IMO) one of the funniest parts of the book. Carol, who admits that Molly is a flawed character, but she wouldn't be human if she were perfect From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 16:35:26 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:35:26 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans (Re: Harry's family (was: Petunia)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen_lvssr" wrote: > > Karen L. here, > 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. Hi Karen : JKR, on her site, indicate that she needed a throw away name and just picked Mark Evans because it was a common name. It in no way implies that he is related to Lilly and Petunia. It is a common name as Joe Smith might be a common name. Distaiyi From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 17:15:57 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:15:57 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans (Re: Harry's family (was: Petunia)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114295 > 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 (she said she was going to Bolivia in disguise to get away from upset fans). It's worth trying to find just for a laugh. (She also revealed Madam Marsh and Mr. Prentice are also just walk-ons she wanted to give a name to, and they have no significance, either.) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Sep 30 21:32:08 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:32:08 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114296 > > Dungrollin apologies for a thoroughly insincere post. :) > > Annemehr again: > Silly! Why be so moderate? Let's have Peril and Explanations at > both ends! Dungrollin: Foolish me... > 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: True enough. > So tell me, did you peruse the last 80% of that book feeling smug > and picking up details? Because, truth be told, I spent it > thinking "Eh? What just happened here?" :)) Dungrollin: Hoist by my own wossername! No, I read it as fast as I could to get to the end so I could start breathing again... :P 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. So, Petunia and/or Dudley will be attacked/kidnapped/killed, and Vernon throws a massive wobbly and chucks Harry out. Any takers? 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... "Oh can't I have just a little bit of peril?" "No. It's too perilous." - MP&THG. From irishwynch at aol.com Thu Sep 30 17:26:03 2004 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:26:03 EDT Subject: The Prank on Snape Message-ID: <12b.4cb6a185.2e8d9bab@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114297 Kneasy writes: > That being so, why should Snape feel gratitude if James's thoughts > were centred on others? I guess I was looking at it more from an outsider's point of view and not the character's. It's just that when Snape is telling Harry about it he specifically states that James was saving his own skin, not that he was trying to save Sirius or Lupin's. Perhaps at that moment, because he is talking to Harry, is why he focuses on James. I have to confess that I am one of those that think there's a Snape/Lily connection that adds to Snape's hatred of James over the other Maruaders and resentment of Harry. Marla From cdayr at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 18:57:04 2004 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:57:04 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114298 Dungrollin quoting JKR's website: > > > > > On the first chapter of HBP: > > > "I have come close to using a chapter very like this > > > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > > > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > > > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. (snip) > > > 3. Something entirely different that I haven't thought of. > > > Er... that's it. :-) > > > > > > Frankly, my money's on number 3. > > CDR: I've had a pet theory for a while now that the first chapter of Book 6 will be a meeting or confrontation between the four founders - Griffindor, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin (taking place in the past of course). Maybe to explain the rift between Slytherin and the others, maybe to explain the founding of Hoqwarts, the Chamber of Secrets, maybe something else entirely, I don't know. I think this is a scene that could have been in any of the books she has named because it is so basic to the plot and takes place in the distant past. In addition, IMO the person described behind the door on JKRs website is Godric Griffindor, so my guess is that the description is from that first chapter, when we finally get to meet the founders. What do they talk about? Can't wait to find out! -CDR Who also really wants to see the scene in GH and hopes for that as well. From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Thu Sep 30 19:40:09 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:40:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114299 > 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! :) It is not like wizards like the Malfoys could not ward against the ministry (after all they have dark artifact and must practice dark spell, and we know that Snape knew quite a few curses in first year)... It was fairly obvious since the beginning that such rule are either "for the muggle not to see magic" or for "safety", meaning that those children would need an adult wizard near. Of course, officiously, it's to give another advantage to pureblood :/ Toto From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 19:42:23 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dream on. Back to the Dream. Was: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040930194223.9020.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114300 Mandy wrote (in response to Kneasy): >I don't think it is foreshadowing but I do agree that the dream is gift for us. The only purpose I think it has is as a clue to the final solution to the whole saga. Namely what is the relationship between Harry and LV, and why and how did Harry survive GH.< >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.< >The failed GH possession left remnants of LV in Harry's head and that is what is surfacing in his dream. Simply the remnants of LV, as the Heir of Slytherin, wanting to be in Slytherin House.< >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 here: 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..."). He only saw one green flash, the one aimed at him, because he hadn't seen the one that hit Lily nor the one that hit James. They weren't directly in Harry's eyeview when they died. And an AK may not leave a scar when it actually kills someone, but since no one ever survived an AK before Harry, it may well have left a scar on the boy who lived. Simply put, if you die from AK, no scar. If you survive AK (Harry being the sole member of that club), scar. 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. The AKs he aimed at James and Lily didn't rebound, J and L died, and Harry didn't witness their deaths. And to restate a previous post of mine, that's essentially the same story JKR retells (as narrator) in the 2nd chapter of Goblet of Fire. It makes sense to take the author at her word, doesn't it? I think she knows more about what happened at Godric's Hollow than the rest of us do. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other mysteries in the books to speculate about... For instance, I have a theory (please let me know if it's been gone into before) as to why Voldemort didn't die from the rebounded killing curse at GH: Because he'd learned things, during previous years, about how not to die ... from vampires. That might explain his pale skin, bald head (I assume), long skinny fingers (Nosferatu anyone?), need for blood, and the possible fact that he only comes out at night... He didn't die from AK because he was already the undead. Any thoughts, pro or con, are welcome! Kim From distaiyi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:12:56 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:12:56 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <002b01c4a71e$61918240$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114301 Ffred wrote: > > But then JKR spoiled it all by saying that there wasn't anything > remarkable to tell about Harry's grandparents. > > Still don't _quite_ understand how there could be nothing > remarkable about all four dying untimely, but there you go In war time how is it "remarkable" to die? The wizarding world was in "civil war" so to speak. Voldemort was on a rampage. It is not remarkable that the parents of two Volemort resisters would have met untimely ends. That said, hasn't it been said that Hermione is a lot like Lily? One of the most talented (clever? remarkable?) witches of her age? I have a vague memory of this... So that would make Lily one of the most remarkable witches of her age, wouldn't you fear her with her wand out... just a bit? Distaiyi From feklar at verizon.net Thu Sep 30 20:33:35 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:33:35 -0400 Subject: "Toujours pur" - Black family motto? References: Message-ID: <057401c4a72c$c2a55030$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114302 Kizor: > In "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" chapter six of OotP > (page 103 English hardback), the Black family tree features the words > 'Toujours pur'. What on Earth does that mean? It means pure, "always pure." feklar From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 20:56:45 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040930205645.25061.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114303 >Hannah wrote: >If Sirius turns out to be alive after all, or comes back >from the dead, I will be very, very disappointed in JKR. Not >because I don't like Sirius; I think he's a good character and >cried when he died, but because it would undermine the power of >the books for me. >JKR has made much of the fact that she is unafraid to write >about death, and hopes to help children confront and deal with >death. Many people have said that the stories have helped their >children deal with the death of a loved one. If she then turns >round and says 'it's OK, he's not dead after all!' it would be >such a let down for all those children whose RL dead relative >*isn't* going to suddenly pop back from behind the veil. I >don't belive JKR will do that. I think when we 'see Sirius >again' it will be as a memory, either in a retrospective scene >not from Harry's pov, or in a pensieve. As for Harry dying, >I'm not sure whether he will or not. If all his friends are >dead, maybe a long life wouldn't be such a great thing in his >opinion? I think it's pretty obvious he will defeat LV, but >that doesn't mean he will survive.< Kim now: OK, I guess I agree with Hannah that Sirius isn't coming back (though I'm still holding out that due to the nature of his "death" that he may not really be dead -- Angie made some good points on that score). But I for one won't forgive Rowling if Harry dies... OK, I'll forgive her, but she'll have to do better than having Harry die to save the world from Voldemort. Too much like so many other hero stories, religious and otherwise. Why would killing Harry be wrong and in my opinion a negative lesson for children? Because Harry is the hero, he's a kid, he's suffered enough, he deserves to live, for crying out loud. And it's fiction after all. The young have been giving up their lives for worthy and not so worthy causes too often for too many years in the real world. High time for older folks to put their lives on the line for the young (and this is me speaking as a semi-older folk). IMO that was one positive lesson from the deaths of James and Lily and possibly Sirius (outside of the fact that their deaths, via Harry's reaction to them, are good lessons to children about losing a loved one), that they so loved their son/godson that they died for him. Now that's a lesson to take into adulthood. It seems its own kind of lesson too that teenage Harry is brave enough to risk his life, to defeat Voldemort (though I repeat, as earlier posts have said, that Voldemort need not die to be defeated), but survive to tell the tale to his children, grandchildren (or students)... Kim (who'd be willing to bet money on the outcome of the books, and even lose, but she's not a betting woman :-)) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 22:55:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:55:34 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: <12b.4cb6a185.2e8d9bab@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114304 > Kneasy writes: > > That being so, why should Snape feel gratitude if James's thoughts > > were centred on others? Alla: We are not privy to James' thoughts yet. True, it is a reasonable assumption that he took into consideration what would both Sirius and Remus face if Snape will be killed, but it is just as reasonable to assume that James wanted to save Snape for Snape so to speak. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 30 23:09:27 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:09:27 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <902DA87A-12E3-11D9-8F21-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114305 Kneasy wrote: > Most of what we know about Lily (and frankly we don't know all that much) comes from others - Hagrid and Petunia most of all. > Information has been doled out in penny-pieces, a bit here a dribble > there with very little connection between them. The only really > complete and unabridged episode we see is from the Pensieve - and even that has aspects that generate yet more questions. > > The sequence of events (in the pensieve scene) is straight- forward; a confrontation - James and Sirius vs Snape. Words and spells are exchanged, Lily intervenes, is rebuffed by Snape and she exits stage left. > All well and good. To the supporters of LOLLIPOPS this was grist to their mill; at last! A credible scenario for Snape adoring Lily! 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. > > Whatever. But it's the intervention that matters. Before OoP was > published JKR said it would provide a lot of information about Harry's > parents. Certainly it opened our eyes about James, but not so much > about Lily - unless it's all in the detail. > Lily intervenes on Snape's behalf - why? Many suggest it's her love of > fair play, dislike of bullying, opposition to violence etc. etc. > Possibly true, but boring. Two things in this scene interest me; > first if she's agin fighting and for fair play, why no protest when Snape hits James with a spell that gashes his face, spattering blood onto his robes - a spell cast when James was otherwise occupied? > Secondly James and Sirius are very wary of Lily's wand; have they been on the wrong end of it before? Or have they seen what she's capable of when angry? > It's generally accepted, though not entirely certain, that James and "that horrible boy" are one and the same, but it is possible to > construct a scenario that can cast doubt on this > viz-in OoP we're told that James started going out with Lily in their seventh year - their last at Hogwarts. 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. How much time would Petunia > (who now has her own house and hubby to occupy her) spend in her > parents home during the school holidays, knowing Lily (someone she > despises) will be there? The description "horrible" indicates some personal experience of the person so described, but if Petunia (and her character would support this) avoided meeting James then who is she describing? Was there someone before James? > > Just a little more on this, another interpretation of Lyn's. > Voldy's phrasing - > "Stand aside you silly girl...stand aside now.." > Seems almost as if it's couched in familiar terms somehow, as if Lily was personally known to him already. > Not quite the vocabulary of a murderous villain finally achieving his goal, is it? Not even any exclamation marks, could even be read as more in sorrow than in anger. A request, not an instruction. Is that the Voldy we boo and hiss? Hannah now: I love your posts Kneasy (despite having snipped most of this one!) I have long believed that there is 'something about Lily'. Pre-OotP I thought that there would be a revelation that Lily wasn't such a saintly person as we'd all thought - and then it turned out that such a revelation was made about James instead. I'd also decided she must have been in Slytherin, causing Harry to re- evaluate his house prejudices, but JKR went and ruined that little theory for me too in a webchat. JKR has definitely said somewhere that we are going to have a big revelation about Lily Potter in the next book. I'm betting it's nothing particularly nice. Both of Harry's parents strike me as having been very forceful characters, not necessarily nasty, but the sort of people who make themselves enemies as well as very good friends. Personally I prefer dodgy!James to saintly!James, as it makes for much more interesting reading. 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. 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. I like the AGGIE theory. Imagine the look on Harry's face when he found out about that! Funny Snape has never thrown it at him... on the other hand, Snape does have a kind of decency (sometimes... OK I'm a Snape fan, I need to believe he does). Or maybe Snape never even realised Lily was actually in love with him (the guy's not great at interpreting emotions after all). Anyway, I'm looking forward on the rest of your 're-evaluating established character' posts. Hannah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 23:13:04 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:13:04 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <20040930205645.25061.qmail@web54110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114306 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: > Kim now: > > OK, I guess I agree with Hannah that Sirius isn't coming back (though I'm still holding out that due to the nature of his "death" that he may not really be dead -- Angie made some good points on that score). But I for one won't forgive Rowling if Harry dies... OK, I'll forgive her, but she'll have to do better than having Harry die to save the world from Voldemort. Too much like so many other hero stories, religious and otherwise. Alla: 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. 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. Kim: > Why would killing Harry be wrong and in my opinion a negative lesson for children? Because Harry is the hero, he's a kid, he's suffered enough, he deserves to live, for crying out loud. And it's fiction after all. The young have been giving up their lives for worthy and not so worthy causes too often for too many years in the real world. High time for older folks to put their lives on the line for the young (and this is me speaking as a semi-older folk). Alla: Agreed with this paragraph. I want to repeat my some kind of semiprognosis of what will happen at the end. Harry will be completely ready to sacrifice his life to destroy Voldie (how - of course I don't know) and as a result of such sacrifice he will experience "temporary" death and then will be resurrected so to speak. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 23:18:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:18:20 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114307 I (Carol) wrote: > > Anyway, my point is that Harry's experience (and Dumbledore's and> even Snape's training) is helping to make him ready to face Voldemort. Even Crouch!Moody, who meant to deliver him up to his "master," helped to prepare him. and we haven't yet seen all the powers that were given to him when the Avada Kedavra backfired and somehow, Protegolike, spilled those powers into Harry. > > > > So, if Dumbledore is right, Harry wasn't born with the power to defeat Voldemort. Voldemort, ironically, gave him that power himself. > > > SSSusan responded: > Yes, DD & Snape & Lupin, et al., are training Harry up, but why does > that have to mean that he doesn't have special power? HAVING the > power doesn't mean an automatic understanding of how to use it. Carol again: Exactly. That's the point I was making. I never said that Harry wasn't "special," only that I don't think he was *born* special and that he has to *learn* to use those special powers, whatever they are and however he acquired them. Harry needs his Hogwarts education (especially Charms, Transfiguration, Potions, and DADA)--and all that extra practice he's acquired through everything from the confrontation with Quirrelmort to the Tri-Wizard Tournament, to enable him to fight Voldemort on anything like equal terms in Book 7. Note that he's always had help of some sort, whether it's the Sword of Gryffindor in SS/PS or the Phoenix song created when the brother wands tried to fight each other in GoF. And he had extra help learning how to cast a Patronus--along with the extra advantage of having a Dementor boggart. Yes, it's a great feat to be able to cast a corporeal Patronus in the face of a real Dementor at age fifteen, but he was no more able than Hermione to save himself and Sirius from the Dementors in PoA. It was only when he was a safe distance away, at Hagrid's hut, having already seen his future self cast the Patronus, that he knew he could do it. As for casting a Patronus when there's no real danger, anyone in the DA could do it. Harry has had help that no one else has, and not just in casting a Patronus. The Tri-Wizard Tournament, thanks to loyal DE Barty Jr., was an excellent training ground. (More irony to match the irony of Voldemort's creating his own nemesis.) That's not to say that Harry doesn't need or deserve the help he receives (even help that's given with sinister intentions). I have no doubt that Harry and not Neville is "the One" destined to fight Voldemort. I'm only saying that no matter how special Harry is, he wasn't born with the power to fight Voldemort--only the potential, and maybe not that, since it's quite probable that Voldemort's failed AK, rather than Harry's genetic inheritance, made Harry "special." Either way, the potential has to be *developed*--nature (what Harry *is*, whether or not he was born that way) combined with nurture (what Harry *learns* through education and experience, trial and error). 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. I also like the fact that others help or hinder him along the way--it isn't all Harry doing what he has to do and knowing how to do it from the first. Luck and friends and enemies and choices and errors all play a part. The Prophecy, ambiguous like all prophecies, will be fulfilled *somehow*, but how and when will be determined by the past and the present working together to shape the future, not by predetermined events and actions and circumstances. Or so I hope. If Harry is *predestined* to defeat Voldemort because he was *born* to do it and that victory will happen whether he studies or not, practices or not, chooses to confront Voldemort or not, why should we read the books? And why should Harry do anything at all (other than eat and sleep and remain alive) if his role and his fate are predetermined because he was born "special"? (That, as I see it, is exactly the view of himself and his future that Snape is trying to prevent. He doesn't want Harry to complacently view himself as "special"--destined to defeat Voldemort simply because he's The Boy Who Lived. If he does see himself that way, both he and the WW are headed for destruction.) I don't deny that Harry is "exceptional." I certainly don't think that some other wizard child could take his place as Voldemort's (future) nemesis. I'm just saying that fate is complex and involves a lot more than Harry being born--or being (ironically) designated by Voldemort-- "the one with the power." And part of Harry's *unpredetermined* fate is *learning* to *become* "the one," willingly or unwillingly preparing for his role, whether it's facing a dragon or choosing not to kill Wormtail or casting a failed Crucio and understanding why it failed. He has to use what he's learned and use it wisely or the WW is doomed. I don't for a moment think that Harry will fail to destroy Voldemort but I'm certain that it will be through some means that he has not yet learned--not an Unforgiveable Curse but something that is, indeed, "special" to Harry. Sacrificial Love, if you like. I care not. Carol, deliberately echoing Boromir, whose words just popped into her mind From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 23:38:05 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:38:05 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114310 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? -cunning spirit - who apologizes for the ugly line breaks Yahoo seems to inflict on her posts no matter what she does. I'm posting from a MAC using Safari. I'm assuming that's my problem.....