Have I just transfigured out the Horcrux!Locket?

[jjjjjuliep]

No: HPFGUIDX 137985


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale"
<saraquel_omphale at y...> wrote:
> Saraquel in response to Jujube:

> However, I would like to say, in a simple and non-critical tone,
> that for me, your written tone sometimes comes over as quite abrupt
> and confrontational.  I am *not* making a personal criticism here,
> please do not take it that way, as I have already said, I appreciate
> your input.  I'm just commenting on how your posts appear to me and
> possibly others  hence, I speculate, (as I can in no way speak for
> Jen, SSSusan and others) the spirited replies that you receive to
> them. I look forward to reading more of your posts, and trust in you
> to continue to keep us all tied down to canon. :-) (Intended as a
> friendly smile not a joke.)

While I thank you for the caveat, I must admit that I do see this as a
personal criticism in that you have read a series of negative 
meanings into my posts which are simply not present.  As I understand 
it, this is a discussion list and all ideas presented on this list 
are open for discussion (provided they stay within the list 
guidelines, of course).  Indeed, there has been, as you term it, 
spirited responses to the ideas I put forth myself, and I have not 
read anything into those responses other than the authors' own 
enthusiasm for the subject and love of good conversation. I may not 
have peppered my messages here with emoticons, but nor have 
I "SHOUTED", or indicated extreme emotion by the excessive use of 
exclamation points in my responses.  I have taken great pains to make 
sure that my comments relate only to the plot points or details under 
discussion.  What I have done is ask questions in a neutral, matter-
of-fact, manner.   As I understand it, asking questions is allowed on 
this list. 

On a personal note, I do, of course, regret that you felt any sort of 
personal (of you) v. impersonal (of ideas) criticism in any of my 
posts; none was of course intended and I apologize for any discomfort 
you felt. At the same time, I must also add that I feel you perhaps 
have done me a disservice by coloring my comments with that lens.

<much snippage>

> Here, I was referring (not clearly, I concede) to the real problem
> that RAB faced in finding out about the cave. (See also Jen's input
> here) I think this is the major obstacle to the Regulus Black
> theory.  Nowhere in canon, as far as I can see, is there any
> indication as to how Regulus (or any of the other characters, bar
> DD) could have found out about the cave. My not being able to see a
> plausible canon explanation, was the main impetus for me to search
> for an alternative.

I haven't really thought about it (being only a month since the book 
came out and being engaged, here and there, in trying to reread the 
other books for clues, since we have 2 years to fill before we get 
our answers ;-) ), but I did give it some thought this morning, and 
here's a thought off the top of my head:

> Saraquel:
> Interestingly enough, that was pretty much my initial response to
> the RAB note, when I first read HBP. To me, explaining how Regulus
> Black (if that is who we are thinking RAB is, and from your post
> Jujube, It looks like you think it is)

I do.  In addition to the information I posted yesterday, I think 
it's important to look at this:  Regulus' uncle Alphard is named 
after a star in the water snake constellation.  We know that the 
Blacks are very closely tied to Dark magic.  But Regulus is named 
after a star in the lion constellation.  From the setup of the books, 
we know that the Slytherins and the Gryffindors are, if not enemies, 
engaged in very opposite behaviors.  I can't help but think that 
Regulus' name is a clue to what he did.

> Regulus was young and therefore in all probablility inexperienced,
> plus the fact that his only mention by anyone except Sirius, is by
> Slughorn  I would have liked the pair. No indication is given that
> he was a talented wizard in any way, there are no details or
> descriptions in canon that have gone before, to indicate he was
> special.  And we have had indications for others spelt out to us
> e.g. Lily.
>
> In fact, I would say that canon has done absolutely nothing to
> prepare us to expect Regulus to be capable of this feat, rather to
> the contrary.  Sirius' description of him is not particularly
> flattering.
>
> "No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more
> likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by
> voldemort in person.  From what I found out after he died, he got in
> so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried
> to back out."
>
> The only bit of canon that I see as relevant is that Regulus was a
> DE who wanted to escape and that Sirius thought he wasn't important
> enough to be killed by Voldemort personally.  So Sirius would have
> to be very wrong  which I admit is possible.

Good.  :-)  Because, as much affection many of us have for him, 
Sirius is not a particularly reliable narrator (I know he's not 
literally the narrator; I'm using the term more broadly here).  He's 
bitter and resentful and possibly the least objective character in 
OOtP.  He hates the house, he hates being cooped up, and he hates 
that his family is tied to so many Dark wizards.

> Regulus, rather than
> being a foot soldier on the extremes of what we have canon evidence
> of being quite a sizeable army (outnumbered 20  1), would
> presumably have had to be in Voldemort's inner core, because I doubt
> Voldemort told every DE that he had horcruxes. What qualifications
> would Regulus have had to promote him to the inner core?

Ah.  But that's not the only scenario.  Regulus didn't need to be 
promoted to the inner core to accomplish this task.  He only needed 
to have access to the knowledge of the inner core.

> Along with the question about how he found the cave, what do we make
> of the enchantments in place when Harry and DD arrive  whose are
> they? DD's assertions that
> 1)HBP p540 "One alone could not have done it", who is Regulus
> Black's accomplice (a reasonable case has been  made for Kreacher
> but with regard to point 2, is he a very great wizard?)

No, but he could have had the prior training and education; in effect,
assistance of a great wizard--just as Harry does with Dumbledore. 
Remember we don't know for sure that Regulus is really a poor wizard; 
we just have his brother's comments, and his brother detested all of 
the Dark magic his family did and also detested Voldemort.    Also, 
Sirius never knew what his brother might have done, in secret, to try 
to bring Voldemort down.

In addition to Voldemort and Dumbledore, there is a third great 
wizard we know in the series:  Snape.  We know he is an absolute 
genius at Potions.  We also know that as a teenager he was already 
inventing spells.  Furthermore, we know from the spells he invented 
and from his comments when he starts teaching his DADA classes in HBP 
that he does not exactly have an aversion to Dark magic.   We know 
that he has the confidence (in both senses of the word) of Voldemort 
and Dumbledore--to what extent we do not know, but we know he's 
privvy to info that the rest of the DEs and the teachers at Hogwarts 
are not.

Plus, JKR has so deftly balanced his character by the end of HBP, 
that we have no idea where he is good, evil, or simply out for 
himself. 

It's not a stretch to imagine that Good Snape might have worked with 
a DE, Regulus (here using the DE as a means to bring down Voldemort), 
from info he had from Voldemort, to undermine this Horcrux, because, 
IMO, it's not a stretch to imagine he might have had a hand in the 
potion in the basin. 

It's not a stretch to imagine that a Snape interested in what he 
could gain for himself would work with a DE (here using the DE to his 
own aims), to do the same thing.

I'm not sure how it would play out for Evil Snape--but I've also not 
taken that view of him so I haven't really put much effort into 
reading the books that way.

> 2)"None but a very great wizard would have found the boat." HBP p527
> 3)DD believes that the protections in the cave are Voldemort's, HBP
> p 527 "Magic always leaves traces,' said Dumbledore
> <snip> "sometimes very distinctive traces. I taught Tom Riddle. I
> know his style."  DD did not look at the potion and say, hmmm not
> Voldemort's style.  So is it a refilling potion or what?
>
> I think it is possible that all these could be construed as anvil
> sized hints that there is something very fishy in the cave, and that
> we should *not* take the locket at face value.

But not every detail, or perceived omission of detail, in the book is 
significant.  The trick to figuring out what will happen in book  7 
is to figure out just which details are significant. To seize on the 
ones which are not, on the pretext that every thing must mean 
something, is, IMO, as detrimental as deciding that everything in the 
book is literally as it seems and there is no puzzle to be put 
together.  The trick to figuring out what will happen, IMO, calls for 
the ability to discern the good clues from the red herrings from the 
details which are simply meant to be straightforward details and 
which have no hidden meaning.  I don't think it is an accident that 
JKR has Dumbledore tell Harry "Sometimes a mouth organ is just a 
mouth organ."

IMO one of the great, and detrimental, myths about JKR is that she's 
always dissembling.  She's very clever and she's knows how to 
misdirect; to do a writer's sleight of hand. But she's not sneaky. 
She always plays fair. And that's IMO, a crucial distinction to draw, 
especially when you are engaged in the process of trying to figure 
out--or, indeed, correctly pose--the various questions.

> I now invite you, Jujube to post an explanation of how Regulus Black
> found the cave, that is non-speculative and "firmly grounded in
> patterns, details, descriptions, and events of what has gone
> before." Because, without it, IMO, insisting that Regulus Black
> found the real horcrux is mere speculation :-) And I am not lying
> when I say, I would be genuinely glad to have this gigantic obstacle
> removed from the path.

I am not aware of the requirement that states that in order to engage 
in conversation about a theory offered to the list, one must have a 
fully-fledged theory in the wings waiting to replace it.  Indeed, 
although my theories about the last unidentified Horcrux and the 
person who does magic late in life were questioned, I never required 
that the person questioning me be able to float a full-fledged theory 
as an entrance fee.  I'm happy to have my theories questioned--it's 
the only way for me to think about what could be wrong and therefore 
allows me the opportunity to revise them accordingly.

jujube